How do ideas shape national preferences? The Financial Transaction Tax in Ireland

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHardiman, Niamh-
dc.contributor.authorMetinsoy, Saliha-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-30T09:35:51Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-30T09:35:51Z-
dc.date.copyright2017 the Authorsen_US
dc.date.issued2017-10-17-
dc.identifier.other201710-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10197/9572-
dc.description.abstractEuropean countries have been required to formulate a national preference in relation to the EU Financial Transaction Tax. The two leading approaches to explaining how the financial sector makes its views felt in the political process – the structural power of the financial services sector based on potential disinvestment, and its instrumental power arising from direct political lobbying – fall short of providing a comprehensive account. The missing link is how and why policy-makers might be willing to adopt the priorities of key sectors of the financial services industry. We outline how two levels of ideational power might be at work in shaping outcomes, using Ireland as a case study. We argue firstly that background systems of shared knowledge that are institutionalized in policy networks generated broad ideational convergence between the financial sector and policymakers over the priorities of industrial policy in general. Secondly, and against that backdrop, debate over specific policy choices can leave room for a wider range of disagreement and indeed political and ideational contestation. Irish policymakers proved responsive to industry interests in the case of the FTT, but not for the reasons normally given. This work seeks to link literatures in two fields of inquiry. It poses questions for liberal intergovernmentalism in suggesting that the translation of structurally grounded material interests into national policy preferences is far from automatic, and argues that this is mediated by ideational considerations that are often under-estimated. It also contributes to our understanding of how constructivist explanations of policy outcomes work in practice, through a detailed case study of how material and ideational interests interact.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commissionen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission Horizon 2020en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity College Dublin. Geary Instituteen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesUCD Geary Institute Discussion Paper Seriesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWP2017/10en_US
dc.relation.requiresEconomists Online Collection
dc.subjectEconomic integrationen_US
dc.subjectMultinational firmsen_US
dc.subjectInternational businessen_US
dc.subjectGlobalizationen_US
dc.subjectBusiness taxes and subsidiesen_US
dc.subjectIntergovernmental relationsen_US
dc.subject.classificationF02en_US
dc.subject.classificationF15en_US
dc.subject.classificationF23en_US
dc.subject.classificationF55en_US
dc.subject.classificationF68en_US
dc.subject.classificationH25en_US
dc.subject.classificationH70en_US
dc.subject.classificationP16en_US
dc.titleHow do ideas shape national preferences? The Financial Transaction Tax in Irelanden_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.internal.webversionshttps://ideas.repec.org/p/ucd/wpaper/201710.html-
dc.statusNot peer revieweden_US
dc.neeo.contributorHardiman|Niamh|aut|-
dc.neeo.contributorMetinsoy|Saliha|aut|-
dc.date.updated2017-10-24-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Geary Institute Working Papers
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
gearywp201710.pdf965.26 kBAdobe PDFDownload
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.