665
Views
76
Downloads |
Determinants of tax morale among university students in Croatia
Article | Year: 2025 | Pages: 645 - 666 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 4 Received: April 2, 2025 | Accepted: July 15, 2025 | Published online: December 2, 2025
|
FULL ARTICLE
FIGURES & DATA
REFERENCES
CROSSMARK POLICY
METRICS
LICENCING
PDF
|
Item
|
Frequency (N=770)
|
Percentage
|
|
Gender
|
|
Male
|
242
|
31.4
|
|
Female
|
528
|
68.6
|
|
Place of
birth
|
|
City
|
323
|
41.9
|
|
Municipalities on the coast
|
321
|
41.7
|
|
Municipalities inland
|
126
|
16.4
|
|
Region
|
|
Zagreb and northern Croatia
|
69
|
9.0
|
|
Slavonia
|
120
|
15.6
|
|
Gorski Kotar, Istria and Primorje
|
45
|
5.8
|
|
Dalmatia
|
473
|
61.4
|
|
Lika and Banovina
|
8
|
1.0
|
|
Outside Croatia
|
55
|
7.1
|
|
Type of
studies
|
|
Undergraduate
|
574
|
74.5
|
|
Graduate
|
174
|
22.6
|
|
Integrated
|
16
|
2.1
|
|
Postgraduate
|
6
|
0.8
|
|
Household
income
|
|
< 1,500 €
|
134
|
17.4
|
|
1,501 € – 2,500 €
|
309
|
40.1
|
|
2,501 € – 3,500 €
|
182
|
23.6
|
|
> 3,500 €
|
145
|
18.8
|
|
Financial
knowledge
|
|
Low
|
445
|
57.8
|
|
Good
|
118
|
15.5
|
|
Very good
|
114
|
14.8
|
|
Excellent
|
93
|
12.1
|
|
Tax knowledge
|
|
Low
|
577
|
75.0
|
|
Good
|
108
|
14.0
|
|
Very good
|
77
|
10.0
|
|
Excellent
|
8
|
1.0
|
Source: Author's calculations.
|
Tax moral (TMO)
|
Mean
|
St. dev.
|
|
TMO1
|
It is important to
me to pay my fair share of taxes.
|
3,83
|
1,13
|
|
TMO2
|
I would feel guilty
if I evaded taxes.
|
3,51
|
1,41
|
|
TMO3
|
I think paying taxes
is a civic duty.
|
1,02
|
1,11
|
|
TMO4
|
I do not consider it
acceptable that small businesses, in order to survive, pay their workers part
or all of their wages in cash, i.e., without paying taxes and contributions.
|
3,15
|
1,28
|
|
TMO5
|
I have never
knowingly participated in any form of tax evasion (such as receiving part of
my salary in cash, undeclared work, smuggling, or paying without a receipt).
|
3,51
|
1,52
|
|
Religiosity (REL)
|
|
REL1
|
How important is
religion in your life?
|
3,75
|
1,32
|
|
REL2
|
How religious are
you?
|
3,56
|
1,25
|
|
REL3
|
How important is God
in your life?
|
4,00
|
1,31
|
|
REL4
|
Except for weddings
and funerals, how often do you go to church?
|
2,87
|
1,23
|
|
Politics (POL)
|
|
POL1
|
What is your
political orientation? (1-left, 5-right)
|
3,08
|
1,07
|
|
POL2
|
What kind of a role
does the government have in the economy? (1-big, 5-small)
|
2,66
|
1,14
|
|
POL3
|
Do you support the
current Croatian government?
|
2,33
|
1,11
|
|
POL4
|
I don’t support the right
to abortion.
|
2,68
|
1,57
|
|
Trust in
institutions (TRUST)
|
|
TRUST1
|
I trust the national
government to responsibly manage public funds.
|
2,26
|
1,01
|
|
TRUST2
|
I trust public
institutions in Croatia.
|
2,51
|
1,01
|
|
TRUST3
|
I believe that my
tax money is effectively used for public services (e.g., health, education,
infrastructure)
|
2,37
|
1,06
|
|
TRUST4
|
Corruption rate in
Croatia is low.
