A pity the author doesn't elaborate. The basic idea behind this publication is quite clear. However, pushing for an idea does not make for accurate and insightful historical literature. As always, the risk then becomes that instead of a critical study, it reads like a pamphlet. Counterproductive therefore.
I can't decide whether this book is a history viewed through the (very narrow and distorted) lens of accountancy, or an argument in favour of accounting as a kind of vocation. And I don't think the author could either. The history is pretty dull, the argument weak (the existence of good accounting is a consequence of sound financial management, not a cause). The book is poorly written / edited in places (a reference to "financial logarithms"? Presumably algorithms was intended here) and some of the reasoning disappointingly superficial for a book written by an academic (e.g. raising the physical proximity of the accounting firms and Wall Street as a reason why Enron and similar scandals should have been uncovered sooner). I didn't feel I had learned anything by the end.
A broad sweep that stretches the concept of accounting almost to breaking point. Accountability might be a better term. And in the conclusion this is hinted at: no matter how well the accounting is done at the end of the day it is only a record of the transactions undertaken. The real question is about the morality of the transactions themselves and the responsibility that those who undertake them have to their stakeholders and to society at large. No amount of accounting is going to capture this.