A new perspective on entrepreneurial regions: linking cultural identity with latent and manifest entrepreneurship

What are the entrepreneurial places in the USA? Although seminal theorizing on the determinants of entrepreneurship gives culture a unique and important role, systematic empirical evidence linking the distinct cultural identity of regions to their local entrepreneurial spirit and vitality is still scarce. This study offers a first, systematic overview on the nexus between regional cultural identity and latent and manifest entrepreneurship across the USA. To directly assess regional cultural identity, we apply the American Nations and Patchwork Community Types approaches and explore in which way these distinct spatially based cultural regions are reflected by significant differences in entrepreneurial activity and underlying biologically based propensities. We combine annual entrepreneurship rates at the county level with personality data collected in a large-scale, Internet-based study of 3,457,270 US residents. The findings suggest that entrepreneurship culture reflects the dynamic interplay between the region’s cultural identity and its latent and manifest entrepreneurship.     

Accounting Quality,Liquidity Risk,and Post‐Earnings‐Announcement Drift

Recent microstructure research finds that liquidity risk, in particular its information component, plays an important role in explaining the post‐earnings‐announcement drift (PEAD). We decompose liquidity risk into an accounting‐associated component and a nonaccounting‐associated component and examine their relative importance in explaining PEAD. Our research is motivated by recent findings that liquidity risk is a systematic risk and earnings quality is negatively associated with liquidity risk. We find that the accounting‐associated component is more strongly related to PEAD returns than is its nonaccounting‐associated counterpart. Further analyses reveal that the relation between accounting‐associated liquidity risk and PEAD returns is weaker for firms with greater analyst following. We also find that in a significant market downturn, the relation between accounting‐associated liquidity risk and PEAD returns becomes more pronounced. Our study is the first to document a liquidity risk‐based role of accounting quality in explaining the PEAD phenomenon. It parses out the PEAD risk premia associated with accounting versus nonaccounting sources and, by so doing, sheds light on the role of accounting quality in shaping the liquidity risk‐PEAD returns relation.     

JobKeeper: An Initial Assessment

We present details of the design and implementation of the 2020–2021 JobKeeper program and review the literature on its impacts. JobKeeper stimulated the macroeconomy and restrained job loss in the downturn. But because the program was not narrowly targeted, the cost per job saved was high and the impact most likely regressive. However, it would not have been possible to devise and implement a more targeted program in the available time, and as it was, JobKeeper was arguably implemented later than needed for maximum effectiveness. We therefore recommend that Australia consider establishing a short-time work program for use in future recessions.     

Introduction

This article introduces the Policy Forum. It contains: (i) a brief overview of the fiscal policies introduced to deal with COVID-19 and their impact on Australia's economic performance; (ii) summaries of the articles in the Forum; and (iii) suggested learnings for policymaking in future crises.     

Can rewards induce corresponding forms of theft? Introducing the reward-theft parity effect

Rewards are reinforcement mechanisms that organizations use to shape desirable employee behaviors. However, rewards may also have unintended consequences, such as building expectations for receiving extra benefits and weakening employee barriers to unethical acts. This article investigates the dark side of the reward–behavior association, and exploring what is referred to as the reward–theft parity effect (RTPE). The authors hypothesize that receiving rewards induces a corresponding type of theft. In Study 1, survey results (n = 634) show initial support for the RTPE between rewards and same-category theft, and that perceptions of procedural justice attenuate this association. Study 2 involved a 2 (reward) × 2 (theft opportunity) between-subjects experimental design (n = 300) and provides further support for the RTPE by revealing greater theft under a reward–theft parity condition than under a reward–theft disparity condition. Study 3 replicates these findings in a field experiment (n = 285) and finds that the RTPE is exacerbated when the reward–behavior task is perceived as unjust. Collectively, these findings provide new theoretical insights while also giving managers a more complete understanding of the dark side of behavioral reinforcement mechanisms.     

The Matthew effect,research productivity,and the dynamic allocation of NIH grants

Funding is important for research. However, research funding may suffer from the Matthew effect: the more researchers already have, the more they will be given. I develop an empirical framework to study how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could allocate funding in a dynamically optimal manner by balancing funds between young and veteran principal investigators (PIs). I find that the discount factor that rationalizes NIH's funding behavior is about 0.75, implying it may underfund young PIs. Moreover, a temporary funding cut would have long-lasting effects on overall research output through its adverse impact on investment in young PIs.     

Rethinking Accounting,Accountability, and Accounting Regulation: Concerns about the Proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board*

This paper expands on a letter recently submitted by a group of Canadian business academics to the Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada (IRCSSC) in response to the committee's proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board. We highlight sections of the IRCSSC's Consultation Paper that we find problematic and draw on accounting and other research to explain why it fails to live up to its potential. Chief among the problems we identify is that the IRCSSC appears to be wedded to the same narrow, investor-based focus promoted by the International Sustainability Standard Board. We also draw attention to the rushed nature of the process, its exclusion of lay experts, the IRCSSC's ambiguous use of the term public interest, and its inattention to alternative understandings of value and the environment (including the people within it). Finally, we problematize the IRCSSC's sidestepping of the issues of power, culture, and conflict; its neglect of monitoring and enforcement; and its surprising disregard of the Global Reporting Initiative. Along with a number of suggestions for improving the process and its outcome, this paper also contributes to ongoing debates on standard setting and the question of whether accounting is currently equipped to provide the necessary tools for sustainability reporting.