The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Revenue Authorities: Issues and Problems in Evaluating their Success
Open accessAbstract
Revenue authorities (RAs) have been adopted by some countries as an alternative delivery model for improved revenue administration. They are sometimes seen as a possible solution to problems such as low rates of tax compliance, ineffective tax administration staff, and corruption. The paper discusses RAs as a governance model, from the perspective of revenue administration and the almost universal desire to improve performance and compliance with the law. It compiles and analyses features of the model, examines reasons why revenue authorities were established, and explores the extent to which countries have evaluated the success of the model. It also assesses countries' own perceptions about how this model may have contributed to tax administration reform. Further, the paper discusses data collection difficulties in carrying out an assessment using econometric analysis, and the problem of attributing changes in performance to a particular governance model. The paper concludes that while there are subjective perceptions among countries with revenue authorities that their model has led to improved revenue administration and has spurred modernization, there is no objective analysis that countries with RAs have performed better in this regard than countries without RAs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Although no formal evaluations exist, there seems to be consensus that the experiences with ARAs have been mixed (Kidd and Crandall 2006; Keen 2012: 12; Devas et al. 2001).”
From Tax And Development: Donor Support To Strengthen Tax Systems In Developing Countries (2014) · cites this paper as Kidd and Crandall 2006
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tax And Development: Donor Support To Strengthen Tax Systems In Developing Countries
Fjeldstad, O. (2014) · Public Administration and Development · doi:10.1002/pad.1676 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Kidd, M., & Crandall, W. J.
- Venue
- IMF Working Papers
- Publisher
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 2006
- Issue
- 240
- Pages
- 1
- ISSN
- 1018-5941 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3121885123
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- IMF Working Paper (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Taxation and Compliance Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Fiscal Studies
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- tax authorities, tax administration reform, tax compliance, governance models, tax administration performance, tax administration modernization, performance evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review