The determinants of tax evasion: a literature review

Hichem Khlif* and Imen Achek

Forthcoming: International Journal of Law and Management

‫إﻟﻰ اﻟﯿﺴﺎر‬:‫ﻣﻨﺴّﻖ‬

Abstract:

Article type: literature review

Purpose: Tax evasion empirical research has been the subject of numerous studies during the
last decade in developed and emerging economies. The purpose of this article is to: (i) make a
clear cut-distinction between tax evasion and neighboring notions, (ii) present the theoretical
justifications for the determinants of tax evasion, (iii) discuss some methodological issues
related to the measurement of tax evasion and (iv) finally review the main results related to
this topic and provide suggestions for future research.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This review focuses specifically on cross-country empirical

studies.

Findings: This review shows that evidence is still limited, several approaches to measure tax
evasion remain unexplored, results are mixed and four categories of variables have been
identified in tax evasion literature including (i) demographic, (ii) cultural and behavioural,
(iii) legal and institutional and (iv) economic variables.

Originality: This literature review represents a historical record and an introduction for
researchers who aim to examine this topic in the future.

Key words: Tax evasion, micro direct approach, macro indirect approach, tax evasion
determinants.

1
 The determinants of tax evasion: a literature review
1. Introduction
Tax evasion is a crucial problem for countries since economic development can be severely

hampered by lower public revenues due to the lack of tax compliance (Picur and Riahi-

Belkaoui, 2006). Accordingly, it becomes important for policy makers to identify the causes

behind tax evasion to undertake reforms and reduce the adverse effects of this phenomenon

worldwide. According to Gemmell and Hasseldine (2012), such a topic has attracted a

renewed international interest by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD). Given this importance, this study reviews the empirical literature

specifically devoted to the determinants of tax evasion worldwide. Since the empirical work

of Riahi-Belkaoui (2004)1, this topic has been gaining momentum in tax empirical literature.

The aim of this paper is to trace the development of this stream of research by (i) making a

clear cut-distinction between the notion of tax evasion and neighbouring concepts, (ii)

identifying the theoretical frameworks that justify the determinants of tax evasion, (iii)

reviewing the tools used to measure tax evasion in tax literature and (iv) summarising the

empirical literature dealing with the determinants of tax evasion over the last decade.

Recently, several literature reviews have been undertaken in tax avoidance literature (e.g.

Hanlon and Heitzman, 2010; Shackelford and Shevlin, 2001) and tax methodologies (e.g.

Gemmell and John Hasseldine, 2012). This review offers distinguishing features since it

focuses only on tax evasion determinants and summarises the related empirical research by

suggesting future research avenues. Several reviews2 have examined tax evasion topic. To the

1
Richardson (2006) considers the paper of Riahi-Belkaoui (2004) entitled “Relationship between tax compliance
internationally and selected determinants of tax morale” as a pioneering in the determinants of tax evasion empirical
literature.
2
The following studies have reviewed tax evasion literature Jackson and Milliron (1986) Kinsey (1986), Cuccia (1994, a),
Andreoni et al. (1998) and Long and Swingen (1991). However, the literature review conducted by Jackson and Milliron
(1986) represents the first review that attempts to identify the key determinants of tax evasion.

2
best of our knowledge, this is the first review that attempts to summarise the new trend of

empirical literature dealing with the determinants of tax evasion.

This literature review identifies four categories of tax evasion determinants including (i)

demographic, (ii) cultural and behavioural, (iii) legal and institutional and (iv) economic

variables. Besides, it documents that several methods under micro direct and macro indirect

approaches are not used and tax evasion empirical literature still rely on surveys’ results

reported in international reports or on Shneider’s (2004) shadow economy estimates. Finally,

the limited number and the explorative feature of tax evasion studies reduce the capability to

identify apparent determinants.

This literature review intends to serve as a historical record, an introduction for doctoral

students and other interested parties, and a guide for identifying important unresolved issues

in the literature. It also contributes to the extant literature by providing suggestions for future

research.

The reminder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical

underpinnings. Section 3 describes the approach used to measure tax evasion. Section 4

reviews and summarises the empirical literature dealing with the determinants of tax evasion.

Finally, section 5 concludes the paper and provides directions for future research.

2. Theoretical underpinnings
2.1. Differences between tax evasion and neighboring notions

The topic of tax evasion embraces many dimensions. Since there is no clear cut-distinction

between tax evasion, tax avoidance and corruption, we first need to define these notions and

make a clear distinction between them.

With regard to the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, Gabor (2012) suggests

that tax evasion is an intentional illegal behaviour leading to a direct violation of tax law to

escape the payment of tax. Sandmo (2005) adds that tax evasion is a violation of tax law

3
whereby the taxpayer refrains from reporting income which is, in principle, taxable. Tax

evasion represents the illegal practices to escape from taxation that can occur in an isolated

incident within the activity or in the informal or the shadow economy where the whole

activity takes place in an informal manner. Taxpayers will try to conceal taxable income or

profit by deliberately overstating deductions, exemptions or credits (Alm and Martinez-

Vazquez, 2003). In other words, tax evasion may represent an intentional falsification of tax

relevant information through the non-declaration of financial assets, taxable income and profit

and trade mispricing. By contrast, tax avoidance occurs within the tax system and taxpayers

exploit the legal scope for the discretion of tax laws running counter the purpose of tax

legislation. Generally, individuals or firms engage in legal activities and use discretionary tax

practices to reduce tax liabilities. These practices include the pricing of inter-company

tangible goods transactions, the increase in inter-company debt and the location of central

services and intangible assets.

With regard to the distinction between corruption and tax evasion, tax evasion involves hiding

the real value of a legal contract or transaction to avoid or reduce fiscal liabilities (Tsakumis,

Curatola and Porcano, 2007), while corruption involves an operation in which one agent

typically pays a sum of money or performs a service in exchange for an illicit act by a public

official (Andreoni, Erard and Feinstein, 1998). Corruption is conventionally defined as the

exercise of public power to make private gain (Picur and Riahi-Belkaoui, 2006).

2.2. Theoretical justifications for the determinants of tax evasion

According to Riahi-Belkaoui (2004) tax compliance is a type of social contract between

citizens and their state where individuals pay taxes in exchange of “conditions that enhance

and protect their human dignity, trigger their morality and respect for moral norms, and

assure them a piece of mind in their relations with other citizens and in the conduct of their

affairs” (p. 137). The justifications for the determinants of tax evasion are based on three

4
theoretical perspectives including general deterrence theory, economic deterrence models, and

fiscal psychology (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2004).

General deterrence theory suggests that the crime rates of populations decrease by the threats

of punishment which must be characterised by certainty, celerity and severity to be effective

(Stack, 2010). The exact level of certainty that must be reached for punishment to deter crime

is unknown and empirical research suggests that at least 30 % of offenders should be held

accountable to reduce the crime rate (Stack, 2010). This theory refers to the capability of a

legal system (through sanctions) to reduce the phenomenon of tax evasion in one country.

The economic deterrence models focus on the cost-benefit framework since they incorporate

an economic rational taxpayer who will evade taxation as long as the pay-off from evading is

greater than the expected cost of being caught (Hasseldine and Bebbington, 1991; Devos,

2014). These models suggest that the economic, legal and institutional characteristics of one

country (e.g. level of enforcement, corruption, bureaucracy, competition laws) may influence

tax evasion practices.

Finally, fiscal psychology models examine the attitudes and beliefs of taxpayers in order to

predict their behaviours (Hasseldine and Bebbington, 1991). This reasoning is based on the

fact that attitudes are unbiased proxies for the taxpayers’ behaviours. These models consist of

the examination of the taxpayers’ profiles to identify the causes behind tax evasion (Lewis,

1982a). Fiscal psychology models suggest that factors such as age, sex, social-economic

background, education level and occupation may affect the level of tax evasion. Besides, tax

morale also represents an important variable which captures taxpayer’s behaviour towards

fiscal duties.

In sum, the general implications of these theories are that tax evasion is deterred by sanctions,

can be viewed as an economic decision under uncertainty in which taxpayer estimates the

5
economic advantages and costs of tax evasion and tax noncompliance can be explained by

non-economic factors related to taxpayers’ attitudes and perceptions on compliance (Riahi-

Belkaoui, 2004).

3. Measurement of tax evasion in the empirical literature

3.1. Overview

Tax evasion represents an important issue for developed and developing settings. Empirical

evidence regarding its determinants is still limited (The German Federal Ministry for

Economic Cooperation and Development report, 2010). According to the same report (p. 12)

“this is partly due to the fact that the extent of tax evasion and avoidance is hard to estimate

as the phenomena are difficult to observe and precise data is, thus, lacking”. Therefore, the

quantification of tax evasion and the identification of its determinants become a hard task for

researchers given the lack of high quality data. According to Tsakumis et al. (2007, p. 140)

“actual evasion is unknown and impossible to determine; thus, studies on tax evasion (tax

compliance) use surrogate measures for actual evasion. Many studies use hypothetical

evasion or perceptions of evasion. Some use government estimates of evasion. No single

measure has been shown to be better than any other measure”. This section briefly reviews

the main approaches used to measure tax evasion in tax literature. Tax evasion literature

distinguishes between micro direct and macro indirect approaches (Gemmell and Hasseldine,

2012). While micro direct approaches are based on taxpayer data,surveys and tax audit to

measure the extent of tax noncompliance, macro indirect approaches estimate the size of the

hidden economy based on macroeconomic assumptions and models. The next sub-section

presents the main methodologies applied in tax evasion literature and the approaches that

remain unexplored.

3. 2. Measurement of tax evasion

6
Given that tax evasion can not be directly observed and it is linked to shadow economy, it is

difficult for researchers to measure this variable. International reports (e.g. the Global

Competitiveness Report (GCR)) conduct surveys to evaluate individuals’ perceptions about

tax evasion as a proxy for a country’s tax evasion score. Accordingly, several empirical

studies use the estimates provided in these reports.

For instance, Riahi-Belkaoui (2004) uses the scores on tax compliance reported in the survey

conducted by the GCR in 1995. Compliance score is a country survey rating about the degree

of compliance on a scale from 0, for low degree of compliance, to 6 for high degree of

compliance. Similarly, Richardson (2006 and 2008) uses the same reports to proxy for tax

evasion. While Riahi-Belkaoui (2004) and Picur and Riahi-Belkaoui (2006) use only one

measure for tax evasion, Richardson (2006 and 2008)3 examines two and three empirical

proxies respectively. Richardson (2006) considers two measures of tax evasion including

country rating that tax evasion is minimal (on a scale from 1- strongly disagree to 7- strongly

agree averaged for 2002–2004) and country rating of tax evasion (on a scale from 0-common

to 10-not common averaged for 2002–2004) available on the (GCR) (World Economic Forum

(WEF), 2002, 2003, 2004). These two scores are transformed to get increasing scales of tax

evasion. Richardson (2008) also bases his analysis on the (GCR) (WEF, 2002, 2003, 2004)

and uses three scores to measure tax evasion including the two previous scores in 2006 and

new score defined as the country survey rating about the under-reporting of income and the

shadow economy (on a scale from 1, less than 5% of all business, to 9, greater than 70% of all

business averaged for 2002–2004).

According to Schneider (2004), the survey method represents a micro direct approach to

estimate tax evasion. One major criticism addressed to the use of scores from international

reports is that the survey conducted among taxpayers depends on the willingness of

3
Richardson (2008) suggests that the use of multiple measures of tax evasion increases the robustness of the results.

7
respondents to answer questions truthfully which will directly affect the data quality

(Schneider, 2004). In the same vein, Fuest and Riedel (2009, p. 28) suggest that “especially

with respect to the topic of tax evasion, there may be considerable doubts as to which extent

interviewees confess fraudulent behaviour”. Schneider (2007) argues that the results from

these kinds of surveys are perceived to be very sensitive to the way the questionnaire is

formulated. Gërxhani (2007) argues that gathering information on tax evasion is undisputable

challenge in developing economies and survey’s results may suffer from several weaknesses.

