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.