Bosnian Peacekeeping and EU Tax Harmony

DOI10.1177/002070200305800208
AuthorMichael J. Butler,Mark A. Boyer
Published date01 June 2003
Date01 June 2003
Subject MatterArticle
MICHAEL
J.
BUTLER
&
MARK
A.
BOYER
Bosnian
peacekeeping
and
EU
tax
harmony
Evolving
policy
frames
and
changing
policy
processes
THE
EVENTS
OF
11
SEPTEMBER
2001
VIVIDLY
ILLUSTRATE
how
an
international
issue
can
leap
to
the
top
of
a
nation's
foreign policy
agen-
da.
Although combating
terrorism
has
long
been
a
focus
for
collabora-
tion
among the
dominant
players
in
the international
system,
it
has
rarely
occupied
the
attention
of
high-level
policy-makers
as
it
has
since
the terrorist
attacks
on
the
World
Trade
Center
and
the
Pentagon.
This
changed
policy
environment
forces
us
to
consider
why
some
issues
(such
as
terrorism)
come
to
the
fore
on
the
foreign
policy
agenda,
whether
dramatically
or
in
a
more
evolutionary
fashion, while
others
(such
as
foreign
aid
programmes)
persist
in
relative
obscurity
and
still
others
(such
as
most
trade
issues)
command
a
significant
but
not
exces-
sive
share
of
the
policy
spodight
over
long
periods
of
time.
If
we accept
the
likely
proposition
that
the
fundamental
characteristics
of
the
issues
themselves
change
very
little
(if
at
all),
we
then
need to
understand
what
causes
the
relative
importance
of
particular
issues
to change,
at
least
for
short
periods
of
time.
Understanding
the
changeability
of
the
international
policy
envi-
ronment
has
several
important
implications
for
both
citizens
and
elites.
Michaelj.
Butler
is
a
doctoral
candidate
in
the
Department
of
Political
Science
at
the
University
of
Connecticut
anda
Simulation
Coordinator
frr
the
GlobalEd
Project.
Mark
A.
Boyer
is
a
Professor
in
the
Department
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Connecticut,
where
he
is
Co-Director
of
the
GlobalEdProject
(www.globaled.uconn.edu).
The
authors
would
like
to
thank
Ernie Zirakzadeh
for
inspiring
the conceptual
underpinnings
for
this
article.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Spring
2003
Michael
J.
Butler
&
Mark
A.
Boyer
For
the
former, changing
policy
priorities means
that
it
is
more
difficult
to
stay
informed
on
the
nuances
of
particular
issues.
Citizens
making
elec-
toral
and
other
political
decisions
must
synthesize
new
and
necessary
infor-
mation
as
it
becomes
available.
If
we
believe,
as
*some
in the
public
opinion
field
do,
1
that
citizens
are
not
particularly attentive
to
foreign
policy
and
international
relations,
the
changing
policy
environment
and
the
demands
it
imposes
for
more
information
will
make
the
average
citizen
even
less
inclined
to
worry
about
the world
and
more inclined
to
cede
decision-
making
power
over
complex
and
dynamic
issues
to
political
elites.
The
problems
may
be even
greater
for
elites
as
they
try
to
cope
with
the
need
to learn
about
newly
important
issues
even
as
they
hammer
out
policy
'on
the
fly'
with
incomplete and
sometimes
inaccurate
information about
emergent
international
challenges.
Even
a
layman's
eye
could
discern
the
scramble
that
took
place
in
official
Washington
in
the
wake
of
11
September
to
find
experts
on
the
new
buzzwords
of
the
day:
Osama bin
Laden,
al-Qaeda,
and
the Taliban.
Policy
chal-
lenges
such
as
these
are
made
more
difficult when
we
factor
in
the
com-
plexity
of
the
foreign
policy
decision-making
process
and
the
need
to
identify and
court international
coalition
members
in an
age
of
increasing
multilateralism
and
interdependence.
Recently,
international
relations scholarship
has
begun
to
show
an
appreciation
for
these
and
other
challenges faced
by
policy-makers.
Works such
as
Robert
Putnam's
study
of
two-level games,
Terrence
Hopmann's
comprehensive
analysis
of
the complexity
of
negotiation,
David Held
and
Anthony
McGrew's
excellent
compilation
examining
the
impact
of
globalization
on domestic
and international
policy
chal-
lenges,
and
even
Paul
Sharp's
article
on
the
centrality
of
studying
diplo-
macy
within
the
international
relations
field have
helped
push
toward
more complex
analyses
of
international and
global
phenomena
and
the
policy-making
process
more
generally.
2
As
a
result
of
studies
such
as
i
On
the
public's attentiveness
to
foreign
policy
issues,
see
Richard
Clark,
Kenneth
Dautrich,
Steven
Kul[,
Shoon Kathleen
Murray,
and
Clay Ramsay,
'Rereading
the
public:
isolationism
and
internationalism revisited,'
International
Studies
Perspectives
i(August
2000),
195-206.
2
Robert
D.
Putnam,
'Diplomacy
and
domestic
politics:
the
logic
of
two-level
games,'
International
Organization
42(summer
1988),
427-6o;
R
Terrence
Hopmann,
The
Negotiation
Process
and
the
Resolution
of
International
Conflicts
(Columbia:
University
of
South
Carolina
Press
1996);
David Held
and
Anthony
McGrew,
eds,
The
Global
Transformations
Reader:
An
Introduction
to the
Globalization
Debate
(Cambridge:
Polity
Press
1999);
and
Paul
Sharp,
'For
diplo-
macy:
representation
and
the study
of
international relations,' International
Studies
Review
1(spring
1999),
33-58.
390
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL Spring
2003

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT