McGraw Hill Financial (United States)

This article challenges both those historians—represented primarily by neo-colonialists and World Systems theorists— who stress economic factors as motivations of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia during the 1950s. Although such analyses provide valuable insights into American foreign policy, neither the desire to secure the markets and raw materials of Southeast Asia for American industry nor the perceived need to preserve a capitalist World System offers an adequate explanation for the American commitment to Southeast Asia. Using the business press and trade journals as primary sources, this article examines the public remarks and activities of the American business community throughout the decade; it concludes that, despite their frequently strong rhetoric, business leaders were generally ambivalent about the proper course of action in Southeast Asia and about the region's importance to American interests. The research presented here suggests that other, non-economic, factors may better explain U.S. policy in that region during the 1950s.

326 pp. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1987, $18.95. DEBORAH M. BASH, CNM, MSN, assistant professor, Graduate Nurse Midwifery Program, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

The International ExecutiveVolume 27, Issue 1 p. 21-21 Books Of Note Countertrade, barter, offsets: new strategies for profit in international trade Dr. Pompiliu Verzariu, Dr. Pompiliu Verzariu Trade Consultant New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984, 208 Pp., $24.95 hardcoverSearch for more papers by this author Dr. Pompiliu Verzariu, Dr. Pompiliu Verzariu Trade Consultant New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984, 208 Pp., $24.95 hardcoverSearch for more papers by this author First published: Winter 1985 https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.5060270108Citations: 4AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume27, Issue1Winter 1985Pages 21-21 RelatedInformation

In recent years there has been growing interest in differing state roles in the regulation of the health care industry. Most of this attention has stressed the impact of regulatory policy with only superficial attention directed towards understanding the extent to which states can be counted on to act effectively in the area of health care regulation. Using the regulation of nursing homes as a focus, this study evaluates a variety of sociocultural, political, and economic conditions for their impact on the development of various regulatory policies. The findings suggest that the development of certificate of need legislation and reimbursement controls were not related to significant changes ir, states' budgets for Medicaid services or in bed/population ratios. Instead, regulatory efforts were more closely linked to the sociopolitical environments surrounding the policy arena. While these factors provide some indication of the potential for strong state action in the regulatory arena, ultimately the use of state regulatory policies will depend quite centrally on the innovative tendencies of the state, its organizational capacity for addressing policy issues, and the nature and extent of interest group politics.

Theory and research related to Norman Feather's Structural Balance Model of communicative effects are reviewed and extensions of the model to research on persuasive speech communication are outlined. The authors argue that the simplicity and formal character of Feather's model render it highly attractive.