|
2,05
|
1,23
|
|
Perception of the
fairness of the tax system (FAIR)
|
|
FAIR1
|
I think the tax
system in Croatia is fair.
|
2,36
|
0,95
|
|
FAIR2
|
I think that the tax
burden is fairly distributed among all citizens.
|
2,23
|
0,94
|
|
FAIR3
|
I think wealthy
individuals and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
|
2,28
|
1,00
|
|
FAIR4
|
Current tax rates are
not too high for me/my family.
|
2,52
|
1,08
|
|
Social norms (SNO)
|
|
SNO1
|
It is acceptable for
people to evade taxes if they have the opportunity.
|
2,12
|
1,27
|
|
SNO2
|
People in my
community often avoid paying taxes.
|
2,40
|
1,23
|
|
SNO3
|
I don’t feel
pressure in my environment to comply with tax laws.
|
2,82
|
1,17
|
|
SNO4
|
I don’t believe
others would report someone who evades taxes.
|
3,21
|
1,24
|
|
single-items
|
|
FIN
|
financial knowledge
(0-7)
|
3,73
|
2,24
|
|
TAX
|
tax knowledge (0-7)
|
3,01
|
1,88
|
Source: Author's calculations.
|
|
Loading
|
Cronbach’s α
|
rhoc
|
AVE
|
rhoA
|
|
REL1
|
0.945
|
0.933
|
0.952
|
0.832
|
0.945
|
|
REL2
|
0.941
|
|
REL3
|
0.906
|
|
REL4
|
0.855
|
|
POL2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
TRUST1
|
0.890
|
0.862
|
0.916
|
0.784
|
0.863
|
|
TRUST2
|
0.887
|
|
TRUST3
|
0.879
|
|
FAIR1
|
0.904
|
0.783
|
0.902
|
0.822
|
0.786
|
|
FAIR2
|
0.910
|
|
SNO1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
TMO1
|
0.856
|
0.777
|
0.870
|
0.691
|
0.780
|
|
TMO2
|
0.829
|
|
TMO3
|
0.809
|
|
FIN
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
TAX
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Note: Since the loadings for TRUST4, FAIR3, FAIR4, TMO4, TMO5 were lower than 0.708, they
were excluded from the model. Namely, as indicated in Hair et al. (2021), “indicator loadings
above 0.708 are recommended, since they indicate that the construct explains more than 50 percent
of the indicator’s variance, thus providing acceptable indicator reliability.” Additionally,
only POL2 and SNO1 are selected since the constructs’ reliability was not sufficient. Source: Author’s calculations in R.
|
|
REL
|
POL
|
TRUST
|
FAIR
|
SNO
|
FIN
|
TAX
|
TMO
|
|
REL
|
0.912
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POL
|
0.065
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUST
|
0.194
|
-0.004
|
0.885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAIR
|
0.146
|
-0.008
|
0.566
|
0.907
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNO
|
0.006
|
0.084
|
-0.029
|
-0.001
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
FIN
|
-0.087
|
-0.053
|
-0.101
|
0.005
|
0.013
|
1
|
|
|
|
TAX
|
-0.035
|
-0.014
|
-0.058
|
0.031
|
-0.046
|
0.568
|
1
|
|
|
TMO
|
0.120
|
-0.115
|
0.192
|
0.117
|
-0.424
|
-0.067
|
0.030
|
0.831
|
|
|
REL
|
POL
|
TRUST
|
FAIR
|
SNO
|
FIN
|
TAX
|
TMO
|
|
REL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POL
|
0.069
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUST
|
0.215
|
0.020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAIR
|
0.165
|
0.010
|
0.689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNO
|
0.020
|
0.084
|
0.032
|
0.022
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIN
|
0.089
|
0.053
|
0.108
|
0.052
|
0.013
|
|
|
|
|
TAX
|
0.045
|
0.014
|
0.063
|
0.041
|
0.046
|
0.567
|
|
|
|
TMO
|
0.136
|
0.133
|
0.233
|
0.152
|
0.481
|
0.086
|
0.035
|
|
Source: Author’s calculations in R.
