Advertisement

Stimulating Collaboration and Cooperation in Tax Inspection

  • Karen Boll
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter discusses a case of collaborative tax inspection where large construction companies work with tax inspectors to check for compliance with tax rules and laws. What makes the case stand out is that the tax inspectors must engage and enroll reluctant construction companies to do new inspection tasks on a voluntary basis. The chapter reports the results of intensive ethnographic fieldwork conducted during the spring of 2015 among tax inspectors in Sweden. Their aim was to motivate construction companies into assisting them in checking for tax compliance in an environment with famously high risks of financial crime. To analyse the material the chapter draws on Callon’s sociology of translation. His theoretical concepts of problematization, obligatory passages points, enrolment and trial of strengths are used to highlight the process whereby the tax inspectors enroll the companies to engage in the tax inspection. Callon’s concepts are thus used to bring forth how the interests of the concerned construction companies are being translated to align with the interests of the Swedish tax authority. All-in-all, the chapter shows the challenges in collaborating with reluctant actors when engaging in traditionally coercive regulation such as taxation. Yet, it also shows the potential deep transformation of the way tax inspection is practiced on the ground when antagonism between inspector and inspected is no longer the default relationship, but collaboration is what is being built up in new fragile alliances.

Keywords

Collaboration Coproduction Tax administration Ethnography Sociology of translation 

References

  1. Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Houndmills and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Houndmills and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2016). The ‘3Rs’ in rethinking governance. Ruling, rationalities and resistance. In R. A. W. Rhodes & M. Bevir (Eds.), Rethinking governance: Ruling, rationalities and resistance (pp. 1–22). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Boll, K. (2016). Collaborative tax regulation: Can consumers be engaged as partners in the regulatory craft? Journal of Tax Administration, 2(2), 4–23.Google Scholar
  5. Boll, K., & Tell, M. (2015). Proactive public disclosure: A new regulatory strategy for creating tax compliance? Nordic Tax Journal, 2, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braithwaite, V. (2007). Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M. (1990). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. The Sociological Review, 38, 132–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2013). Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flinders, M. (2004). Distributed public governance in Britain. Public Administration, 82(4), 883–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3).  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20.
  14. Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy and Society, 7(2), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OECD. (2013). Together for better outcomes: Engaging and involving sme taxpayers and stakeholder. Forum on Tax Administration Compliance Sub-Group: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Ryan, B. (2012). Co-production: Option or obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sørensen, E. V. A., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Srensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Eijk, C. J. A., & Steen, T. P. S. (2013). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrganizationCopenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations