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}
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.
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.