|
TMO
|
Path coefficient
|
t-statistics
|
Effect size
|
VIF
|
|
REL
|
0.092**
|
2.939
|
0.011
|
1.051
|
|
POL
|
-0.089**
|
-2.610
|
0.010
|
1.015
|
|
TRUST
|
0.148***
|
3.980
|
0.019
|
1.552
|
|
FAIR
|
0.017
|
0.447
|
0.001
|
1.486
|
|
SNO
|
-0.409***
|
-11.966
|
0.214
|
1.013
|
|
FIN
|
-0.082*
|
-2.210
|
0.004
|
1.504
|
|
TAX
|
0.068*
|
1.707
|
0.001
|
1.487
|
Note: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Source: Author’s calculations in R.
Note: Using bootstrapping with 1,000 subsamples. Source: Author’s calculations in R.
|
|
n
|
REL
|
POL
|
TRUST
|
FAIR
|
SNO
|
FIN
|
TAX
|
|
Gender
|
|
Male
|
242
|
0.074
|
-0.088
|
0.111
|
0.062
|
-0.403
|
-0.004
|
0.091
|
|
Female
|
528
|
0.107
|
-0.088
|
0.165
|
-0.007
|
-0.402
|
-0.131
|
0.067
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
High
|
145
|
0.051
|
-0.025
|
0.241
|
-0.093
|
-0.482
|
-0.200
|
0.116
|
|
Low
|
625
|
0.105
|
-0.101
|
0.130
|
0.034
|
-0.388
|
-0.061
|
0.064
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age (>=23)
|
|
Older
|
217
|
0.083
|
-0.036
|
0.133
|
0.119
|
-0.504
|
-0.105
|
0.100
|
|
Younger
|
553
|
0.105
|
-0.121
|
0.157
|
-0.022
|
-0.362
|
-0.073
|
0.035
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
|
Place of birth
|
|
Bigger town
|
323
|
0.135
|
-0.084
|
0.091
|
0.021
|
-0.308
|
-0.133
|
0.043
|
|
Municipality or smaller town
|
447
|
0.071
|
-0.081
|
0.175
|
0.027
|
-0.483
|
-0.049
|
0.078
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
Dalmatia
|
473
|
0.112
|
-0.092
|
0.184
|
0.031
|
-0.377
|
-0.055
|
-0.008
|
|
Other
|
297
|
0.087
|
-0.084
|
0.085
|
0.011
|
-0.446
|
-0.112
|
0.164
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
Zagreb and north Croatia
|
69
|
-0.064
|
0.177
|
0.335
|
0.027
|
-0.434
|
-0.067
|
0.301
|
|
Other
|
701
|
0.091
|
-0.111
|
0.165
|
-0.002
|
-0.403
|
-0.084
|
0.044
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
Do you support the current Croatian
government?
|
|
Yes
|
95
|
0.119
|
-0.164
|
0.267
|
0.051
|
-0.212
|
-0.056
|
0.129
|
|
No
|
675
|
0.095
|
-0.074
|
0.122
|
0.013
|
-0.436
|
-0.081
|
0.055
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
What is your political orientation?
|
|
Right
|
209
|
0.083
|
-0.127
|
0.151
|
0.042
|
-0.449
|
-0.144
|
0.046
|
|
Left and centre
|
561
|
0.103
|
-0.071
|
0.141
|
0.002
|
-0.386
|
-0.047
|
0.078
|
|
Significance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Source: Author’s calculations in R.
Table 1Demographic information DISPLAY Table
Table 2Multi-items and single-items in the model DISPLAY Table
Table 3Validity and reliability analysis of the model DISPLAY Table
Table 4Fornell-Larcker criterion DISPLAY Table
Table 5HTMT criterion DISPLAY Table
Table 6Bootstrapped structural paths DISPLAY Table
Figure 1Bootstrapped PLS-SEM model DISPLAY Figure
Table 7PLS multigroup (MGA) analysis DISPLAY Table
* The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
|
|
December, 2025
IV/2025
|
