Best, R (2010) Using purchasing power parity to assess construction productivity. Construction Economics and Building, 10(4), pp. 1-10. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
For many reasons comparing construction productivity between countries is a difficult task. One key problem is that of converting construction costs to a common currency. This problem can be overcome relatively simply by using a basket of construction materials and labour, termed a BLOC (Basket of Locally Obtained Commodities), as a unit of construction cost. Average BLOC costs in each location are calculated from data obtained from a number of sources (quantity surveyors, estimators). Typical building costs obtained from published construction cost data are expressed in BLOC equivalents. Lower BLOC equivalents represent higher productivity as other inputs (largely materials) are constant. The method provides a relatively simple and direct method for comparing productivity between different locations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | international construction; construction productivity; industry comparisons; purchasing power parity |
| Index terms: | quantity surveying, construction material, estimator, international construction, construction productivity, productivity, purchasing, construction cost |
| Subjects: | strategic management, profession, management, procurement strategy, financial and cost management, operations management, building materials |
| Topics: | International Construction, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here