Tsakumis et al. (2007) base their analysis on Schneider’s (2004) estimates of the shadow

economy, defined as the size of market-based legal production of goods and services that are

deliberately concealed from public authorities, for 145 developing, transition, and developed

countries. Schneider (2004) also reports the shadow economy variable as a percentage of

official Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in each country for the years 2000–2002. Countries

with larger shadow economies (as a percentage of GDP) are viewed as less tax compliant

settings (i.e., higher (lower) under-reporting of income equates to more (less) tax evasion).

Gabor (2012) also uses the same methodology as Tsakumis et al. (2007) to estimate tax

evasion. The approach developed by Schneider (2004) represents a macro indirect method

called dynamic multiple-indicators multiple-causes (DYMIMIC)4 which consists of a

structural equations model with one unobserved variable named the size of the shadow

economy. By capturing the structural dependence of the shadow economy on variables,

researcher will be able to predict the movement and the size of shadow economy in the future

(Schneider, 2004).

Aside from these approaches used in the empirical literature, other methodologies either

micro direct or macro indirect can be applied to estimate tax evasion (Gemmell and

Hasseldine, 2012).

4
For more details about this approach, see Gemmell and Hasseldine (2012) from pages 213 to 214.

8
With respect to micro direct approaches, tax auditing represents another alternative to

estimate tax evasion. However, the major disadvantage of this approach is that it reflects only

the portion of the shadow economy income that fiscal authorities succeed to discover, and this

represents only a fraction of the hidden income (Schneider, 2004). In addition, researchers are

not generally allowed to have access to these data given their confidential aspects (Gemmell

and Hasseldine, 2012).

With regard to macro indirect approaches5, we note that several techniques have been

developed to estimate tax evasion. Schneider (2004) lists five macroeconomic methodologies

as follows:

(i) The discrepancy between national expenditure and income statistics: this approach is based

on the equality predicted in the national accounting between the income measure of Gross

National Product (GNP) and the expenditure measure of GNP. Thus, the difference between

the expenditure measure of GNP and the income measure of GNP represents a proxy for the

size of shadow economy.

(ii) The discrepancy between the official and actual labour force: this approach supposes that

the decrease of the labour force in the official activity may indicate that shadow economy is

gaining momentum in one country. Under this approach, the size of shadow economy in one

setting is estimated using the decrease in the percentage of labour force participating in the

official economy.

(iii) The transactions approach: this approach supposes that there is a constant relationship

between the volume of transactions and the official GNP. If the volume of transactions is

supposed to be equal to the total nominal GNP, the size of shadow economy can be estimated

by subtracting the official GNP from the total nominal GNP.

5
For critics addressed to these approaches, see Schneider (2004).

9
(iv)The currency demand approach: this approach supposes that that shadow (or hidden)

transactions are undertaken in the form of cash payments, so that no observable traces are left

for the authorities to control. This method was developed by Cagan (1958) and it consists of

regressing the ratio of cash holdings to current and deposit accounts on some conventional

factors that can influence it. Therefore, tax evasion is proxied by the amount unexplained by

the conventional or normal factors attributed to the rising shadow economy.

(v) The physical input (electricity consumption): this method was developed by Kaufmann

and Kaliberda (1996) based on the assumption that electric-power consumption represents the

best physical indicator of the overall (official and unofficial) economic activity. Since there is

a strong relationship between the consumption of electricity and the overall GDP6, one can

estimate the size of shadow economy by subtracting from the overall GDP the official GDP.

Overall, it seems that a wide range of techniques exists to estimate tax evasion and tax

empirical literature has only explored a small number of approaches. Future examinations of

the determinants of tax evasion have to consider other methodologies to improve our

understanding of this phenomenon.

4. Summary of empirical studies

This section briefly reviews the empirical studies dealing with the determinants of tax

evasion. These determinants are classified into four categories including: (i) demographic, (ii)

cultural and behavioural, (iii) legal and institutional and (iv) economic variables. Six

empirical papers dealing with the determinants of tax evasion are identified including Riahi-

Belkaoui (2004), Picur and Riahi-Belkaoui (2006), Richardson (2006), Tsakumis, Curatola

and Porcano (2007), Richardson (2008) and Gabor (2012). The common feature for these

studies is the cross-country analysis. While a number of earlier studies considered this topic,

Riahi-Belkaoui’s (2004) study represents the pioneering work for the determinants of tax
6
According to Schneider (2004), empirical evidence worldwide demonstrates that electricity consumption to
GDP elasticity is usually close to one.

10
evasion and perhaps the first rigorous empirical investigation found within the recent

literature. Accordingly, this empirical summary will commence with this study.

Riahi-Belkaoui (2004) examines the determinants of tax evasion for a sample of 30 developed

and developing countries in 1996. To measure tax evasion, he uses the direct approach which

consists of a tax compliance survey conducted by the GCR in 1996. He focuses on four

variables including the economic freedom index, the importance of equity market, the level of

serious crimes and the effectiveness of competition laws. He documents that the high level of

economic freedom, important of equity markets and the effectiveness of competition laws are

positively associated with tax compliance, while the high level of criminology reduces the

level of tax compliance.

Picur and Riahi-Belkaoui (2006) extend the analysis by examining the effect of two important

legal and institutional variables, namely, bureaucracy and corruption for a sample of 30

developed and developing countries in 1996. Bureaucracy is measured by the percentage of

tax government expenditures over GDP, while the corruption is proxied by a score ranging

from -2.5 to 2.5 where higher scores indicate lower corruption. They control for legal system

(1 for common law countries and 0 otherwise) in their model. They document that the low

level of corruption is positively associated with tax compliance, whereas the high level of

bureaucracy increases tax evasion. They also provide evidence that countries belonging to

common legal system are more compliant with tax rules.

Richardson (2006) extends this line of research by considering economic and demographic

variables based on the detailed review of Jackson and Milliron (1986) who consider ten key

variables including age, gender, education, income level, income source, marginal tax rates,

fairness, complexity, revenue authority initiated contact and tax morale. Tax evasion is

measured using the direct approach based on two scores collected from the GCR (WEF, 2002,

2003, 2004). He controls for legal and institutional (democracy, legal system), economic

11
(economic development), non-economic (religion), cultural7 and behavioural variables. Based

on a sample of 45 developing and developed countries, he documents that the complexity of

fiscal rules is positively associated with tax evasion, while the high levels of general

education, services income source, fairness and tax morale are negatively associated with the

same variable. .

Tsakumis et al. (2007) alternatively explore the relationship between tax evasion and cultural

dimensions (uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and power distance) as defined

by Hofstede (2001). Tax evasion proxy is based on Shneider (2004) who uses a macro

indirect approach to estimate such a variable. Based on a sample of 50 developed and

developing countries, they document that uncertainty avoidance and power distance are

positively associated with tax evasion, while individualism and masculinity are negatively

associated with tax evasion. After controlling for the level of economic development, as

proxied by the GNP, they document a negative and significant association between this

variable and tax evasion.

Richardson (2008) extends the empirical analysis of Tsakumis et al. (2007) by considering

several proxies of tax evasion and including other legal, political, and religious variables. He

considers Tsakumis et al’s (2007) analysis as a preliminary international examination of the

association between tax evasion and cultural dimensions. Using the micro direct approach by

collecting taxpayers’ perceptions from the GCR (WEF, 2002, 2003, 2004) and based on a

sample of 47 developing and developed countries, he documents that individualism is

negatively associated with tax evasion, while uncertainty avoidance is positively associated

with the same variable. Contrary to Tsakumis et al. (2007), masculinity is not significantly

associated with tax evasion. Whit regard to control variables, it seems that the levels of legal

7
The concept of culture in this study is more linked to ethnicity.

12
enforcement, trust in government and religiosity are negatively associated with tax evasion

across countries.

