Skip to main content
Log in

Self-perceptions, government policies and tax compliance in Germany

  • Published:
International Tax and Public Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The policy of choice to fight tax non-compliance is an increase in deterrence, i.e. fines and audits, which seems to be well-grounded theoretically as the economics of crime justifies such an increase of the expected costs of illegal activities. In this paper, the impact of subjectively perceived deterrence on undeclared work is analyzed for the German case. Germany is particularly interesting because it considerably increased deterrence to fight tax non-compliance recently. The data set used for this analysis contains several waves of survey data conducted between 2004 and 2008. According to our evidence, (subjectively perceived) deterrence has an impact on undeclared work, but the influence of social norms is similarly important.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alm, J., Jackson, B. R., & McKee, M. (1993). Fiscal exchange, collective decision institutions and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 22, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alm, J., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). Why do people pay taxes? Journal of Public Economics, 48, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., Erard, B., & Feinstein, J. (1998). Tax compliance. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 818–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1976). Taxation in fiscal exchange. Journal of Public Economics, 6, 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erard, B., & Feinstein, J. (2010). Econometric models for multi-stage audit process: an application to the IRS national research program. In J. Alm, J. Martinez-Vazquez, & B. Torgler (Eds.), Tax compliance and tax evasion (pp. 113–137). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2002a). The tax authority and the taxpayer: an exploratory analysis. Unpublished Manuscript, University of St. Gallen.

  • Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2002b). Trust breeds trust: how taxpayers are treated. Economics of Governance, 3, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Tax compliance as the result of a psychological tax contract: the role of incentives and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29, 102–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, L. P., & Larsen, C. (2005). Black activities in Germany in 2001 and in 2004. A comparison based on survey data (Study No. 12). The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, Kopenhagen.

  • Feld, L. P., & Larsen, C. (2011, forthcoming), Undeclared work, deterrence and social norms: the case of Germany. Springer, Heidelberg.

  • Feld, L. P., & Schneider, F. (2010). Survey on the shadow economy and undeclared earnings in OECD countries. German Economic Review, 11, 109–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, L. P., & Tyran, J.-R. (2002). Tax evasion and voting: an experimental analysis. Kyklos, 55, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, L. P., Schmidt, A. J., & Schneider, F. (2011). Deterrence policy and the size of the shadow economy in Germany: an institutional and empirical analysis. In F. Schneider (Ed.), Handbook on the shadow economy (pp. 409–440). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Feld, L. P. (2002). Deterrence and morale in taxation: an empirical analysis (CESifo Working Paper No. 760), August 2002.

  • Frey, B. S., Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2004). Introducing procedural utility: not only what but also how matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 377–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graetz, M. J., & Wilde, L. L. (1985). The economics of tax compliance: facts and fantasy. National Tax Journal, 38, 355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchler, E. (2007). The economic psychology of tax behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pommerehne, W. W., & Frey, B. S. (1992), The effects of tax administration on tax morale. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Zurich.

  • Sandmo, A. (2006). The theory of tax evasion: a retrospective view. National Tax Journal, 58, 643–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slemrod, J. (2007). Cheating ourselves: the economics of tax evasion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgler, B. (2007). Tax compliance and tax morale: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viby Mogensen, G., Kvist, H. K., Körmendi, E., & Pedersen, S. (1995), The shadow economy in Denmark 1994: measurement and results (Study No. 3). The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, Copenhagen.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars P. Feld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feld, L.P., Larsen, C. Self-perceptions, government policies and tax compliance in Germany. Int Tax Public Finance 19, 78–103 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9196-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9196-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation