Tse, R Y C and Webb, J R (2000) The relationship between GDP and construction flows: A re-examination. Journal of Construction Research, 1(1), pp. 61-68. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
This study re-examines the idea that construction flows and gross domestic product (GDP) are linked in a stock-flow model. Keynesians argue that increases in construction activity lead to a positive change of income. If GDP rises, so will the level of construction activity needed to meet the expanded production capacity. However, in the longer term, higher construction flows will increase the GDP by adding to the nation's capital stock. The authors attempt empirically to establish whether a causal link between construction flows and GDP exists for two developed market economies based on co-integration and Granger-causality tests. The econometric analysis suggests that GDP will predict construction flows while not being predicted by construction flows in the short term. However, in the longer term, higher construction flows are likely to increase the GDP by adding to the nation's capital stock.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction flows; GDP; co-integration; causality; impulse response |
| Index terms: | income, econometric, construction activity, capital stock, gross domestic product, integration |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, organizational analysis, construction operations |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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