What do citizens in tax havens think? The EU blacklist and public opinion in Switzerland
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blacklisting is a widely used yet controversial instrument aimed at encouraging tax havens to alter their domestic policies, particularly in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. International organizations such as the OECD and the EU have published tax haven blacklists, but these have been criticized for their limited effectiveness as policy tools. This paper examines the political rationale behind the EU’s blacklist, by focusing on the potential role of public opinion as a driver of policy change. Specifically, we ask whether the threat of blacklisting – through naming-and-shaming or economic sanctions – can shape public attitudes toward tax reform in low-tax jurisdictions. To do this, we conduct an original survey experiment in Switzerland, and show that both a ‘naming-and-shaming’ and an ‘economic threat’ treatment significantly increase public support for tax reform, though estimated effect sizes are modest. These results provide insight into the potential of international instruments like blacklists to mobilize public opinion in support of policy change.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it