Call for papers for a Research Workshop
City University, London, 25th / 26th June 2015
The 2015 research workshop co-organised by the Association for Accountancy & Business Affairs, City University, and the Tax Justice Network, will explore the notion of national ‘competitiveness’. This opens up possibilities for papers on a wide variety of themes, including tax wars (tax ‘competition’), the dynamics of ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ politics, regulatory degradation, regulatory arbitrage, policy responses to ‘competitiveness’ pressures, and the impact of ‘competitiveness’ policies on home countries and third party countries.
Other related themes are likely to emerge as the workshop programme develops.
Offers of papers are especially welcome and early submission of an abstract of no longer than 300 words is encouraged. All submissions will be considered by the organising committee.
This workshop will bring together researchers, academics, journalists, policy staff of civil society organisations, consultants and professionals, elected politicians and/or their researchers, and government or international organisation officials.
The purpose of the workshop is to facilitate research through open-minded debate and discussion, and to generate ideas and proposals to inform and shape the political initiatives and campaigns already under way.
There will be a small charge for attendance at the Workshop. Participants are usually expected to finance their own travel although applications from students and others with limited means for bursary support will be considered.
More information about this workshop is available from: John Christensen, Tax Justice Network, [email protected]
competitiveness, race-to-the-bottom, regulatory arbitrage, Research Workshop, tax wars
My paper would, of course, state that tax competition is a wonderful thing. For it a) lowers the tax burden and b) moves us away from the harmful taxation of capital and corporations, to a lesser extent labour, and toward the taxation of the least mobile factors of production, land and resource rents.
Slightly concerned about the idea that I’d have to pay to present it: but it would perhaps be worth it for the joy of annoying them all so.
Thing is, I cannot see their definition of open minded debate and discussion including someone who so obviously has an, err, different answer to their main question. After all, I’ve already been disinvited to one such conference because some of the delegates, those looking for open discussion, objected too vehemently to what they thought I might say.