Crawford, L T (2002) Public policy, the modern view and the training-investment decisions of the firm: Is a minimalist approach to public sector intervention the answer? PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
This thesis is an applied study of the response of a selected group of large construction companies in the Sydney Basin to the National Training Reform Agenda (NTRA). The thesis emanates from an interest in the modern view of public policy that suggests public sector intervention should 'augment rather than impede market forces' (Dollery, 1994:225). This view argues that too much public intervention has the potential to culminate in government failure because governments can be self-interested bureaucracies that are divorced from the interests and constraints of the market. To avoid such an outcome, this policy position advocates that governments should develop and implement public policy that encourages community, industry and individual participation in the policy agenda. This minimalist approach to public sector intervention, and the values it espouses, was investigated through research into the NTRA and the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | failure; government; investment; market; participation; policy; public policy; public sector; training |
| Index terms: | investment decision, construction industry, public sector, public policy, construction company |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, administrative law, public policy, economic analysis, organization |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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