Why Do Underground Reducing Policies Often Fail Their Scope? Some Answers From The Italian Experience
Several European countries, facing a sizeable underground economy, often adopt underground reducing policies mainly based on incentives in the tax-benefit system. Since empirical evidence manifests a substantial failure of such policies, we construct a simple model to indicate the crucial aspects of this failure. To this end we consider a tax-evading firm, allocating work in the official and underground sector, where it is not taxed. With a view to reducing underground employment, the government may decide to launch an amnesty for past social security non-compliance, while providing fiscal incentives for new hiring in order to encourage a process of worker regularization. Allowing for endogenous enforcement, we find that the reputation of policy-makers in combating tax evasion proves crucial in determining the success of such a policy. Copyright 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 21 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (07)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0954-1985|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0954-1985|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Franzoni, Luigi Alberto, 2000. "Amnesties, Settlements and Optimal Tax Enforcement," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(266), pages 153-176, May.
- Herman B. Leonard & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 1987.
"Amnesty, Enforcement, and Tax Policy,"
NBER Chapters,in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 55-86
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Herman B. Leonard & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 1986. "Amnesty, Enforcement and Tax Policy," NBER Working Papers 2096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dominik H. Enste & Friedrich Schneider, 2000. "Shadow Economies: Size, Causes, and Consequences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 77-114, March.
- Eduardo Engel & James R. Hines Jr., 1998. "Understanding Tax Evasion Dynamics," Documentos de Trabajo 47, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
- Eduardo Engel & James Hines, 2000. "Understanding Tax Evasion Dynamics," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1117, Econometric Society.
- Eduardo M.R.A. Engel & James R. Hines, Jr., 1999. "Understanding Tax Evasion Dynamics," NBER Working Papers 6903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Allingham, Michael G. & Sandmo, Agnar, 1972. "Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 323-338, November.
- Francesco Busato & Bruno Chiarini, 2004. "Market and underground activities in a two-sector dynamic equilibrium model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(4), pages 831-861, May.
- Franzoni, Luigi Alberto, 1996. "Punishment and Grace: On the Economics of Tax Amnesties," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 51(3), pages 353-368.
- Snow, Arthur & Warren, Ronald Jr., 2005. "Tax evasion under random audits with uncertain detection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 97-100, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)