NAVIGATING TECHNOLOGICAL DISRUPTION: ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND SOCIOECONOMIC DIMENSIONS IN CRAFTING A SUSTAINABLE AND JUST TAXATION SYSTEM
Keywords:
technological disruption, taxation, ethics, legal frameworks, socioeconomic impacts, behavioral aspects, sustainable policies, justice, digital era.Abstract
In navigating technological disruption within taxation systems, this research delved into the ethical, legal, and socioeconomic dimensions to craft a sustainable and just framework. Examining past trends and challenges, the study uncovered key findings reflecting stakeholders' heightened awareness, with 78% expressing concerns about the ethical use of taxpayer data. Though acknowledged by 65% of respondents, the legal landscape faces challenges in adapting to rapid technological advancements, necessitating agile regulatory frameworks. The study revealed nuanced socioeconomic impacts, with 58% perceiving positive effects on economic growth but 32% expressing concerns about potential disparities. Insights into behavioral aspects indicated a delicate balance, with 68% recognizing technology's positive influence on compliance behavior, while 45% voiced concerns about its potential misuse. The synthesis of these dimensions underscores the intricate interplay shaping tax technology policies. Acknowledging limitations, including regional variations, the research calls for ongoing exploration into emerging technologies and behavioral dynamics to inform the evolution of ethical and just taxation systems in the digital era.
References
Alm, J., Blaufus, K., Fochmann, M., Kirchler, E., Mohr, P., Olson, N. E., & Torgler, B. (2020). Tax policy measures to combat the sars-cov-2 pandemic and considerations to improve tax compliance: a behavioral perspective. U International Taxation Research Paper Series, (2020-10).
Andries, P., & Stephan, U. (2019). nvironmental innovation and firm performance: How firm size and motives matter. ustainability, 11(13), 3585.
Arewa, M., & Davenport, S. (2022). he Tax and Technology Challenge. nnovations in Tax Compliance: Building Trust, Navigating Politics, and Tailoring Reform.
Arseneault, L. (2018). Annual research review: The persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence: implications for policy and practice. ournal of child psychology and psychiatry, 59(4), 405-421.
Blondeel, M., Bradshaw, M. J., Bridge, G., & Kuzemko, C. (2021). The geopolitics of energy system transformation: A review. eography Compass, 15(7), e12580.
Campos, M. A. P. D. S. (2022). Digital economy and international taxation: The digital revolution and its impact on the discourse of international tax law.
Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2020). The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. ature Energy, 5(8), 569-577.
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. nternational journal of educational technology in higher education, 20(1), 38.
Christensen, R. C., & Hearson, M. (2019). he new politics of global tax governance: Taking stock a decade after the financial crisis. eview of International Political Economy, 26(5), 1068-1088.
Dowling, G. R. (2014). he curious case of corporate tax avoidance: Is it socially irresponsible? Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 173-184.
Doyle, L. (2015). ixed methods. n Routledge International Handbook of Advanced Quantitative Methods in Nursing Research (pp. 411-422). outledge.
Erdélyi, O. J., & Goldsmith, J. (2018, December). Regulating artificial intelligence: Proposal for a global solution. n Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 95-101).
Gangl, K., Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2019). The relationship between Austrian tax auditors and self-employed taxpayers: Evidence from a qualitative study. rontiers in Psychology, 10, 1034.
Geels, F. W. (2019). ocio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. urrent opinion in environmental sustainability, 39, 187-201.
Littlejohns, T. J., Holliday, J., Gibson, L. M., Garratt, S., Oesingmann, N., Alfaro-Almagro, F., ... & Allen, N. E. (2020). he UK Biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants: rationale, data collection, management, and future directions. ature communications, 11(1), 2624.
Owens, J., & Zhan, J. X. (2018). rade, investment and taxation: policy linkages. ransnational Corporations, 25(2), 1-8.
Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Robert, J., Arbino, N., Dickson-Deane, C., ... & Stine, J. (2022). 022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report Teaching and Learning Edition (pp. 1-58). DUC22.
Post, J. E., & Altman, B. W. (2017). Managing the Environmental Change Process: Barriers and Opportunities 1. n Managing green teams (pp. 84-101). outledge.
Rahman, M. S. (2020). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review.
Schlager, E. (2019). comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. n Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition (pp. 293-319). outledge.
Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M. M., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Critical analysis of Big Data challenges and analytical methods. ournal of Business Research, 70, 263-286.
Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2020). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. n The Routledge Companion to intelligent cities (pp. 283-300). outledge.
Thierer, A. (2016). ermissionless innovation: The continuing case for comprehensive technological freedom. ercatus Center at George Mason University.
Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017). esearch design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. rganizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243-267.
Vial, G. (2021). nderstanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. anaging Digital Transformation, 13-66.
Villani, C., Bonnet, Y., & Rondepierre, B. (2018). For a meaningful artificial intelligence: Towards a French and European strategy. Conseil national du numérique.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). eading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. arvard Business Press.
Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, J. P., Prescott, J. E., & Prencipe, A. (2021). anagement research that makes a difference: Broadening the meaning of impact. ournal of Management Studies, 58(2), 297-320.
Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. ong Range Planning, 49(5), 541-558.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE © 2023 by Adisam Publisher is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
