Umeå University's logo

A general bias in most welfare states has been to use public revenues to deal with inequality in social and economic programmes. However, tax policies and regulatory tax reforms very seldom consider that gender norms and practices have had profound effects in shaping tax systems, which has become hindrance for achieving economic gender equality.

By applying a gender perspective on family and business taxation we want to show that breadwinning and support of the family are common dominators for how the modern income taxation was constructed. A common understanding is that the consequence of this transformation from family economy to market economy also lead to a permanent and clear cut between these two spheres of economy. We will show that this idea of separation is more of a fiction than the reality.

This volume takes a critical look at the gender of tax policy around the world. Contributors based in eight different countries examine the profound effects that gender norms and practices have had in shaping tax law and policy, and how taxation in turn impacts upon the possibilities for equality along gender, race, class, sexuality and other lines. It includes chapters that explore how the gendered fiscal state might be theorised; how structural choices about rates and bases in tax policy design contribute to gender inequality; how tax policy affects family configurations and perceptions of what constitutes family; how fiscal systems impact savings and wealth accumulation by women and men; and, the role of different policy making processes and institutions in occluding and sometimes challenging these patterns. Most significantly, perhaps, the book explores these questions in an international frame, traversing countries and continents. The conclusion: fiscal policy has deep rooted, long standing gender implications that affect virtually every aspect of our social, political, and economic lives whether we live in Canada, Australia or Kenya.

Detta kapitel innehåller en berättelse om och våra reflektioner kring erfarenheter av en påtvingad nedläggning under 2018 av forsknings- och utbildningsmiljön Juridiskt forum (Umeå Forum for Studies on Law and Society). Vi börjar i en meta-berättelse om utveckling, framgång, motstånd och fall. Ur denna berättelse har två teman utkristalliserats: Exkludering av genusrättsvetenskap från utbildning och forskning samt Genusrättsvetenskap och genusrättsvetenskapare som arbetsmiljöproblem(et). Dessa kontextualiseras som uttryck för den rättsdogmatiska traditionens motstånd mot de kritiska ontologiska och epistemologiska utmaningar som den nordiska genusrättsvetenskapliga traditionen och socio-rättsliga studier representerar. Vi hävdar att motståndet på institutionell, akademisk och personlig nivå i grunden handlar om en djup oförmåga och ovilja att hantera mångfald, kritik och utveckling. När nu denna kamp är över, och vår gränsöverskridande, kritiska miljö har eliminerats så finns det ändå inga vinnare. Istället anser vi att utvecklingspotentialen för den snäva rättsvetenskap som produceras i Umeå idag är låg, vilket underminerar möjligheterna till att uppfylla förändringsbehov i juristutbildningen. Motstånd har ständigt varit närvarande under genusrättsvetenskapens nära 40-åriga nordiska historia och andra starka genusrättsvetenskapliga miljöer och enskilda forskare har gått liknande öden till mötes som vårt. Ändå slutar inte vår berättelse i pessimism. Nedläggningen av Juridiskt forum kan inte hindra utvecklingen. Genusrättsvetenskapen i Norden har satt sig och utvecklas starkt som akademiskt ämne. Efterfrågan är stor från juriststudenter och volymen på expertuppdrag, forskning och publikationer är omfattande. Viktiga samhällsutmaningar ställer nya kunskapskrav på framtidens jurister. Genus och rätt är utan tvekan en del av denna kunskapsutveckling i Norden.

During the period 1991–2004, political support for the inheritance and gift taxation in Sweden diminished, which contributed to two major policy shifts. In 1991, a new tax schedule which reduced top rates was introduced. The tax was thereafter completely repealed in 2004. In this paper, we examine how background factors such as competitiveness and political legitimacy influenced these decisions. By studying the preceding decision-making processes, we find that the influence of these factors shifted over time and appeared in different combinations. While the 1991 reform was strongly influenced by competitiveness arguments, the repeal of the inheritance and gift tax was primarily a result of the declining legitimacy of the tax.

In this comparative analysis of the UK and Sweden, we consider, if inherited wealth is most deserving of redistributive taxation, then what lessons, if any, may be learned from the difficult paths faced by this tax in these countries. We conclude that the political momentum behind the Swedish family business was distinct, and, possibly, capable of travel to the UK.

This chapter argues that the boundary between law and politics is an 'apparent' boundary, meaning that there is a conception of a limit separating law and politics in legislation, adjudication and legal scholarship. This chapter focuses on the relation of law to politics. It describes established definitions of law and politics, and recapitulates common Swedish debates on the relationship between legal scholars and political scientists. In the Nordic context legal scholarship usually raises questions other than those concerning the relationship between law and politics. The idea of law as an object finds expression in the drawing up of a boundary between law and politics, which is important both theoretically and methodologically. In a widely used Swedish judicial textbook, law is defined as the doctrine of the rule of law combined with the practice of adjudication. Current law is considered to be the core of the academic discipline of legal scholarship and is also a common object of study.