Finally, Gabor (2012) also extends the empirical analysis of Tsakumis et al. (2007) by

considering the same model and adding two new cultural dimensions including long term

orientation and indulgence. In this study, tax evasion is measured using a macro indirect

approach based on Shneider (2004). The sample of consists of 58 developed and developing

countries and data are collected for the period from 2008-2010. Results show that these new

cultural dimensions do not affect tax evasion. In addition, masculinity is negatively associated

with tax evasion, while uncertainty avoidance is positively associated with the same variable.

Controlling for the level of economic development, he documents that GNP is negatively

related to tax evasion across countries.

Overall, it seems that the common characteristic of these studies is the cross-country and

cross-sectional analysis. Taken together, the results reviewed with regard to economic,

demographic, legal, institutional, cultural and behavioural variables do not suggest apparent

determinants of tax evasion since models generally explore new variables and subsequent

studies do not take into account their findings to build on them.

With respect to cultural dimensions and tax evasion, three studies have examined this topic.

Findings reported show that uncertainty avoidance has a significant positive effect on tax

evasion either when the latter is proxied by micro direct approach (e.g. Richardson, 2008) or

macro indirect approach (e.g. Tsakumis et al., 2007; Gabor, 2012). In addition, two studies

employing macro indirect approach show that masculinity is negatively and significantly

associated with tax evasion. For the remaining cultural dimensions, results are mixed across

the three studies.

13
The limited number of studies and observations (number of countries) may also reduce the

capability to identify clear determinants. In addition, studies use either micro direct or macro

indirect approach and do not consider other techniques to increase the robustness of the

results. Finally, combining developed and developing countries with a limited number of

observations may not allow researchers to re-estimate their models with respect to each group

to identify how the level of economic development may affect tax evasion determinants.

Insert table 1 about here

Based on these critics, it seems that this stream of research is still in its infancy. Accordingly,

five developments are suggested. First, future investigations of tax evasion determinants

should build on previous empirical models and control for variables that have been shown to

be crucial in explaining tax evasion. Second, since the above empirical literature focuses only

on one approach to estimate tax evasion variable, future examinations should consider the

micro direct and macro indirect methodologies and compare results between them. Third, the

sample of countries included should be extended to allow countries’ determinants comparison

and examine how the degree of country development moderates the examined associations.

Fourth, researchers should identify new sources of data provided by other international

institutions (e.g. The Tax Justice Network) to conduct empirical analysis. Finally, since tax

compliance is a type of social contract between citizens and their state, future empirical

investigations may focus on the association between the country’s level of social and

environmental sustainability and tax evasion.

5. Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the design and methodological issues

linked to the stream of research dealing with the determinants of tax evasion. To underscore

the importance of our focus, Gemmell and Hasseldine (2012) suggest that tax evasion

14
represents an international serious problem for policy makers since it becomes a widespread

phenomenon for many developed and developing countries (Tsakumis et al. 2007).

Accordingly, this narrative review considers the related empirical literature specifically

dealing with the determinants of tax evasion. This review reveals the following issues. First,

this stream of research is still in its infancy since only six studies have been conducted to date.

Second, all reviewed studies have an explorative aspect since each one has examined new

variables without taking into account previous reported empirical findings. Third, several

approaches (either micro direct or macro indirect) remain unexplored and studies rely only on

surveys’ results collected from international reports or on Shneider’s (2004) shadow economy

estimates.

The above narrative review classifies tax evasion determinants into four categories including

(i) demographic, (ii) cultural and behavioural, (iii) legal and institutional and (iv) economic

variables. Given the limited evidence provided, it is impossible, a priori, to draw

unambiguous conclusions concerning the apparent determinants of tax evasion worldwide.

However, it should be acknowledged that the slow progress of this stream of empirical

research is mainly caused by the difficulty faced to collect data for some countries (Gemmell

and Hasseldine, 2012). In addition, the unavailability of data for some settings in international

reports leads to reduced sample size and it becomes impossible for researchers to deepen

analyses.

