Runeson, G and Raftery, J (1998) Neo-classical micro-economics as an analytical tool for construction price determination. Journal of Construction Procurement, 4(2), pp. 116-131. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that neo-classical microeconomics is a suitable tool of analysis for the building industry, but that its acceptance requires some change in the way construction economists look at the industry and its output. It examine the history of economics-based discussions of construction price determination by considering the construction economics literature since 1974, and briefly outlines the mainstream economic model of price determination in the context of construction projects. It answers the main arguments which have been advanced against the application of Micro-economic model to construction price determination and demonstrates that this model is not only relevant to construction but also the gains in informative content.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction economics, price determination, tendering, tendering theory |
| Index terms: | history, construction economics, construction project, economic model, price determination, microeconomics, building industry |
| Subjects: | production management, tendering, financial analysis, business development, industry analysis, architectural and construction history, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| 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