IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/nattax/doi10.1086-729778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Survey Report to Use? A Revisit to the 1934 Survey of Public Finance Scholars

Author

Listed:
  • Phuong Nguyen-Hoang
  • Pengju Zhang
  • W. Bartley Hildreth

Abstract

Public policy makers are interested in public finance professors’ opinions on key tax policy issues. A report on a 1934 survey of this kind appeared in Walker’s work, which was relied upon by Slemrod’s work. While valuable for its historical context and influence on subsequent studies, Walker’s sample has limitations compared to the later-reported full sample central to our current analysis, including a lower response rate, a smaller sample size (52 responses), and a less diverse sample composition. This paper enhances our understanding of tax opinions in the 1930s by unveiling the findings from the full sample (127 responses). We find significant differences in many questions between the full sample and Walker’s sample. We discuss how the full sample’s results would have informed Slemrod’s discussions on temporal shifts in tax opinions. We also discover many questions that were not reported in Walker’s work and later studies. Many of these unreported questions hold significant relevance, both during the time when the subsequent studies were published and in the present context.

Suggested Citation

  • Phuong Nguyen-Hoang & Pengju Zhang & W. Bartley Hildreth, 2024. "Which Survey Report to Use? A Revisit to the 1934 Survey of Public Finance Scholars," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 533-564.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:nattax:doi:10.1086/729778
    DOI: 10.1086/729778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/729778
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/729778
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/729778?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:nattax:doi:10.1086/729778. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/NTJ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.