Although these difficulties, several future research avenues still exist to improve our

understanding of the determinants of tax evasion worldwide. First, future investigations of tax

evasion determinants should take into account the previous significant determinants before

exploring new variables. Second, new empirical examinations of tax evasion determinants

have to apply micro direct and macro indirect approaches, subject to data availability, to give

rise to the importance and the robustness of empirical findings. Third, since tax compliance is

15
a type of social contract between citizens and their governments, future empirical studies may

focus on the relationship between the country’s level of social and environmental

sustainability and tax evasion. Finally, this study represents a simple narrative review,

therefore the use of meta-analysis technique is recommended to summarise in a statistic

manner this stream of research when a sufficient number of empirical works is available.

16
References

Alm, J. and Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2003), “Institutions, paradigms, and tax evasion in

developing and transition countries”, In J. Martinez-Vazquez & J. Alm (Eds.), Public finance
in developing and transitional countries: Essays in honor of Richard Bird (pp. 146–178).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Andreoni, J., Erard, B. and Feinstein, J. (1998), “Tax compliance”, Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 36, pp. 818–860.

Cagan, P. (1958), “The demand for currency relative to the total money supply”, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 302-328.

Cuccia, A. D. (1994a), “The economics of tax compliances: What do we know and where do
we go?”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 13, pp. 81–116.

Devos, K. (2014), Factors influencing individual taxpayer compliance behaviour,

Springer publisher, ISBN: 978-94-007-7475-9 (Print) 978-94-007-7476-6 (Online).

Fuest, C. and Riedel, N. (2009), “Tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax expenditures in
developing countries: A review of the literature”, Report prepared for the UK Department for
International Development (DFID). Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.

Gabor, R. (2012), “Relation between tax evasion and Hofstede's model”,

European Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
available at: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/European-Journal-
Management/293812521.html

Gemmell, N. and Hasseldine, J. (2012), “The tax gap: a methodological review”, Advances in
Taxation, Vol. 20, pp. 203–231.

Gërxhani, K. (2007), “Did you pay your taxes?” How (not) to conduct tax evasion surveys in
transition countries”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 555-581.

Hanlon, M. and Heitzman, S . (2010), “A review of tax research”, Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Vol. 50, pp. 127–178.

Hasseldine, H. D. and Bebbington, J. K. (1991), “Blending economic deterrence and fiscal

psychology models in the design of responses to tax evasion: The New Zealand experience”,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 299-324.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001), Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions

and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Jackson, B. and Milliron, V. (1986), “Tax compliance research: Findings, problems, and
prospects”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 5, 125–165.

17
Kaufmann, D. and Kaliberda, A. (1996), “Integrating the unofficial Economy into the
dynamics of post socialist economies: A framework of analyses and evidence”, in: B.
Kaminski, Economic Transition in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, London.

Kinsey, K. (1986), “Theories and models of tax cheating”, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Vol. 2,
pp. 403–425.

Lewis, A. (1982a), The psychology of taxation, Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Long, S. and Swingen, J. (1991), “Taxpayer compliance: Setting new agendas for research”,
Law and Society Review, Vol. 3, pp. 637–683.

Picur, R. D. and Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2006), “The impact of bureaucracy, corruption and tax
compliance”, Review of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5, pp. 174–180.

Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2004), “Relationship between tax compliance internationally and selected

determinants of tax morale”, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,
Vol. 13, pp. 135–143.
Richardson, G. (2006), “Determinants of tax evasion: A cross-country investigation”, Journal
of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Vol. 15, pp. 150–169.

Richardson, G. (2008), “The relationship between culture and tax evasion across countries:
Additional evidence and extensions”, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and
Taxation, Vol. 17, pp. 67–78.

Sandmo, A. (2005), “The theory of tax evasion: A retrospective view”, National Tax Journal,
Vol. 63, pp. 643–663.

Schneider, F. (2004), “The size of the shadow economies of 145 countries all over the world:
First results over the period 1999–2003”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 143. Bonn, Germany:
Forschungsiinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)).

