This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 08 October 2014, At: 08:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and EconomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Establishing construction economics as an academicdisciplineGeorge Ofori aa Construction Economics Research Unit , National University of Singapore , 10 Kent RidgeCrescent, 0511 , SingaporeSchool of Building and Estate ManagementPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: George Ofori (1994) Establishing construction economics as an academic discipline, ConstructionManagement and Economics, 12:4, 295-306, DOI: 10.1080/01446199400000039

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446199400000039

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Construction Management and Economics (1994) 12,295-306

Establishing construction economics as an academic discipline

GEORGE OFORI

Construction Economics Research Unit, School of Building and Estate Management, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 051 1

Received 26 March 1993; revised 11 October 1993

Despite the importance of construction in national economies and in socio-economic development, construction economics, as a field of study, is still fledgling. Its foundations are weak and there is confusion about many of its concepts and terms. Worse, there are indications that unless a conscious effort is made to advance the field further, progress will be slow. This paper considers the present state of construction economics and its causes and effects. It considers whether construction economics is a distinct academic discipline. It is observed that construction economics lacks a conceptual structure, a key attribute of a discipline. Main areas where further study is required are highlighted. It is suggested that the development of construction economics should be managed if the field is to be advanced further.

Keywords : Academic discipline, conceptual structure, research, education, competence, economic theory.

Introduction

Importance

Construction economics~aims to improve the efficiency of an industry which contributes over half of the capital formation of every country. The industry is a key player in economic growth and development (Turin, 1973; Hillebrandt, 1985; Wells, 1986; Ofori, 1990). Construc- tion economics is an important academic field. Indi- vidual projects are increasing in size, cost and complex- ity, a greater variety of materials and components is available and clients and users are aware of quality (Seeley, 1983; Johnson, 1990; Ferry and Brandon, 1991). These make analysis of their economic aspects essential.

State of knowledge and reasons

Many writers have lamented the dearth of studies on the economic aspects of construction. Kafandaris (1980) observed 'there is no theory of building growth, as there is no theory of the building firm (or the building process). There are evidently some preliminary hypo- theses, but they cannot possibly be elevated to an overall theory; and motivation for such research is low' (p. 305). Bon (1990) observed that despite construction's import-

ance, 'Among the economic sectors, it is least studied and understood. Regrettably, it is very likely that this situation will continue . . .' (p. 22). The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) (1988) attributes this phenomenon to economists' lack of interest in construction, which Rainbird and Syben (1991) blame on the industry's image as a traditional and techno- logically backward industry. The failure of adminis- trators to recognize the importance of construction, exemplified by the low level of funding of research on it (Brandon, 1983), also contributes to the poor know- ledge. Drake and Hartman (l99 1) suggest that European governments take construction for granted because of its geographical dispersal and its inability to deliver votes.

The existing knowledge is not of a high quality, hence, the basis for further research and conceptualization is weak. Turin (1975) observed that owing mainly to the variety of interests of the participants in the construc- tion process, construction practices 'lend themselves to easy generalization and mythical half-truths which, under the cloak o f . . . common sense, disguise serious and sometimes fundamental misconceptions' (p. xi). Finally, Brandon (1983) remarked that the lack of research on building costs means that studies under- taken are not scrutinized by other researchers but by practitioners who are biased towards the status quo.

0144-6193 0 1994 E. L? F.N. Spon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

O f o r i

Purpose and structure of paper Table 1 Construction economics as a discipline: a preliminary cvaluation

There are several books on construction or building economics. It is a subject in most construction-related under- and postgraduate courses. Indeed, there are degree courses in it. There are also departments or parts of departments within universities, and professorships, in construction or building economics. But is construc- tion economics a recognized academic discipline?

This paper explores whether a field of knowledge for construction economics exists. I t discusses essential elements of a discipline and uses these to assess construction economics. It then suggests action to ensure further development of the field by considering how progress is achieved in other disciplines.

Tit le

There is confusion about the name of the field of study.

Attribute Features of construction economics P ~P P-p

Community Disparate, comprising quantity surveyors, cost engineers and construction industry economics rcscarchers. Distinguishing feature is degree or professional qualification in quantity surveying, building or construction economics or in general economics with interest in contruction. National professional institutions prescribe entry requirements and maintain standards. Statutory registration is required in some countries. Some regional umbrella organizations such as European Committee of Construction Economists and global ones such as CIB W-55.

Of the two commonly used titles, building economics Network of Academic and professional journals and

and construction economics, the latter embraces the communication magazines such as Construcrio,z former, covering also civil engineering and other forms Managenlent and Ecorzonlics, The Building of construction. In this paper, the wider term construc- Econornisr, Cost Engineer, Chartered tion economics is used. 'Building economics' is utilized Quan t i t~ j Surveyor. Local, regional and only where i t had been used by au thors whose work is global conferences, information networks under discussion. and ad hoc research collaboration among

academics in various countries.

Construction economics as a body of knowledge

This section considers whether construction economics is a bona jide academic discipline. I t then discusses

Set of valucs Possibility of alternatives to solution of and beliefs construction problems to obtain value for

clients' money. Belief in pre-eminence of cost-value among project considerations and importance of construction in economy and in socio-economic development.

whether it is a branch of general economics and assesses Domain Application of principles of economics to

the link between construction economics and estab- construction projects, enterprises and lished branches of economics. industry - a n important area given the role

Elements of a discipline

King and Brownell (1966) suggest that an academic discipline should have a community, a network of communication, a tradition, a particular set of values and beliefs, a domain, a mode of enquiry and a conceptual structure. Becher (1989) recommends simi- lar criteria. Geiger (1986) observed that these features of a discipline develop over time and influence progress in the discipline. The growth and specialization of know-

of construction in national economies. With fluidity in organization of construction process, domain encroached upon by other construction and non-construction practitioners.

Mode of Similar to the social scienccs - embracing enquiry both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Proof of technique in practice.

Conceptual Relatively undeveloped, not well defined. structure Main subject of this paper.

ledge led to the creation of bodies of increasingly esoteric doctrines over which academic disciplines claimed sovereignty. The social organization of the construction management has some of the character- membership through associations, meetings and jour- istics of a discipline' (p. 6). Table 1 presents a prelimin- nals formed community structures of authority and ary assessment of construction economics with King and legitimacy. Brownell's (1966) criteria. I t is clear that it has a

Betts and Lansley (1993) evaluate construction community, a set of valucs and a domain, although there management and economics with Becher's (1989) attri- are some reservations in each case. A more detailed butes, tending to concentrate on management and evaluation is undertaken in the rest of the paper. conclude 'there is some evidence to suggest that The literature suggest that disciplines grow over time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Construction economics as an academic discipline

Developments in general economics are illustrative. Buchanan (1979) and Bhagwati (1992) consider eco- nomics as having changed considerably since its emer- gence about a century ago from political economy, which, in turn, sprang, in a classical form, from an earlier moral philosophy and to have experienced substantial 'spill-ins' from and 'spill-outs' to its neigh- bours. For example, quantitative methods became acceptable in economics only about a generation ago. But many authors, including some of its early advocates and exponents, believe that it now unduly dominates the discipline (Buchanan, 1979; Baumol, 1992; Friedman, 1992). While Stiglitz (1992) observes that economics has come of age, developing powerful tools to analyse data, make forecasts, test alternative hypotheses, articulate theories and prove basic theorems characterizing the economy, he notes that it has notable failures including the inability to eradicate poverty. Buchanan (1979) urges economists to stop concentrating attention on allocation and to focus on 'the institutions, the relation- ships, among individuals, as they participate in volun- tarily organized activity, in trade or exchange' (p. 36). Hahn (1992) suggests that existing economic procedures cannot answer the crucial questions of the future: 'Instead of theorems we shall need simulations, instead of simple transparent axioms there looms the likelihood of psychological, sociological and historical postulates' (p. 47). Wiseman (1992) observes that economics needs a new paradigm: the subject is diversifying, but the theoretical coherence required of an alternative para- digm still lies in the future (p. 150).

Boundaries between disciplines and relationships among them are ill defined and continually changing (Wagner et al., 1991). Moreover, disciplines comprise specialisms, some of which share common features, a journal, a mode of enquiry and so on (Buchanan, 1979). Often, some specialisms are so large that they should, in turn, be subdivided. Buchanan (1966) viewed eco- nomics as undergoing two apparently contradicting trends: the independence of the field from its neigh- bouring disciplines seemed to be breaking down, while 'specialization among the subdisciplines, within eco- nomics, is increasing apace' (p. 167).

Construction economics as a branch of general economics

Becher (1989) proposes some measures of how an area can be considered to have developed sufficiently to be considered distinctly separate from its parent discipline: '. . . the extent to which leading academic institutions recognise the hiving off in terms of their organisation structure and . . . the degree to which a free-standing international community has emerged, with its own professional associations and specialist journals' (p. 19).

Becher (1989) suggests that international currency is important, as are a sharply defined set of notions of academic credibility, intellectual substance and appro- priateness of subject matter. Does construction eco- nomics satisfy these yardsticks to make it a distinct branch of general economics?

From the comments in Table 1, it would appear that construction economics has most of the necessary attributes of a separate subdiscipline. Its subject matter is undoubtedly appropriate. A further useful criterion would be whether it has academic credibility, i.e. whether other economists recognize its existence and consider it as separate. Hillebrandt (1985, p. 3) and Ashworth (1988, p. l ) describe construction economics as 'a branch of general economics'. However, Bon (1989) observes that the economics profession does not recog- nize 'building economics' as a field in its own right. Moreover, this journal, arguably the leading one for the field, is not included in the Science Citation Index or the Social Science Citation Index.

A search of basic economics textbooks (e.g. McCon- nell, 1978; Samuelson and Norhaus, 1985; Case and Fair, 1992) did not reveal any references to construction economics as a branch. Among the l1 key areas of economics outlined by Case and Fair (1992), construc- tion appears to be included in industrial organization which studies 'the structure and performance of indus- tries and firms' (p. 14). The study of economic aspects of construction would also be related to other established branches such as urban and regional economics (Case and Fair, 1992, p. 14).

Kafandaris (1980) cites many eminent general eco- nomists, dating back many centuries, who discussed aspects of the economics of construction such as building cycles, using construction spending to effect economic stability and recovery, and the relationship between building activity and economic development. Hillebrandt (1985) observes that general economists have studied the construction industry and the con- struction firm but have not studied project-related areas because of historical reasons, the complex technological constraints, the large number of variables and the importance of aesthetics.

Bon (1989) rightly suggests that: 'Without a clear link to economic theory, building economics will neither develop beyond a narrow domain of project evaluation . . . nor gain recognition as a field of economics proper' (p. xiii). The links between construction economics and general economics are not strong. Bowen (1993) sug- gests that the term economics of building (see below) applied to the project-related aspects of construction economics 'is somewhat of a misnomer in that the use of economic theory [in that segment of "building eco- nomics"] is limited to say the least' (p. 4). In a bibliometric study of this journal, Betts and Lansley

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ofori

(1993) found very few references by authors to journals on general economics.

T o gain legitimacy and to attract the best minds and research funding and thereby, further develop, it is necessary for construction economics to be established as a distinct discipline and as a branch of general economics. The rest of the paper considers the attributcs of construction economics as an academic discipline.

Domain

Genesis

Construction economics is a relatively new field of study. Bon (1989) opines that 'building economics' emerged 'as a distinct field' in the mid-1970s, following the energy crisis. However, going by Bon's (1989) definition (see below), 'building economics' would be much older than he suggests, dating perhaps to the application of cost planning in the UK in the late 1950s or even the much earlier use of Bills of Quantities. Drake and Hartman (1991) suggest that construction eco- nomics originated from quantity surveying and, as exemplified by the title of the journal of their Australian institute (The Building Economist), quantity surveyors see themselves as practitioners of 'building economics'.

What is construction economics?

Perhaps the most basic feature of a discipline is a clear idea among its practitioners and researchers about what it entails, its aims and its boundaries. In this section, adopting a chronological approach, definitions of con- struction economics offered by various writers arc considered.

Drewer (1978) suggests that Turin was perhaps the first to attempt to impose scientific order on a 'pre- Newtonian' situation. Turin (1975) remarked that '. . . if economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, it follows that building economics should be concerned with scarce building resources' (p. ix). Stone (1976) observes that 'building economics' embraces 'those aspects of design and production, and the related problems of organisation which affect the costs of a building' (p. xi), including forms of construc- tion, methods of production, organization of the industry and the impact of new methods, materials and forms of organization and contractual relationships.

Rakhra and Wilson (1982) distinguish between 'building economics' and 'economics of building'. They suggest: 'Building economics takcs an aggregate view of the building sub-section of the construction sector' (p. 51), embracing levels of building activity, the industry's contribution to the economy, impact of

changes in government's policies and thc nature, structure and organization of thc industry. 'Economics of building' was an 'examination at the specific project level of the resource transformation that is known as building' (p. 51), embracing cost-benefit consequences of design alternatives and choice of building compon- ents, life-cycle costing, effect of various combinations of labour and plant on site productivity and analysis of project resource requirements. Few writers refer to or adopt Rakhra and Wilson's (1982) distinction, notable exceptions being Bowen and Edwards (1985), Ofori (1990) and Rowen (1993).

Seeley (1983) opted for a very narrow definition, remarking that '. . . building economics has been widely used . . . to describe the investigation of factors influenc- ing building cost, with particular reference to the interaction of building design variables' (p. v). Ahuja and Walsh (1983) define cost engineering, which may be considered a form of construction economics, as '. . . an active approach in the design, construction and commis- sioning phases of a project, aimed at extracting the best possible value for money throughout each activity that has cost implications' (p. ix).

Hillebrandt (1985) adopted a broad perspective, defining construction economics as 'the application of the techniques and expertise of economics to the study of the construction firm, the construction process and the construction industry' (p. 1). Similarly, this journal defincs construction economics as including design economics, cost planning, estimating and cost control, the economic functioning of firms within the construc- tion sector and the relationship of the sector to national and international cconomies. Ashworth (1988) con- sidcrs construction economics as embracing clients' requircments, impact of a development on its surround- ing areas, relationship between space and shape, assess- ment of capital costs, cost control, life-cycle costing and economics of the industry in general.

Bon (1989), whose book was 'to offer a first step toward a theoretical framework for building economics' (p. xiii), suggests that 'building economics is about economizing the use of scarce resources throughout the life cycle of a building . . .' (p. xiii) and concerns the 'application of standard investment decision criteria to buildings as a special class of capital assets' (p. xiii). Johnson (1990) adopts a similar definition, suggesting that '. . . knowledge of economics can provide a basis for making difficult trade-offs associated with both design and long-term management of buildings' (p. 9).

Ruegg and Marshal1 (1990) promise to show readers '. . . how to apply the concepts and methods of cco- nomics to decisions about thc location, design, engin- eering, construction, management, operation, rehabili- tation and disposition of buildings' (p. xi). Drake and Hartman's (1991) perspective is similarly project

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Construction economics as an academic discipline

oriented, considering construction economics as being 'concerned with ends and scarce means in the Construc- tion Industry' (p. 1057) and listing the, mainly survey- ing, techniques it embraces. Raftery (1991) suggests that ' building economics' could be said to be primarily about a combination of technical skills, informal optimiza- t ion~, cost accounting, cost control, price forecasting and resource allocation. Finally, Bowen (1993) describes 'economics of building' as focusing 'on the application of quantitative techniques using financial criteria for the provision of financial advice to the design team' (p. 4).

From the above discussion, a common definition of construction economics does not exist. The chrono- logical approach adopted helps to show that the issue has not become any clearer over time. For construction economics to develop into a discipline, a common definition is required to set the framework for issues to be considered and methodological approaches to be adopted. The definition should relate to the economic principles of scarcity and choice, refer to what is being studied (projects, practices, organizations and enter- prises and industry) and state the overall aim of the discipline.

Seements

economics and Kelly (1983), as well as Ferry and Brandon (1991) seem to equate 'cost planning' with construction project economics. Male and Kelly (1991) refer to cost management and define it as 'a synthesis of traditional quantity surveying skills . . . with structured cost reduction/cost substitution procedures using the generation of ideas by brainstorming . . . in a multi- disciplinary team' (p. 25). Finally, Kelly and Male (1993) have combined cost management, which empha- sizes cost reduction at the design stage, with value management, which focuses on clients' needs prior to design, to obtain the 'comprehensive service' of project economics, which '. . . seeks to control time, cost, and quality during design and construction within the context of project functionality' (Marshall, 1993, p. 170).

It is necessary to delineate, agree upon and continu- ously research into and improve its segments and construction economics should be developed as an integrated whole.

Conceptual structure

Cole (1983) distinguishes between the core of a disci- pline, the 'fully evaluated and universally accepted

n

ideas' (p. I l l ) found in all undergraduate textbooks and Two distinct segments of construction economics

the research frontier which includes all on-going emerge from the discussion in the previous section. The

studies, most of which eventually turn out to be of little first relates to construction projects, whereas the second

or no significance. Does construction economics have a concerns the industry. Ofori (1990) terms these 'con-

core of confirmed and accepted concepts? struction project economics' and 'construction industry economics', respectively (these terms are used in the rest of the paper). However, again from the above defini- tions, some writers consider one or the other of the segments to be the entire field of construction economics or building economics. For example, Bon's (1989), Johnson's (1990) and Ruegg and Marshall's (1990) 'building economics' and Drake and Hartman's (1991) 'construction economics' relate only to projects and are similar to Rakhra and Wilson's (1982) 'economics of building' and Ofori's (1990) 'construction project eco- nomics', respectively. However, Stone's (1976) 'build- ing economics' and Hillebrandt's (1985) 'construction economics' incorporate both segments. The present author prefers and adopts the title construction eco- nomics and a perspective encompassing both the project and the industry, as this enables all aspects of the field to be studied.

The project-related segment is basically about tech- niques (such as cost planning, life-cycle costing and value engineering) - Raftery (1991) likens it to 'cost accounting and management'. I t is better known, as it has received greater attention from researchers and in course syllabi (Ofori, 1990). However, even here, there is some confusion. Seeley (1983, p. 1) appears to make 'cost control' synonymous with construction project

Some key terms

Precise and common definitions are indispensable building blocks in any discipline, a key base of its conceptual structure. Authors in construction eco- nomics often find it necessary to define their main terms (e.g. Batten, 1990; Ive, 1990). Bowen and Edwards (1985) and Bowen (1993) define such basic terms as estimating, forecasting, cost and price. Some construc- tion economics terms, each of which has a clear definition in general economics, are considered in this section.

The industry

There is, as yet, no accepted definition of the construc- tion industry (Ofori, 1990). Some writers consider it as involving only site activity, others include the planning and design functions and yet others extend it to cover the manufacturing and supply of materials and components, finance of projects or management of existing construc- tion items (Turin, 1975; Hillebrandt, 1985). This leads to difficulties. For example, writers' basic data and inferences often differ, simply because they adopted different definitions of 'construction'.

The construction industry should be defined, con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

O f o r i

sidering the objective of improving its efficiency, recognizing practical administrative difficulties and drawing reasonable boundaries. Thus, i t should embrace planning, design, construction, maintenance and demolition (Ofori, 1990). People and enterprises (and their activities) seem logical objects of the defini- tion.

Writers still argue about whether construction is an 'industry', i.e. a collection of enterprises in a distinctive field of productive activity (with a series of identifiable subindustries) (Hillebrandt, 1985) or a 'sector' compris- ing a number of related but disparate 'industries' (Drewer, 1980; Bon, 1990). For example, Drewer (1980) observed 'The input requirements and the organisation of production of different types of construction project are so varied that it becomes more relevant - for analytical purposes - to consider construction as the outputs of a number of relatively discrete industries. Each "construction industry" can be defined by their similarity of input requirements' (p. 396).

There is also little agreement on thc best way of delineating distinguishable parts of the industry. The 'building' and 'civil engineering' dichotomy is well known. In national accounts statistics, the categoriza- tion (under 'construction and works' in capital forma- tion tables) is into residential building, non-residential building, 'other construction' and repair and maintcn- ance (United Nations, 1968). T o estimate demand for construction, Hillebrandt (1985) suggests a categoriza- tion into housing, industrial and commercial building and social-type construction, whereas to estimate capa- city (Hillebrandt, 1975), she suggests subdivision into housing using traditional methods, housing using in- dustrialized methods, schools and hospitals, office blocks and hotels, industrial building, roads and other civil engineering projects and decorations, repair and maintenance. Analysing construction supply and demand in Nordic countries, Sward (1990) adopts the following unique categorization: welfare sector (public buildings), infrastructural sector, market sector (includ- ing buildings for productive enterprises), housing sector and construction sector (buildings required by the industry itself).

I t is necessary to agree on a single term: 'industrj?' or 'sector' and to identify and study its 'parts', their constraints and the relationships among them. For example, agreement on the key segments of construction would provide a basis for data collection and research, facilitating progress in the field.

The product

While Ofori (1990) discusses the importance of placing it in the appropriate category, there is no agreement on

whether construction is a 'production' or 'service' industry. Channon (1978) included construction among the service industries and Hillebrandt (1985) describes the contractor's activity, which clearly leads to a physical asset, as a service. However, most writers consider construction as a production activity.

Moreover, no common definition is adopted for the 'product' of the construction industry. Whereas most writers would consider the tangible constructed build- ing or item of infrastructure as the 'product', according to Drewer (1990) 'The construction "product7' can be considered as a set of future services rather than specific buildings or works . . . the "actors" enter into contracts with clients and . . . with each other, to deliver sets of future services, the nature of which are determined by the client and/or his professional advisers' (p. 30).

It may be useful to consider, as the product of the construction industry, what clients get at the end of the activities of construction practitioners. This is usually a physical asset, the quality of which the practitioners are directly responsible for.

The rnarkcz

The 'construction market' is yet to be clearly defined. This is due perhaps to the variety of items (types and sizes), the purposes for which they are demanded, their geographical dispersal, the multiplicity of persons involved in each project and the ways in which enterprises specialize (Hillebrandt, 1985; Ofori, 1990; Raftery, 1991). Hillebrandt (1985) considers the market for construction as '. . . the whole mechanism of the selection of the contractor and the fixing of the price at which the services he has to offer will be provided' (p. 25). However, in analysing the factors influencing demand for housing, she identified several 'separate and overlapping markets for a large range of types of housing' (p. 53). Raftcry (1991) argues that '. . . there is no "market in co~lstruction", however there is a series of rather imperfect "mini-markets" ' (p. 67). Observing that a variety of definitions can be given, encompassing the interdependencies between key factor inputs, the outputs produced by construction firms and users of the output, Batten (1990) defined the 'building market' as '. . . all those agents and activities responsible for the production and maintenance of a nation's stock of built capital' (p. 1). Batten's (1990) definition describes the entire industry, rather than the market.

Ofori (1990) suggests that, while many construction markets can be discerned, considering direct demand for new construction, the market would be one '. . . where vcndors are construction enterpriscs and purchasers are clients of the industry and the commodity is the service required to design and erect a . . . physical facility' (p. 109). Other markets should be analysed and given precise descriptive terms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Construction economics as an academic discipline

Structure

The term 'structure' is often used to refer to the distribution, by size, of firms - the usual meaning in general economics - (Hillebrandt, 1985; Ofori, 1990), trade classification of firms (Hillebrandt, 1984), roles of the participants (Higgin and Jessop, 1975; Stone, 1976) and stages of the process on a typical construction project. Ive (1990) defines the structure of the construc- tion industry as the whole 'national/industrial economic context or environment within which firms operate' (P- 46).

The lack of agreement on the meaning of key words in construction economics which are already precisely defined in general economics indicates the weakness of the link between them. Making construction economics a recognized branch of general economics, would be facilitated if the former retained the definitions of words adopted from the latter. Suitable terms should be coined and appropriate definitions agreed upon, for phenomena peculiar to construction.

Analytical approaches and core concepts

The work of some main authors in construction economics can be studied to ascertain whether a coherent theory for the body of knowledge exists. This section first considers the analytical approaches adopted, then discusses the main aspects of construction economics considered by authors.

Analytical approaches

Construction practitioners generally study construction economics from the viewpoint of the relevant processes and practices (Stone, 1976; Seeley, 1983). General economists writing on construction have adopted different analytical approaches, many of them criticizing others' approaches. These mirror the variety of key approaches in general economic theory itself (McKenzie, 1982). For example, Ball (1988) takes a neo- Marxist path, reiterating that 'the industry can only be adequately understood in terms of the complexity of its social relations, its history and the dominance of large- scale capitalist enterprises' (p. 2). He suggests that persistence with equilibrium analysis might have contri- buted to the lack of progress in the field and criticizes writers who took other analytical approaches. Among other writers, Hillebrandt (1985) adopts a neo-classical approach and Bon (1989) takes the Austrian school path.

Evaluation of the different theoretical approaches is beyond the scope of this paper. An attempt is made in the next subsection to investigate whether some agreed concepts for construction economics exist.

Concepts

Works on construction project economics mainly con-

sider (cost-minimization) techniques although they do not all cover the same topics. The established techniques are applied by practitioners while their limitations are recognized (Seeley, 1983; Flanagan et al., 1989, Ferry and Brandon, 1991). They are being slowly improved over time (Brandon, 1983, 1990; Bowen, 1993).

Writers on construction industry economics have not studied the same detailed issues. Stone (1976) highlights the importance of the organization of the industry to achieve economy, emphasizing factors within and out- side the industry influencing its efficiency. Drewer (1978) developed a 'tentative paradigm' from Turin's research, which concentrates mainly on the nature of the supply system for a given construction project and the method of contractor selection. Hillebrandt (1985) mainly considers unique features of the construction industry and its products and how they determine the structure of the market, profile of demand, price determination by contractors, firms' operational approaches and their development over time.

One of the few areas in construction industry economics where there is consensus is in the role of construction in the economy and in socio-economic development (Turin, 1973; Edmonds, 1979; Drewer, 1980; Wells, 1986; Ofori, 1988). Like Turin (1973), Sebestyen (1980) suggests that construction 'should be a sector of dynamic development, with a growth rate exceeding that of the whole economy' (p. 199). Wells (1986) refers to 'growth-inducing' and 'growth-depend- ent' construction. Strassman (1970) highlighted the 'middle income country bulge'. Bon (1992) used the relationship between construction and socio-economic development to make predictions for future levels of contruction activity.

From the above discussion, unlike general economics or its established branches, textbooks on construction economics do not broadly cover the same ground and explain the same key concepts.

Construction economics compared with other disciplines

The literature suggest that controversies and unsettled areas can be found in all disciplines including the highly codified hard sciences (Bronfenbrenner, 1966; Krupp, 1966; Buchanan, 1979). Indeed, Krupp (1966) believes that theoretical controversy drives further development of disciplines. The disciplines are at different stages of development. Kuhn (1970a) classifies the sciences according to the degree to which they have a developed paradigm or theoretical structures and methodological approaches on which there is a high level of consensus. Zuckerman and Merton (1973) suggest that disciplines may be arranged in a hierarchy in terms of level of development of theory, level of quantification of ideas,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ofori

degree of consensus of theory, methods and significance of problems, ability to use theory to make verifiable predictions, rate of obsolescence of new work and rate of growth of new knowledge. On the basis of this matrix, construction economics would be among the fields at the bottom of the hierarchy.

It may be admitted that as a relatively new field, construction economics should not be expected to possess features of more established areas of knowledge. Indeed, Grunberg (1966) observes that 'economics has . . . not developed an imposing hierarchical structure of theory and its deductive chains are short compared with those of other theoretical systems' (p. 164). However, the lack of consensus on key concepts and definitions in construction economics is worrying. The next section considers whether construction economics has a distinct community.

The community

The community of 'construction economists' is very disparate. Designations, detailed functions and, hencc, the knowledge base of skills of 'construction project economists' differ from one country to another (Drake and Hartman, 1991). In a survey, Miekle (1992) found that of practising 'construction economists' in 10 countries including Australia, Bahrain, Japan, Malta and the USA most respondents described thenlselves as quantity surveyors, cost engineers, construction cost consultants, construction consultants, project managers and/or arbitrators: 'Nowhere was the term construction economist used as an individual's designation' (p. 2). By training, persons performing the role of construction economists are engineers in Finland, architects or engineers in Germany and The Netherlands and technical architects in Spanish- and Portuguese-speak- ing countries. Indeed, even in countries where quantity surveying and cost engineering is strong, other pro- fessionals, from within or outside the industry, are offering construction industry economics services (Lewis, 1993).

Industry-level 'construction economists' (again, sel- dom so designated) may be researchers (both general economists and persons with a construction back- ground) and administrators of the industry. It is doubtful whether 'construction project economists' and 'construction industry economists' would recognize each other as construction economists - Raftery (1991) draws a distinction between the objectives of 'practising economists' and 'building economists' (p. 4).

Clear identification and appropriate designation of the construction economist are important if the commit- ment of such persons to the development of the discipline is to be realized.

Further development of construction economics

The rest of this paper is devoted to a consideration of how the conceptual structure of construction economics can be developed further.

Earlier calls

Adopting a chronological approach once again, calls by various authors for further development of construction economics are discussed. Kafandaris (1980) recom- mends synthesis of construction economics with public finance, cost-benefit analysis and location theory. Hillebrandt (1985) called for more work by general economists in planning, design and site economics. Considering construction's unique characteristics, there was '. . . a need for the development of new theoretical economic analysis, or at least for adaptation of existing theory, to assist in the understanding of the working of the construction process, the construction industry and the construction firm' (p. 9).

Tuckcr ( l 990) highlightcd a critical nced for quantit- ative modelling of the construction industry. Bon (1990) calls for more and better data on construction, descript- ive studies of the 'construction sector' to help generate hypotheses and fundamental research on construction and its role in national and world economics. Csillaghy (1990) suggests that the closely related fields of urban and building economics should be merged to create an 'economy of the built environment'. Raftery (1991) suggests that the framework of 'building economics' should be developed into one, which is about economiz- ing resources in the production and use of the built environment and takes account of subjectivity, risk and uncertainty.

The European Committee of Construction Eco- nomists (CEEC) seeks, among other things, to establish guidelines for the definition, content, control and practice of construction economics (Drake and Hart- man, 1991). The Working Commission on Building Economics of the International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB W-55) also seeks to collect, evaluate and disseminate information on efficiency assessment and design optimization methods, promote development of economic databases, study economic aspects of resource management including productivity and conduct international surveys on the building market (CIB, 1991).

Towards progress

In the rest of this paper, necessary courses of action are discussed, considering first how disciplines grow, out- lining some objectives in the development of the field,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Construction economics as a n academic discipline

discussing possible areas for further research to fill gaps in knowledge and ending with implementation.

Growth of a discipline and of construction economics

The process by which a discipline develops has been subject to much study, arguably commencing with Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the so-called 'father of the history of science' (see, for example, Fletcher, 1971). Popper (1963) and Kuhn (1977) are among the foremost recent writers. Moravcsik (1980) observes that so many people from a variety of backgrounds have converged on the study of science, 'that their interests constitute a new discipline, . . . sometimes called the science of science' (p. 82). An objective of these studies is to find ways of further developing and accelerating knowledge in the particular fields.

Both Schumpeter (1955) and Blaug (1962) view progress in any discipline over time as the result of individual 'conscious efforts to improve'. Popper (1963) suggests that scientific knowledge would advance most rapidly through the development of new ideas (conjec- tures) and attempts to falsify them with empirical research (refutations). Kuhn (1970b) observes that both he and Popper '. . . reject the view that science pro- gresses by accretion; both emphasize instead the revolu- tionary process by which an older theory is rejected and replaced by an incompatible new one [mainly because of] the older theory's occasional failure to meet chal- lenges posed by logic, experiment or observation' (p. 2).

Geiger (1986) suggests three ways by which disci- plines develop: knowledge growth, community forma- tion and university sponsorship. The relationship between concepts of a discipline and their application has also been discussed (Reed and Anthony, 1992). How does construction economics grow and what is its relationship with its profession?

Brandon (1983) observes that while it is occasionally speeded up by a research project, progress in construc- tion project economics has been achieved mainly by the refinement of current models through experience (knowledge growth). For many reasons, including the lack of a need for high levels of accuracy in practice and, hence, sophisticated models, many techniques (such as, in most Commonwealth countries outside the UK, cost planning previously and cost modelling currently) remain little used. Thus, breakthroughs normally take place not at the request of industry but as a matter of academics' curiosity. However, Bowen and Edwards (1985) suggest that this 'will be reinforced by the discrepant expectations and achievements of practice' (p. 203).

L\

Objectives

A deliberate and systematic effort to put in place the

building blocks of a discipline of construction eco- nomics is required. First, the domain should be clearly defined. A conceptual structure for the field should then be developed and broad consensus obtained for its components.

Theory construction

A conscious effort to build the foundation of a theory for construction economics is required. The level of aca- demic rigour of each work should be appropriately high if consensus is to be achieved for its results reasonably quickly (Stinchcombe, 1987). Kuhn's (1970a) essential features of a paradigm are instructive. It should represent a radically new conceptualization of phe- nomena, suggest a new methodological procedure for gathering supporting empirical evidence, suggest new problems for solution and explain phenomena which older paradigms could not explain.

The linkage between construction economics and general economics should be improved by adapting and applying theories and techniques of general economics or its recognized branches such as urban economics (for example, marginal analysis or planning balance sheet) in construction economics. The community of construc- tion economists should be strengthened and its national and international networks strengthened.

Industry-level research

The need for progress appears most pressing in the policy-related aspects of construction industry econ- omics. In an environment of unprecedented change (Rekitar, 1990) the former socialist countries confront questions including meeting massive developmental needs, the appropriate share of construction in the economy and how to ensure it, how to channel the industry towards the market, and how to motivate it for efficient and rational performance (Medanic, 1990). In many developing countries, the construction industry should contribute to economic growth and development even as investment in it decreases (Ofori, 1993).

An issue of concern everywhere, with current poign- ancy,--is how the construction industry can develop appropriate responses to extremes in its levels of activity. Circumstances in which government's counter- cyclic investment in construction is useful, its most appropriate timing and the required coordinated series of measures require study. Other key research areas include input-output studies to obtain a more general picture of the role of construction in the economy, development of a set of indicators for assessing the efficiency of the industry over time and formulation of techniques for bench-marking construction industries, to aid cross-country comparisons.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

304

Project-level research

Ofori

Conclusion Construction project economics concentrates on cost, paying little attention to revenue (Brandon, 1990). There should be greater integration of cost with value to enable more realistic trade-offs between the two. Although cost engineering considers contractor-related issues, UK-style construction project economics is largely client oriented. Contractor-related economics should be effectively merged with the existing client- related techniques and tools. Techniques, procedures and so on used in various countries require harmoniza- tion. The best elements of similar or related techniques (such as cost planning and value engineering) should be combined to obtain synergistic hybrids. The attempt by Kelley and Male (1993) is a welcome step in the right direction.

Implementation

Schein (1972) observes that the process of change in the management professions could be allowed to happen through a series of evolutionary and revolutionary steps as the needs of society and professionals intcract : 'Or the process can be planned and managed by the professions . . . themselves' (p. 7). Similarly, the development of construction economics should be managed if it is to proceed in the desirable direction and at a reasonable pace. A global approach is necessary. The task falls to an association of researchers which should set research directions, stimulate, coordinate and fund research and pursue harmonization of terms. I t should also promote cooperation among national and regional professional institutions. I t could introduce an annual international award for achievement in construction economics, based either on published works or an essay competition. While the CIB (W-55) may play this role, it would need to be considerably strengthened.

Greater coverage of construction economics in aca- demic journals is required. For example, this journal, which, in a publicity leaflet, was described as '. . . the only fully international specialist journal in construction economics', should live up to its name. I t is noteworthy that construction did not feature among the subject classifications adopted by Betts and Lansley (1993) in their bibliometric study of this journal. While authors generally determine the contents of their papers, journal editors should, through special theme issues, commis- sioned papers and editorials, encourage authors to attempt to test existing hypotheses and/or assumptions and make direct contributions to the field. Betts and Lansley (1993) cite many authors to suggest that this is done in other fields, where bibliometric analyses have developed: 'recommendations for future editorial poli- cies, publication "gaps" to be filled and specialisms worthy of encouragement' (p. 8).

Construction economics cannot be described as a bona fide academic discipline. I t lacks a clear indication of its main concerns and contents and a coherent theory. It is not recognized as a distinct part of general economics.

T h e lack of a theoretical economic framework for the systematic analysis and structured study of the econ- omics of construction is a cause for concern. Given the present state of affairs, waiting for a discipline of construction economics to emerge is inappropriate. Conscious effort should be made to develop a body of knowledge which meets Hillebrandt's (1984) definition: a branch of general economics consisting of the applica- tion of the techniques and expertise of economics to the study of the construction firm, the construction process and the construction industry. Selection of and agree- ment on a common title for the field of study would be an essential first step.

References

Ahuja, H.N. and Walsh, M.A. (1983) Successful Cost Engin- eering. Wiley, New York.

Ashworth, A. (1988) Cost Studies of Bttildirigs. Longrnan, Harlow.

Ball, M. (1988) Rebuilding Construction. Routledge, London. Batten, D.F. (1990) Built capital, nctworks of infrastructure

and economic development. In Proceedings C I B 90 Joint Syttzposiun~ on Buildirzg Econonzics and Construction Manage- inent, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 1-15.

Baumol, W.J. (1992) Toward a newer cconornics: the future lies ahead! In The Future of Ecolzo~nics, Hey, J .D . (ed.), Blackwcll, Oxford, pp. 1-8.

Becher, T . (1989) Acadernic Tribes and Terrirories : Intellect~ial Enqtiir-v and the C~iltures of Disciplines. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Bctts, M. and Lansley, P. (1993) Co~zstruction Management and Economics : a review of the first ten years. Occasional Paper, National Univcrsity of Singapore and the University of Reading.

Bhagwati, W.J. (1992) Economics beyond the horizon. In The Future o j Economics, Hey, J.D. (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 9-14.

Blaug, M. (1962) Economic Theory in Retrospect. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Bon, R. (1989) Building as an Economic Process: A n Introduc- tion to Building Econovzics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bon, R. (1990) The world building market, 1970-1985. In Proceedings, C I B 90Joint S~~mpos iurn on Building Economics and Corrstrzcction Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 16-47.

Bon, R. (1992) The future of international construction: secular patterns of growth and decline. Habitat Inrer- rlational, 16, 119-28.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Construction economics as an academic discipline

Bowen, P.A. (1993) A communication-based approach to price modelling and price forecasting in the design phase of the traditional building construction process in South Africa, PhD thesis, University of Port Elizabeth.

Bowen, P.A. and Edwards, P.J. (1985) Cost modelling and price forecasting: practice and theory in perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 3, 199-2 15.

Brandon, P.S. (1983) Building cost research: need for a new paradigm? In Building Cost Techniques: New Directions, Brandon, P.S. (ed.), Spon, London, pp. 5-13.

Brandon, P.S. (1990) Quantity surveying techniques: new directions - the challenge and the response. In Quantity Surveying Techniques: New Directions, Brandon, P.S. (ed.), Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 1-20.

Bronfenbrenner, M. (1966) A middlebrow introduction to economic methodology. In The Structure of Economic Science : Essays on Methodology, Krupp, S.R. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 5-24.

Buchanan, J.M. (1966) Economics and its scientific neigh- bours. In The Structure of Econonlic Science: Essays on Methodology, Krupp, S.R. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 166-83.

Buchanan, J.M. (1979) What Should Economists Do? Liberty Press, Indianapolis.

Case, K.E. and Fair, R.C. (1992) Principles of Economics, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Channon, D.F. (1978) The Service Industries. Macmillan, London.

CIB (1991) 1991 Compendium of CIB Working Commissions. CIB Report Publication No. 143, Rotterdam.

Cole, S. (1983) The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 11 1-139.

Construction Industry Development Board (1988) Construc- tion Sector in a Developed Singapore. CIDB, Singapore.

Csillaghy, J. (1990) Building economics and urban growth. In Proceedings CIB 90Joint Symposium on Building Econonzics and Construction Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 343-357.

Drake, B.E. and Hartman, M. (1991) CEEC: The organisation and activities of European construction economists. In Management, Quality and Economics in Building, Bezelga, A. and Brandon, P.S. (eds), Spon, London, pp. 1056-69.

Drewer, S. (1978) In search of a paradigm: notes on the work of D.A. Turin. In Essays in Memory of Dlrccio Turin, Koenigsberger, O.H. and Groak, S. (eds), Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 47-51.

Drewer, S. (1980) Construction and development: a new perspective. Habitat International, 5, 395-428.

Drewer, S. (1990) The international construction system. Habitat International, 14, 29-35.

Edmonds, G.A. (1979) The construction industry in develop- ing countries. International Labour Review, 118, 355-69.

Ferry, D. and Brandon, P.S. (1991) Cost Planningof Buildings. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Flanagan, R., Norman, G., Meadows, J. and Robinson, G. (1989) Life Cycle Costing: Theory and Practice. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Fletcher, R. (1971) The Making of Sociology: A Study of Sociological Theory, Vol. 1 : Beginnings and Foundations. Michael Joseph, London.

Friedman, M. (1992) Old wine in new bottles. In The Future of Economics, Hey, J.D. (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 33-40.

Geiger, R.L. (1986) To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities 1900-1 940. Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford.

Grunberg, E. (1966) The meaning of scope and external boundaries of economics. In The Structure of Economic Science: Essays on Methodology, Krupp, S.R. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 148-65.

Hahn, F. (1992) The next hundred years. In The Future of Economics, Hey, J.D. (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 47-50.

Higgin, G. and Jessop, N. (1975) Communication in the Building Industry. Tavistock Institute, London.

Hillebrandt, P.M. (1975) The capacity of the construction industry. In Aspects of the Economics of Construction, Turin, D.A. (ed.), Goodwin, London, pp. 25-57.

Hillebrandt, P.M. (1984) Analysis of the British Construction Industry. Macmillan, London.

Hillebrandt, P.M. (1985) Economic Theory and the Construc- tion industry, 2nd edn, Macmillan, London.

Ive, G. (1990) Structures and strategies: an approach towards international comparison of industrial structures and cor- porate strategies in the construction industries of advanced capitalist countries. Habitat International, 14, 45-58.

Johnson, R. (1990) The Economics of Building: A Practical Guide for the Design Professional. Wiley, New York.

Kafandaris, S. (1980) The building industry in the context of development. Habitat International, 5, 289-322.

Kelly, J. (1983) Value analysis in early building design. In Building Cost Techniques: New Directions, Brandon, P.S. (ed.), Spon, London, pp. 116-25.

Kelly, J. and Male, S. (1993) Value Management in Design and Construction : The Economic Management of Projects. Spon, London.

King, A.R. and Brownell, J. (1966) The Curriculum and the Discipline of Knowledge. Wiley, New York.

Krupp, S.R. (1966) Types of controversy in economics. In The Structure of Economics: Essays in Methodology, Krupp, S.R. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 39-52.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970a) The Structure of Scieriti'c Revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970b) Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-23.

Kuhn, T.S. (1977) The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lewis, C. (1993) Business needs us: presidential address. Chartered Surveyor Monthly, July/August, 7-1 1.

McConnell, C.R. (1978) Economics: Principles, Problems and Policies, 7th edn. McGraw Hill, New York.

McKenzie, R.B. (1982) The Limits ofEconomic Science : Essays on Methodology. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston.

Male, S. and Kelly, J. (1991) Value management and the economic management of projects. The Building Economist, 29(4), 25-30.

Marshall, H.E. (1993) Value management in design and construction: The economic management of projects. Con- struction Management and Economics, 11, 169-7 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ofori

Medanic, B. (1990) Long-term development planning in construction and related industries in Yugoslavia. In Proceedings C I B 90 Joint Symposium on Building Econornics and Construction Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 189-200.

Miekle, J. (1992) International Trade in Services: Construction Economics/Quantity Surveying. A report prepared for the European Committee of Construction Economists, London.

Moravcsik, M.J. (1980) How to Grow Science. Universe Books, New York.

Ofori, G. (1988) Construction industry and economic growth in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics, 3, 3342 .

Ofori, G. (1990) The Construction Industry: Aspects of its Economics and Management. Singapore University Press, Singapore.

Ofori, G. (1993) Research in construction industry develop- ment at the crossroads. Construction Managenzent and Economics, 11, 175-85.

Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growzh of Scientific Knowledge. Harper and Row, New York.

Raftery, J. (1991) Principles of Building Economics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Rainbird, H. and Syben, G. (1991) Restructuring a Traditiotzal Industry : Construction Ernplo_vmerrt and Skills in Europe. Berg, New York.

Rakhra, A.S. and Wilson A.J. (1982) Building economics and the economics of building. The Building Economist, 21,51-3.

Reed, M. and Anthony, P. (1992) Professionalizing manage- ment and managing professionalization: British manage- ment in the 1980s. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 591-613.

Rekitar, J.A. (1990) Certain macro-economic problems of the construction complex of industrialised countries. In Pro- ceedings C I B 90 Joint Symposium on Building Econornics and Constructiott Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 265-78.

Ruegg, R.T. and Marshall, H.E. (1990) Building Econornics: Theory and Practice. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Samuelson, P.A. and Nordhaus, W.D. (1985) Econonlics, 12th edn. McGraw Hill, New York.

Schein, E.H. (1972) Professional Education: Some New Directions. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa- tion, Berkeley, CA.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1955) History of Econonzic Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sebestyen, G. (1980) Appropriate technology in the construc- tion and building materials industry. In Appropriate Indus- trial Technology for Construction and Building Materials,

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (ed.), Monographs on Appropriate Industrial Technology No. 12. United Nations, New York, pp. 196-208.

Seeley, I.H. (1983) Building Econonlics: Appraisal and Control of Building Design Cost and E'c iency, 3rd edn, Macmillan, London.

Stiglitz, J.E. (1992) Another century of economic science. In The Future ofEcot~onlics, Hey, J.D. (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134-41.

Stinchcombe, A.L. (1987) Constructing Social Theories. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Stone, P.A. (1976) Building Econonlj~: Design, Production and Organization - A S-~noptic View, 2nd edn. Pergamon, Oxford.

Strassman, W.P. (1970) The construction sector in economic dcvelopment. The Scotrish Journal of Political Econonzy, November, 39&410

Sward, K. (1990) The construction sector in four Nordic countries 1966-87: an analysis of supply and demand. In Proceedings C I B 90 Joint Synzposiurn on Building Economics and Construction Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 1, pp. 291-302.

Tucker, S.N. (1990) Report on subject A: the building market. In Proceedings C I B 90 Joint Syn~posiun? on Building Ecotronzics and Consrrucrion Management, Sydney, 14-21 March, 7, pp. 6 1 1.

Turin, D.A. (1966) What do we mean by building? Inaugural lecture delivered at University College London, 14 February.

Turin, D.A. (1973) The Construction Industry: Its Economic Significance and its Role in Development, 2nd edn. University College Environmental Research Group, London.

Turin, D.A. (1975) Introduction. In Aspects of the Economics of Construction, Turin, D.A. (ed.), Godwin, London, pp. viii-xvi.

United Nations (1968) Standard Industrial Classzjication of Econonric Activities. New York, UN.

Wagner, P., Wittrock, B. and Whitley, R. (eds) (1991) Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.

Wells, J. (1986) The Construction Industry in Developing Countries: Alterr~ative Strategies for Development. Croom Helm, London.

Wiseman, J. (1992) The black box. In The Fucure ofEconon~ics, Hey, J.D. (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 47-50.

Zuckerman, H.A. and Merton, K.A. (1973) Age, aging and age structure in science. In The Sociology of Science, Storcr, N. (ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 497-559.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

08:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014