MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094527670 · doi:10.1177/0148558x20965698

An Investigation of Tax-Related Corporate Political Activity in China: Evidence From Consumption Bribery

2020· article· en· W3094527670 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Y. H. Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting Auditing & Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaLanguage changePoliticsBusinessConsumption (sociology)RevenueCorporate taxMonetary economicsTax revenueGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Investment (military)Market economyTax reformEconomicsPublic economicsTax avoidanceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the occurrence and outcomes of corporate tax-related political activity through bribery. Specifically, it examines the extent to which firms bribe government officials through gift-giving, banqueting, and entertaining activities and the extent of payoffs that firms gain from these bribery practices. Using a large hand-collected dataset of Chinese listed firms for the period from 2009 to 2014, I find that firms that spend more on consumption bribery exhibit a significantly lower tax burden. This negative association is mainly driven by small firms, non-state-owned firms, state-owned firms with weak political connections, and firms in competitive industries. Further evidence shows that the tax benefits from bribery are more apparent in more corrupt, less economically developed, and less liberalized regions. Furthermore, the payoffs of tax bribery are mitigated by 45.4% after the implementation of China’s anti-corruption campaign in 2012. These findings have policy implications for governments to optimize investment environments and increase tax revenue by curbing power-for-money deals.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Accounting Auditing & FinanceSame topicPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesFrench-language works237,207