Schneider, F. (2007), “Shadow economies and corruption all over the world: new estimates
for 145 countries”, Economics, The Open Access, Open Assessment e-Journal, No. 2007-9,
July 24, 2007.

Shackelford, D. and Shevlin, T. (2001), “Empirical tax research in accounting”, Journal of

Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31, pp. 321–387.
Stack, S. (2010). General deterrence theory. In. F. Cullen, & P. Wilcox (Eds.) Encyclopedia of
criminological theory, pp. 364-365, Sage Publications.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011),
“Addressing tax evasion and tax avoidance in developing countries”, Available at:
http://www.taxcompact.net/documents/2011-09-09_GTZ_Addressing-tax-evasion-and-
avoidance.pdf.

Tsakumis, G. T., Curatola, A. P. and Porcano, T. M. (2007), “The relation between national
cultural dimensions and tax evasion”, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and
Taxation, Vol. 16, pp. 131–147.

18
World Economic Forum. (2002), “The global competitiveness report 2001–2002”, Geneva,
Switzerland:World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum. (2003), “The global competitiveness report 2002–2003”, Geneva,
Switzerland:World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2004), “The global competitiveness report 2003–2004”, Geneva,
Switzerland:World Economic Forum.

19
،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢.٥ :‫ ﻳﻤﯿﻦ‬،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢.٥ :‫ﻳﺴﺎر‬:‫ﻣﻨﺴّﻖ‬ Table 1. Summary of the empirical results
،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢.٥ :‫ أﺳﻔﻞ‬،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢.٥ :‫أﻋﻠﻰ‬
،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢١ :‫ اﻻرﺗﻔﺎع‬،‫ ﺳﻢ‬٢٩.٧ :‫اﻟﻌﺮض‬
:‫ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺔ رأس اﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ اﻋﺘﺒﺎراً ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﻓﺔ‬ Proxy for tax Sample Demographic Cultural and Legal and institutional Economic
‫ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﺬﻳﯿﻞ اﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ اﻋﺘﺒﺎراً ﻣﻦ‬،‫ ﺳﻢ‬١.٢٥
Studies
evasion variables behavioural variables variables variables
‫ ﺳﻢ‬١.٢٥ :‫اﻟﺤﺎﻓﺔ‬
Riahi-Belkaoui Tax compliance – micro 30 developed and Level of serious crimes (-) NI Effectiveness of Economic freedom (+);
(2004) direct approach- Based developing countries competition laws (+) importance of equity
on a survey in 1996 market (+)

Picur and Riahi- Tax compliance – micro 30 developed and NI NI Bureaucracy (-); corruption (-); legal NI
Belkaoui (2006) direct approach- Based developing countries system (common/ civil) (+)
on a survey in 1996

Richardson (2006) Tax evasion – micro 45 developed and Age (0); gender (0); Tax morale (-); culture (0) Tax complexity system (+); top marginal Economic
direct approach- Based developing countries education (-);the tax for individuals (0); fairness (-); tax development (0)
on a survey (2002-2003) proportion of household system complexity (+); legal system (0);
income (0); employment
democracy (0); region (0)
in the agricultural sector
(0); employment in the
service sector (-); religion
(0)

Tsakumis et al. Tax evasion – macro 47 developed and NI Uncertainty avoidance (+); NI Economic
(2007) indirect approach- Based developing countries masculinity (-); individualism (-); development (-)
on Shneider (2004) (2000-2003) power distance (+)

Richardson (2008) Tax evasion – micro 50 developed and Religion (-) Uncertainty avoidance (+); Trust in government (-); legal enforcement Economic
direct approach- Based developing countries masculinity (0); individualism (0) development (-)
on a survey (2002-2004) (-); power distance (0)

Gabor (2012) Tax evasion – macro 57 developed and NI Uncertainty avoidance (+); NI Economic
indirect approach- Based developing countries masculinity (-); individualism development (-)
on Shneider (2004) (2008-2010) (0); power distance (0); long term
orientation (0); indulgence (0)

Notes: (+) positive and significant association; (-) negative and significant association; (0) insignificant association; NI: not included.

20