Strategic Narratives in International Tax Policy Making: BEPS Action 1 and the Stability Argument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on narrative analysis developed by communications scholars, and applied by scholars of economics and international law and in policy analysis, this article studies action 1 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project as a policy narrative. The authors outline the role of narrative in international tax policy making and evaluate the probability and the argumentative and material coherence of the OECD's story about the need to ensure the stability of the international tax framework and system. Focusing on the narrative strategy adopted by the OECD to promote its pillar one proposal, the authors assess the likely persuasiveness of the OECD's stability argument—in particular, how it may have influenced the response to the proposal by the members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The authors conclude that the OECD's concern about potentially destabilizing effects of digital services taxes and similar taxes on the international income tax system propagates a global fiscal illusion, and may not sustain long-term support for pillar one by many members of the Inclusive Framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".