Ethnographic interventions and thought paradigms at a governmental revenue service

Abstract

What role can ethnography play in assessing risks with tax collection? When many tax administrations aim to understand people and be seen as legitimate in society, one would think it is an important role. Yet ethnography can also reveal insights from risk assessments that do not play out well with existing legitimacy strategies. This article addresses the rise and fall of ethnography as a methodology at the Swedish Tax Agency based on following a risk assessment project for three years. The Agency is an interesting institution to study as it is one of the most revered public bureaucracies in the country, despite having to collect one of the highest amounts of income taxes in the world. Strategies to increase taxpayer compliance and tax collector legitimacy follow theories and methods applied in research but are also limited to budgets and organizational structures. This article suggests that three sets of ‘thought paradigms’ existed at the Agency: legality, quantification and para-ethnography. When insights from these clashed, the Agency’s strategies for legitimacy were challenged and even threatened. To the ethnographer’s chagrin, the Agency’s initial interest in ethnographic methods was instead quelled when the result of this risk assessment project was presented.