MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962793291 · doi:10.1111/jcms.12928

Consumption Taxation in the European Economic Community: Fostering the Common Market or Financing the Welfare State?

2019· article· en· W2962793291 on OpenAlex
Lukas Haffert, Daniel F. Schulz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Shadow (psychology)WelfareEconomicsPoliticsWelfare stateConsumption taxState (computer science)Indirect taxTax reformEconomic policyPublic economicsMarket economyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The literature on the comparative political economy of taxation often links consumption taxation to the welfare state. It argues that the expansion of consumption taxation paid for the expansion of welfare states and that bigger welfare states therefore tax consumption more heavily. We challenge this perspective by looking at the introduction of the Value Added Tax (VAT) in the European Economic Community in 1967, the breakthrough of this form of consumption taxation. Studying the crucial case of Germany, and complementing it with the shadow case of the Netherlands, we demonstrate that political struggles about this reform did not center on a conflict between supporters and opponents of welfare state expansion. Instead, the VAT was primarily a tool to foster market integration in Europe by reducing barriers to trade. As we show, the coalition in support of the VAT only succeeded after it won the backing of important export interests.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it