International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 505–521 | Cite as

Tax Evasion and Equity Theory: An Investigative Approach

  • Sharmila King
  • Steven M. Sheffrin
Article

Abstract

Traditional economic theory assumes rational individuals with stable preferences who, given an array of options and probabilities, maximize their expected utility. However, experimental research finds that individuals make systematic “mistakes” when attempting to maximize their expected utility. The economic psychology approach includes aspects of the traditional economic approach and the psychological approach that emphasizes values, attitudes, norms, conformity and morals.

This paper investigates equity theory and tax evasion using the framework of prospect theory pioneered by Tversky and Kahneman. We design an investigation to identify if individual behavior follows the usual results of prospect theory, given a scenario that frames a perception of inequity. The investigation frames a scenario to invoke a controlled tax regime. The frame varies according to which inequity is being measured, exchange or social. Once the scenario is established, a questionnaire is designed to determine how the individual responds when filing taxes. The responses to the control questions are consistent with prospect theory. However, in general the responses to the framed questions, depicting inequity, are more consistent with expected utility theory.

tax evasion equity theory prospect theory experimental economics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alm, J., B. R. Jackson and M. McKee. (1993). “Fiscal Exchange, Collective Decision Institutions, and Tax Compliance. ” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 22, 285–303.Google Scholar
  2. Alm, J., G. H. McClelland and W. Schulze. (1999). “Changing the Social Norm of Tax Compliance by Voting. ” Kyklos 52, 141–171.Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J., B. Erard and J. Feinstein. (1998). “Tax Compliance. ” Journal of Economic Literature 36(2), 818–860.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J. S. (1987). “Compliance with the Law: A Decision-Making Approach to Taxpaying. ” Law and Human Behavior 11(4), 319–335.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, O. H., D. R. Nichols and J. J. Schultz. (1987). “Taxpayer Attitudes Towards Tax Audit Risk. ” Journal of Economic Psychology 8, 299–309.Google Scholar
  7. Cowell, F. A. (1992). “Tax Evasion and Inequity. ” Journal of Economic Psychology 13, 521–543.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, D. and A. Plumbley. (1988). “Analyses of Voluntary Compliance Rates for Different Income Source Classes. ” Unpublished Report, IRS Research Division, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Elffers, H. and D. J. Hessing. (1997). “Influencing the Prospects of Tax Evasion. ” Journal of Economic Psychology 18, 289–304.Google Scholar
  10. Elster, J. (1998). “Emotions and Economic Theory. ” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (March), 47–74.Google Scholar
  11. Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within Reason. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1984). “Choices, Values and Frames. ” American Psychologist 39(4), 341–350.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. ” Econometrica 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  14. Kinsey, K. A., H. G. Grasmick and K.W. Smith. (1991). “Framing Justice: Taxpayer Evaluations of Personal Tax Burdens. ” Law and Society Review 25(4), 845–873.Google Scholar
  15. Markowitz, H. (1952). “The Utility of Wealth. ” The Journal of Political Economy 60(2), 151–158.Google Scholar
  16. Pommerehne, W. W. and H. Weck-Hannemann. (1996). “Tax Rates, Administration and Income Tax Evasion in Switzerland. ” Public Choice 88, 161–170.Google Scholar
  17. Rabin, M. (1998). “Psychology and Economics. ” Journal of Economic Literature 36, 11–46.Google Scholar
  18. Robben, H. S. J., P. Webley, H. Elffers and D. J. Hessing. (1989). “A Cross-National Comparison of Attitudes, Personality, Behaviour, and Social Comparison in Tax Evasion Experiments, ” In K. Grunert and F. Olander (eds.), Understanding Economic Behaviour. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Robben, H. S. J., P. Webley, R. H. Weigel, K.-E. Warneryd, K. A. Kinsey, D. J. Hessing, M. F. Alvira, H. Elffers, R. Wahlund, L. Van Langenhove, S. B. Long, J. T. Scholz. (1990). “Decision Frame and Opportunity as Determinants of Tax Cheating. ” Journal of Economic Psychology 11, 341–364.Google Scholar
  20. Schepanski, A. and T. Shearer. (1995). “A Prospect Theory Account of the Income TaxWithholding Phenomenon. ” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63(2), 174–186.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, K. W. and K. A. Kinsey. (1987). “Understanding Taxpaying Behavior: A Conceptual Framework with Implications for Research. ” Law and Society Review 21(4), 639–663.Google Scholar
  22. Spicer, M. W. (1975). “New Approaches to the Problem of Tax Evasion. ” British Tax Review 152–154.Google Scholar
  23. Spicer, A.W. and L. A. Becker. (1980). “Fiscal Inequality and Tax Evasion: An Experimental Approach. ” National Tax Journal 33(2), 171–175.Google Scholar
  24. Stanlans, L., K. A. Kinsey and K.W. Smith. (1991). “Listening to Different Voices: Formation of Sanction Beliefs and Taxpaying Norms. ” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21(2), 119–138.Google Scholar
  25. Tanzi, V. and P. Shome. (1993). “A Primer on Tax Evasion. ” IMF Staff Papers 40(4), 807–828.Google Scholar
  26. Thibalt, J., N. Fredland and L. Walker. (1974). “Compliance with Rules: Some Social Determinants. ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, 792–801.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1981). “Framing Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. ” Science 211, 453–458.Google Scholar
  28. Wallschutzky, I. G. (1984). “Possible Causes of Tax Evasion. ” Journal of Economic Psychology 5, 371–384.Google Scholar
  29. Webley, P., H. Robben, H. Elffers and K. Hessing (eds). (1991). Tax Evasion: An Experimental Approach. NewYork and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharmila King
    • 1
  • Steven M. Sheffrin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of the PacificStocktonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Social Sciences, College of Letters and ScienceUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations