G OVERNMENTS organize police forces and armies to protect their citizens, build schools and hospitals to educate and care for them, and provide financial assistance for the old and unemployed. But governments also kill, torture, and imprison their citizens. This dark side of government knows no geographic, economic, ideological, or political boundary. In the Middle East, for example, Iraq has morbidly placed a "welcome" doormat at the entrance to its torture chamber-a place where prisoners are burned with cigarettes and electric hot plates, where electric shocks are administered to them, and where they are hanged from the ceiling. In Central America, the government of Guatemala tolerates the torture and killing of three church workers who were assisting refugees. In Africa, the Cameroons allows eight prisoners to die of malnutrition; South Africa, through its policy of apartheid, systematically violates the rights of its non white citizens. In Asia, Burmese army units operating in Karen state use local civilians as minesweepers. In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union confines dissenters to psychiatric hospitals. In. Western Europe, the residents of Northern Ireland are subjected to trials that fail to conform to international standards, and civilians are shot by the security forces. 1 The list goes on. Unfortunately, this type of governmental behavior is-even in the late 20th century-a dismal characteristic of contemporary politics. Most of the world's countries hold some "prisoners of conscience" or detain po-* The order of the authors' names was randomly selected to reflect equal contributions to the research effort. An earlier version of this research was presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. We would like to thank Professors Hank Jenkins-Smith and Philip Roeder of the University of New Mexico and Professor Ken Koehler of Iowa State University for their helpful comments and suggestions on this research. Thanks are also due to the Faculty Leave Program at Iowa State for supporting a portion of this research. ' These illustrations are taken from Amnesty International Report 1985, describing human rights conditions in 1984.

This paper examines two perspectives on the nature of congressional-executive relations in the making of American foreign policy: the bipartisan perspective, which says that politics stops at the water's edge, and the political perspective, which sees foreign policy as subject to the same partisan and ideological disputes that characterize domestic policy-making. The results demonstrate that the bipartisan perspective applies best to the Cold War years, and that the political perspective applies throughout the postwar era. The Vietnam War, hypothesized to have been a major catalyst in the breakdown of a bipartisan approach to foreign policy, cannot be shown to have produced a major watershed in the postwar record. We need a new engagement . . . between the Executive and the Congress. . . . There's grown a certain divisiveness . . . And our great parties have too often been far apart and untrusting of each other. It's been this way since Vietnam. That war cleaves us still . . . A new breeze is blowing-and the old bipartisanship must be made new again.

Only in last decade or two have political scientists begun sys tematic, cross-national research on government violations of human rights. The primary research focus has been the rights associ ated with the "integrity of the person." At least two factors account for this relatively recent attention: the interest of President Jimmy Carter and Congress in setting human rights as a goal of American foreign policy and the publication of country-bycountry accounts of human rights performance by the U.S. Department of State, Amnesty Inter national, and Freedom House. As the issue rose on the political agenda and as data sources for large cross-national analyses became available, scholarly interest quickly developed.1 In this sense, human rights re search has been driven as much by policy priorities and data availability as by theory.

No abstract

States that current pricing strategies used in the service industries are often too simplistic and ineffective in the face of complex environmental conditions. Introduces the Pricing Differentiation Premium Model, which includes in the firm′s pricing strategy its ability to differentiate itself from competitors. Discusses possible strategies for influencing differentiation premiums which can improve the pricing discretion of the service provider.