Rojas, E M and Aramvareekul, P (2003) Is construction labor productivity really declining? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(1), pp. 41-46. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Macroeconomics data suggest that labor productivity declined significantly in the construction industry during the 1979-1998 period. However, microeconomic studies indicate the contrary. This paper critically examines the construction labor productivity macroeconomic data in the United States from 1979 to 1998 to determine their validity and reliability. Data collection, distribution, manipulation, analysis, and interpretation are reviewed and problems are identified. The paper also presents a comparison of construction and manufacturing labor productivity during this period. The main conclusion of the study is that the raw data used to calculate construction productivity values at the macroeconomic level and their further manipulation and interpretation present so many problems that the results should be deemed unreliable. The uncertainty generated in the process of computing these values is such that it cannot be determined if labor productivity has actually increased, decreased, or remained constant in the construction industry for the 1979-1998 period.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; productivity |
| Index terms: | computing, United States, labour productivity, construction labour, macroeconomics, construction industry, construction productivity, validity, productivity |
| Subjects: | management, Geography, industry analysis, economic theory, evaluation and assessment methods, computing systems, operations management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Site Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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