Assuring Real Freedom of Movement in EU Direct Taxation

The decisions of the European Court of Justice in applying the Treaty principles of freedom of movement to the direct taxation of individuals have been strongly criticised as taking an overly simplistic view of the interactions between national tax systems. The interactions often make non-discrimination an inappropriate criterion. This article proposes a framework, grounded in economic analysis, for understanding the implications of the interactions for freedom of movement. First, I establish a precise definition of obstacles to freedom of movement of individuals as costs of migration, as distinguished from incentives to migration (such as mere differences in national tax levels). Incentives can encourage economic distortions in migration, but they are not obstacles to migration (or free movement). Secondly, I develop the cross-migration test to distinguish costs of migration from incentives. I apply the test to show that two commonly used schemes of double tax relief, including exemption with progression, create unjustified obstacles to free movement.     

Sino-African Relations and the Problem of Human Rights

China's political and economic activities in Africa are increasingat an exponential rate. Equally, they are attracting criticism,chiefly over Beijing's no-strings-attached stance on human rightsand governance. It is clear that many African states that enjoyChinese support not only trample on civil and political rights(as per Western ideas of human rights), but also subvert theircitizens’ economic and social rights (as per China's discourseon human rights). If whilst adhering to the principle of non-interference,Chinese activities actually make things worse for some in Africa,then Beijing's argument that basic socio-economic rights aremore important for the poor than abstract politicalrights is potentially problematic. This is because there isa danger that Beijing's engagement in Africa might be exploitedby autocrats on the continent for their own, well-understood,reasons. Doing no harm, rather than a studied disinterest, needsto be part of China's overall African policy, something thatBeijing is bound to recognize. The author gratefully acknowledges the British Academy, CarnegieTrust for the Universities of Scotland, Chiang Ching-kuo Foundationfor International Scholarly Exchange, and the Russell Trustof Scotland for financial support for fieldwork on Sino-Africanrelations, carried out in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Namibia, SierraLeone, South Africa, and Uganda. The ideas for this articlewere initially tested at seminars at Wilton Park, the Universityof Plymouth, the State Department, SAIS-Johns Hopkins University,and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. I am gratefulto participants in these events, this journal's two anonymousreviewers, and Shaun Breslin for commenting and helping to crystallizemy thoughts. Any errors remain my own.     

Managing Tax Regimes: A Call for Research

Most academic research on taxation relates to higher-level issues of fiscal policy. Much public debate takes place about the calculation and incidence of different taxes, but little academic research addresses the management problems that are specific to national taxation regimes. This paper identifies emerging issues and calls for joint practitioner/academic attention on an international basis to address these issues.     

Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science

Evaluations of research quality in universities are now widely used in the advanced economies. The UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is the most highly developed of these research evaluations. This article uses the results from the 2001 RAE in political science to assess the utility of citations as a measure of outcome, relative to other possible indicators. The data come from the 4,400 submissions to the RAE political science panel. The 28,128 citations analysed relate not only to journal articles, but to all submitted publications – including authored and edited books and book chapters. The results show that citations are the most important predictor of the RAE outcome, followed by whether or not a department had a representative on the RAE panel. The results highlight the need to develop robust quantitative indicators to evaluate research quality which would obviate the need for a peer evaluation based on a large committee. Bibliometrics should form the main component of such a portfolio of quantitative indicators.     

Regulation of health practitioners: national reform in Australia

From the second half of 2010 Australia has had a uniform regime for registration of health practitioners and, with the exception of New South Wales, a nationally consistent scheme for regulation of a number of categories of health practitioners. This entails a move toward validation requirements, a continuing focus on protection of titles as the principal regulatory mechanism, and an identification of those professions currently suitable for formal registration and regulation. This editorial discusses issues arising from the new national regulatory arrangements, controversies about the distinction between "conduct" and "performance" investigations, challenges in relation to assessment of impairment and what constitutes a "fit and proper person" as well as issues arising from the mandatory notification provisions within the legislation.     

Reading for Law and the State: Theaters of Problematization and Authority

Constructing a particular nation, that of early modern England, is seen here as a series of theatrical performances. Shakespeare’s work is taken as a series of thought experiments. Some, like The Merchant of Venice, are reassuring that threatening circumstances and innovatory social practices are capable of being overcome or assimilated from the unknown to the known. Some, like King Lear and Hamlet, ponder the consequences of a failure to discover a resolution. Some writers have argued that England was historically quite early in beginning to conceive of itself as a nation, rather than as a population of possibly heterogeneous regions subject to a dynasty, a state of affairs summarized in the by now clichéd remark attributed to the Sun King, “L’Etat, c’est moi”. For Shakespeare, if not for all of his contemporaries, the Englishman is a bit slow-witted, owing to his fondness for beef and red wine, but he is distinguishable from others and provides material for the second pieces of theater I look at. If there could be an Englishman, his experience with the absolutist pretensions of the Stuart monarchy allowed there to be a free-born Englishman (and, actually, Englishwoman). The two crucial battles of the English civil war, Marston Moor and Naseby, followed by the Army Debates of 1647–1649 form the stage for an at least aspiring egalitarianism we now know as the rights of man, or the rights of the civic person.

That Was Then, This Is Now, What About Tomorrow? Future Directions in State Crime Studies

Research and theorizing on state crime has come to play an important role in the fields of criminology and criminal justice for understanding the worst of crimes: those of powerful state agencies and agents. Since William Chambliss’ (1989) ASC presidential address, scholars of state crime have made advances in theoretical modeling and analyzing core enactment and etiological factors of crimes of the state (e.g., Barak 1991; Friedrichs 1998; Grabosky 1989; Kauzlarich and Kramer 1998; Kramer and Michalowski 2005; Kramer et al. 2005; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Mullins and Rothe 2008a, b; Pearce 1976; Ross 1995, 2000; Rothe 2009; Rothe and Mullins 2006, 2008). Nonetheless, the study of state crime still has a long way to go before it ever reaches the magnitude or legitimacy afforded to the study of traditional street crime. It is with this in mind that several leading scholars of state criminality have come together and reevaluated the state of state crime and the ways in which the field must move forward. This kind of inventory, where scholars examine the past, present and future of the field, is not without precedent. For example, almost a decade ago (Ross et al. 1999) explored the difficulty of conducting state crime research and made a series of recommendations on how it could be improved. Nearly 7 years later (Rothe and Friedrichs 2006) re-evaluated the state of state crime and called for more attention to those beyond US crimes of the state and include crimes of globalization and also international controls such as the International Criminal Court (Friedrichs and Friedrichs 2007; Rothe and Mullins 2006; Rothe et al. 2006, 2008). Since that time, there has been substantial movement by scholars of state crime in these other areas, yet, as we note, there still remains key issues that need to be addressed and overcome: it is with this that we again revisit the field of state crime. We wish to thank all of those that contributed to our discussions and thoughts during the American Society of Criminology Roundtable on State Crime I and II, November 2007.

---