Tax Harmonization in the EU: Insights on Political and Legal Fusion under Neofunctional Rationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional narrative is that direct taxes in EU remain non-harmonized since decisions in this domain originate solely from intergovernmental bargains, often exemplified as failure of legal, political and economic integration. The article reviews this conventional notion that European tax harmonization process draws truly on national-choices of Member States. The contribution does not out rightly discard national role in pooling EU-level tax mandate but rather assigns it a temporal dimension under neofunctional integration model. Considering the intergovernmental politics and members decision-making in isolation, akin to that of traditional nation-state in global arena, may create a misleading conception in EU context. European Member States might seem to be the sole political actors of EU-level tax policymaking, yet there exist other players that shape or even push national decision-making processes. The study provides a bigger-picture perspective that seeks to capture key legal, political and economic developments instrumental to the European integration project. It concludes that (direct) tax policy domain – a symbol of fiscal sovereignty of Member States and unspoken regime in EU law – is also not impervious to neofunctional political rationale and consequential processes of law-creation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".