THE BAR has been raised — substantially.

On its inaugural foray into public policy, and even its follow-up, it was easy for the Palmetto Institute to claim victory. After the group’s first two studies that promoted the nourishment of a knowledge-based economy in order to raise South Carolina’s bottom-tier per capita income, the governor formed a committee, and the group declared victory.

That’s a slight oversimplification. As the institute’s board chairman, Darla Moore, and executive director Jim Fields note, the state’s economic development conversation clearly has changed since those studies came out. And we have even seen some concrete changes in the approach the Commerce Department takes to economic development and recruitment, although it’s less clear that the Palmetto Institute can claim credit for that. But the main evidence the group’s leaders point to as success is the fact that the committee got formed.

That does sound impressive — if you’re unfamiliar with South Carolina politics. Forming a committee is the favorite way Palmetto politicians have always had of putting off people without admitting they’re putting them off: We’ll form a committee to study the issue and make recommendations on how to proceed. Mile-high stacks of dust-gathering reports give testament to the seriousness with which lawmakers take those reports.

There are exceptions, of course, most recently the PASS Commission, whose work paved the way for and was essential to passage and continued support of the Education Accountability Act and its progeny, the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test. We can certainly hope that the institute-inspired Competitiveness Council will be another exception, because its goals are unquestionably worthwhile.

But with the Palmetto Institute’s latest initiative, there will be no debating whether the “results” are a success or a failure. With this effort, simply getting the political class to talk differently about tax policy will not a success make; I would argue that the efforts of this editorial board have already resulted in that — and we certainly aren’t claiming to have succeeded at anything, since the talk has not been accompanied by even a hint of actual action.

Nor will the group be able to claim success if it manages to convince the government to form another study committee. Lord knows about the only issue that’s been studied more in our state than the disjointed tax system is the dysfunctional governmental structure.

No, the test for success in this venture will be a bright line: the overhaul of the state and local tax code.

Accomplishing that would be a major task anywhere. Here, it is monumental.

The General Assembly is, by design, an institution where systemic change is difficult. And there are few things the Legislature is more reluctant to tackle than actual tax reform, as opposed to tax cuts, which is what most people mean when they talk of reform. That’s because tax reform inevitably means that somebody’s taxes get raised. Perhaps other taxes will be lowered by an equal, or even greater, amount; but somebody pays more. And nearly everyone who examines the tax system in South Carolina agrees that we have too many special loopholes and exemptions, which have been granted to the groups with the most political clout. Try to take those away, and you get bombarded by the special interests that make your life miserable, and might even manage to kick you out of office.

The key to overcoming that is for the high-profile business and civic leaders who populate the Palmetto Institute to get personally involved in pushing for change, as their predecessors on the PASS Commission did in their fight for the education accountability movement. People such as Ms. Moore — who is well aware that her star power derives from her ability to write obscenely large checks — command legislative attention when they seek it. When their initiatives fail, it’s usually because they assume that putting their name on a list is sufficient, and leave the evangelizing to the hired help.

Ms. Moore and Mr. Fields are encouraged by the fact that they have already seen business leaders, and even legislators, seeking out the Palmetto Institute’s recommendations.

“More and more groups are saying, ‘We’re doing good things but not getting any traction,’” Mr. Fields said during a recent visit with our board to promote the upcoming tax study. “‘We need a voice, and we need the Palmetto Institute to help us.’”

To explain why he is so confident that his group’s research will be different from all the tax studies that have come before it, Mr. Fields recalls the report that was written a few years ago by Clemson’s Holley Ulbrich, who will be among the principle researchers on the Palmetto Institute study. Dr. Ulbrich’s report made it clear to anyone who bothered to read it that the tax system had to be overhauled, or else the state would face precisely the type of fiscal crisis that has engulfed it for the past four years.

“The Legislature said ‘Go away,’ and she was an academic, so she went away,” Mr. Fields said. “The business community won’t go away.”

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.