Wild, A (2002) "False coherence" and "cohesive fragmentation" in construction's post-war corporatism 1945-70. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
The paper reviews the institutional framework of construction, its practices of corporatist co-ordination and the managerialist re-organization of the Ministry of Public Building and Works (MPBW) until 1970 from government reports and other publications. The interpretation of reports and their contexts are related to the state of construction’s managerialism, which reflects the indeterminacy and instability of construction. The nine reports from 1962 to 1967 imply "a general crisis of construction" partly induced by the emergence of active planning through NEDC. This is reflected in a complex managerial restructuring of MPBW construction’s sponsoring ministry, which sought better co-ordination of the public client. It is argued that public policy was aspirational: hoping that construction would assist economic growth by yielding to the current managerialism and failed to distinguish the roles of government as client, sponsor and economic planner.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-ordination; corporatism; managerialism; ministry; reorganization |
| Index terms: | managerialism, fragmentation, war, planner, coherence, economic growth, public client, public policy, emergence, publication, public building |
| Subjects: | sociology, systems engineering, management, economic development, conflict and crisis studies, public policy, business, construction type, profession, research dissemination and communication, human factors and perception |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| 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