政府如何才能更公平地向跨国企业征税?语篇分析

IF 2.1 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Orlando Fernandes, Kevin Morrell, Loizos Heracleous
{"title":"政府如何才能更公平地向跨国企业征税?语篇分析","authors":"Orlando Fernandes, Kevin Morrell, Loizos Heracleous","doi":"10.1332/030557321x16292210017454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Extant research has identified numerous causes for multinational enterprises (MNE) tax avoidance and formulated a variety of remedial policy solutions. Yet despite being consistently decried as societally unfair, these contested practices persist. We reveal the conflicting and complementary ideologies and worldviews that reside in the background of MNE tax avoidance policy deliberations. Analysis of primary interviews with accounting and tax regulatory agencies, Members of the UK Parliament, and public hearings with MNE representatives, shows these different groups draw on four different discourses: globalism, idealism, pragmatism and shareholder interest. These exist in what we show to be a kind of precarious truce that allows these contested practices to continue in the face of robust critique. Prospects for taxing MNEs are enhanced if legislators, civil servants and regulators can draw more coherently on the discourse of idealism because this is most resistant to the logic of the market.\n","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How can governments tax multinational enterprises more fairly? A discourse analysis\",\"authors\":\"Orlando Fernandes, Kevin Morrell, Loizos Heracleous\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557321x16292210017454\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Extant research has identified numerous causes for multinational enterprises (MNE) tax avoidance and formulated a variety of remedial policy solutions. Yet despite being consistently decried as societally unfair, these contested practices persist. We reveal the conflicting and complementary ideologies and worldviews that reside in the background of MNE tax avoidance policy deliberations. Analysis of primary interviews with accounting and tax regulatory agencies, Members of the UK Parliament, and public hearings with MNE representatives, shows these different groups draw on four different discourses: globalism, idealism, pragmatism and shareholder interest. These exist in what we show to be a kind of precarious truce that allows these contested practices to continue in the face of robust critique. Prospects for taxing MNEs are enhanced if legislators, civil servants and regulators can draw more coherently on the discourse of idealism because this is most resistant to the logic of the market.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":53177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16292210017454\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16292210017454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有的研究已经确定了跨国企业避税的众多原因,并制定了各种补救政策解决方案。然而,尽管一直被谴责为社会不公平,这些有争议的做法仍然存在。我们揭示了存在于跨国公司避税政策审议背景下的相互冲突和互补的意识形态和世界观。对会计和税务监管机构、英国议会议员的初步访谈以及跨国公司代表的公开听证会的分析表明,这些不同的群体利用了四种不同的话语:全球主义、理想主义、实用主义和股东利益。这些存在于我们所展示的一种不稳定的休战中,这种休战允许这些有争议的做法在面对强有力的批评时继续下去。如果立法者、公务员和监管者能够更连贯地利用理想主义的话语,对跨国公司征税的前景就会增强,因为理想主义是最不符合市场逻辑的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How can governments tax multinational enterprises more fairly? A discourse analysis
Extant research has identified numerous causes for multinational enterprises (MNE) tax avoidance and formulated a variety of remedial policy solutions. Yet despite being consistently decried as societally unfair, these contested practices persist. We reveal the conflicting and complementary ideologies and worldviews that reside in the background of MNE tax avoidance policy deliberations. Analysis of primary interviews with accounting and tax regulatory agencies, Members of the UK Parliament, and public hearings with MNE representatives, shows these different groups draw on four different discourses: globalism, idealism, pragmatism and shareholder interest. These exist in what we show to be a kind of precarious truce that allows these contested practices to continue in the face of robust critique. Prospects for taxing MNEs are enhanced if legislators, civil servants and regulators can draw more coherently on the discourse of idealism because this is most resistant to the logic of the market.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信