Ought It Audit? Information, Values, and Public Support for the Internal Revenue Service

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2022-11-14 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2022.26

Ian G. Anson, John V. Kane

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In democracies, policy ambitions hinge upon governments’ ability to collect tax revenue from their citizens. Ongoing funding cuts at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) undermine the US government’s ability to fulfill this function. Yet, despite its central importance, funding for IRS enforcement activities has received scant scholarly attention, limiting our understanding of the factors that underlie public attitudes on this issue. In this article, we report the results of preregistered experiments that test whether citizens’ attitudes regarding the IRS can be shaped by framing efforts. Specifically, we test both information-based and value-consistent frames that invoke partisans’ core ideological concerns. Results show that these frames significantly increase public support for the IRS, as well as citizens’ willingness to learn more and become politically active. Thus, to ensure state capacity, information about the consequences of IRS underfunding and appeals to partisans’ ideological concerns can be implemented to increase support for tax collection.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

它应该审计吗？美国国税局的信息、价值观和公众支持

在民主国家，政策野心取决于政府向公民征收税收的能力。美国国税局(IRS)持续的资金削减削弱了美国政府履行这一职能的能力。然而，尽管它具有核心重要性，但为国税局执法活动提供资金却很少受到学术关注，这限制了我们对公众对这一问题态度的潜在因素的理解。在本文中，我们报告了预注册实验的结果，这些实验测试了公民对国税局的态度是否可以通过框架努力来塑造。具体来说，我们测试了基于信息和价值一致的框架，这些框架唤起了党派的核心意识形态关注。结果表明，这些框架显著增加了公众对国税局的支持，以及公民学习更多知识和积极参与政治的意愿。因此，为了确保国家能力，可以实施有关国税局资金不足后果的信息，并呼吁党派意识形态关注，以增加对税收的支持。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.