Chang, Y H and Tang, B (2005) Trust, partnership and power in construction: Theory and applications in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Procurement, 11(2), pp. 94-111.
Abstract
Partnering has been widely promoted by many governments as an appropriate arrangement to nurture and improve working relationships between developers and building contractors. Like many of its overseas counterparts, the Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC) of Hong Kong advocates partnering to promote inter-organizational cooperation. However, successful implementation of this policy proposal requires further consideration of the following issues: the acute imbalance of bargaining power between developers and builders, the constraints posed by public accountability and contract law, and the cultivation of trust. Adopting Nooteboom's theoretical model and drawing evidence from the local property and construction industry, we argue that contractors, expecting repeat business, will cooperate. Trust, though highly desirable, is not a necessary condition for fostering cooperation. Besides, trust has to be cultivated and habitualized to be an effective non-egotistic source of cooperation. Yet, legal ordering could restrict habitualization of trust, especially in cases involving government agencies bound by administrative as well as contract laws. Legal ordering, on the other hand, also protects both parties to a contract. Its role on facilitating inter-organizational cooperation should be capitalized on, not sidelined, in partnering. Our study casts severe doubt on the feasibility and even the desirability of partnering in its full egalitarian intention in the local construction industry and urges that attention should be directed to such issues of economic and institutional constraints, as well as the cultivation and operationalization of trust.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China, constraints, Hong Kong, partnering, trust |
| Index terms: | building contractor, Hong Kong, partnering, contract law, partnership, bargaining, construction industry, implementation, government agency, proposal, accountability, builder, drawing, evidence, China, cooperation |
| Subjects: | psychology, project planning, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, liability law, Geography, technical documentation, partnership management, industry analysis, administrative law, contract law, economics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Procurement, Project Management, Geographical Context, Supply Chain Management, Legal Issues |
| 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