An ideological critique of the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan

ABSTRACT

‘Ideology' is a central concept in critical approaches to law. After a brief overview of the aspects of ideology, I propose a restricted concept, synonymous with a social discourse that establishes a certain view of social life in order to create, maintain, and consolidate social relationships. I then provide an introduction to the ideological analysis of law, revealing the function of ideology as creator of the beliefs that sustain the legislation and the reproduction of law through adjudication. Based on this, I analyse the BEPS Action Plan of the OECD, and the documents issued to provide rationales for its proposed actions. I thus critically show how a factual context is ideologically created for the BEPS Plan through the distortion or omission of crucial features of the workings of the global capitalist system. That is the case of the defence of the supposedly ‘general and worldwide benefits of globalisation,' the aim of a ‘fair taxation' of multinational enterprises, the omission of direct production activities in the design of a criterion for assigning taxation power, etc. The article also focuses on the role played by the plan’s explanatory documents in the drafting of national legislations and the resolution of judicial disputes

KEYWORDS:

• Ideology
• law
• OECD

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 OECD (2014), pp 32–40, 99 ff.

2 Avi-Yonah (2007), pp 3–4.

3 Durst and Culbertson (2004), pp 116 ff; Picciotto (2015), pp 166–167.

4 van Apeldoorn (2019).

5 Blanco (2022).

6 Oxfam (2014); Oguttu (2018).

7 van Apeldoorn (2019).

8 Blanco (2022).

9 Gerring (1997), pp 957–963.

10 Norval (2000).

11 Gerring (1997), pp 966–967.

12 Eagleton (1991), pp 1–31.

13 Gramsci (1971), p 705.

14 Marx and Engels (1948), pp 13–15; Mannheim (1954), pp 49, 84–87.

15 Marx (1976), pp 4 ff; Hirst (1979), pp 23–27; Mannheim (1954), pp 50–53.

16 Hirst (1979), pp 24–25.

17 Althusser (2005), p 69; Mannheim (1954), pp 30 ff.; Ricœur (1986), p 120.

18 Mannheim (1954), 30 ff.

19 Popper (1972), pp 123–124.

20 Althusser (2005), pp 100 ff.; Resnick and Wolff (1987), pp 49–52. I omit the discussion on the differences between Althusser’s and Resnick and Wollf’s conceptions of ‘overdetermination’, as it exceeds the scope of this article (see Park 2013).

21 Resnick and Wolff (1987), p 51.

22 Mannheim (1954), pp 68 ff.

23 Laclau (1996), pp 204 ff.

24 van Apeldoorn (2019) and Blanco (2022).

25 Pashukanis (2003), pp 73 ff.; Miaille (1977), pp 110–112.

26 Regardless of the term used, ‘critical approach’ (or theory, or studies) comprises several and very different conceptions, but which could be said to share the belief that law entails some kind of social power exercised by some groups and, as a counterpart, some kind of domination of other people.

27 Kelsen (1967), pp 281 ff.

28 Cerar (2011), p 394.

29 Cohen (2001), pp 217 ff. Cohen, however, does not include ideology in his conception of superstructure, which includes mainly law and the state.

30 van Dijk (1997); Tomlin et al (1997).

31 van Dijk (2006), p 121.

32 van Dijk (2006), p 121.

33 Kennedy (1997), pp 157 ff.

34 Ricœur (1986), pp 198 ff.; Gerring (1997), p 972; van Dijk (2006), pp 119–120.

35 Kelsen (1967), pp 125 ff.; Ross (1959), 170–175.

36 Weber (1978), pp 113 ff.; Ricœur (1986), pp 184 ff.

37 Cox (1979); Martill (2017).

38 Marks (2007), pp 28–29.

39 OECD (2013), pp 7 ff.

40 Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC): ‘Database and Statistical Publications’ https://estadisticas.cepal.org/cepalstat/portada.html?idioma=english.

41 Gasparini et al (2011).

42 Source: World Bank: ‘Latin America and Caribbean. Data’ https://data.worldbank.org/region/latin-america-and-caribbean.

43 Picciotto (2013).

44 Fung (2017), pp 85–87.

45 Pérez Caldentey and Vernengo (2016); Kiljunen (1986), pp 109 ff.

46 Sassen (1999), pp 18–19, 96.

47 Harvey (1975), pp 14 ff.

48 Bell (2001); Parguez (2002); Bougrine and Seccareccia (2002).

49 OECD (2020).

50 OECD (2021a); OECD (2021b).

51 OECD (2015).

52 OECD (2015), p 98.

53 OECD (2015), p 106.

54 OECD (2018a), pp 36 ff.

55 OECD (2019).

56 OECD (2020), pp 8, 12–13.

57 OECD (2021a).

58 Ricardo (2001), pp 8 ff.; Marx (2002), 10 ff.

59 Source: World Bank: ‘Final Consumption Expenditure’ (in current US dollars) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.TOTL.CD.

60 OECD (2021c).

61 Picciotto (2020), pp 11–13.

62 Alliance Sud et al. (2019).

63 G24 (2019).

64 OECD (2021b), pp 4–5.

65 OECD (2021d).

66 OECD (2018b).

67 Kotlikoff and Summers (1986), extensively.

68 Laramie and Mair (2000), pp 93–97.

69 Bourdieu (1989), pp 18 ff.

70 Bourreau et al. (2015).

71 Picciotto (2020), pp 13–15.

72 Christians (2007).

73 Fung (2017), pp 79–84.

74 UK Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (2019).

75 Picciotto (2015), pp 166–167.

76 The complete list of organizations that participated in the document are: Alliance Sud; Attac Austria; Centre national de coopération au développement (CNCD-11.11.11); Church Action for Tax Justice; Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement – Terre Solidaire (CCFD-Terre Solidaire); Diakonia; Ekvilib Institute; European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad); Finnwatch ry; Kairos Europe; Oxfam International; Plateforme Paradis Fiscaux et Judiciaires; Tax Justice Europe (TJ-E); Tax Justice Network Norway (TJN-Norway); Tax Reconciliations; Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation (VIDC).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andrés Blanco

Dr. Andrés Blanco is a Titular Professor of the Institute of Public Finance, a department of the Faculty of Law of the Universidad de la República (National Public University), Uruguay. He began his activity at the University in 2002. In the past he published books and articles in Spanish on general and specific tax matters, always from a critical perspective. His current research areas encompass the analysis, on a critical basis, of the tendencies of the international taxation in the context of the capitalist international system, focusing in the OECD proposals. His article International Taxation and the Global Structure of Capitalism:The Influence of the OECD in the Design of the International Tax System (2022) was a first approach to the economic background and effects of the OECD actions.