{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008356545961002786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.455089820359281, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Logic of Appropriateness or Logic of Consequence? 
Competing Explanations for the OECD Campaign against 
Tax Havens

This thesis provides an alternative explanation to existing constructivist accounts of the OECD campaign against tax havens. It reinterprets the OECD project through a neoliberal institutionalist lens and offers a different take on each major historical development. It brings the narrative up to date, describing the events of the past two years and explaining the underlying causes in a manner consistent with the neoliberal reinterpretation. It finishes by considering what this account might predict for the future of tax information exchange. The thesis finds that transformative change happens in accordance with state interests rather than with identities and norms. International institutions fundamentally exist to advance the interests of their memberstates and will adapt their goals to reflect changing collective interests. States that are coerced to change their behaviour can be expected to comply only to the extent required to avoid sanctions.