Gann, D (1997) Should governments fund construction research? Building Research & Information, 25(5), pp. 257-267. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper considers the role played by government in stimulating innovation to improve quality, profitability and competitiveness in construction activities. It questions whether governments should fund research and development in construction, and if so, what level and types of support might be appropriate to meet emerging needs. It addresses this with reference to the current debate on the public funding of science, citing Kealey and Pavitt. The author considers specific construction-related issues and changing conditions, indicating the need for more, rather than less funding by both private and public sectors. In conclusion, the author develops a third way, different from Kealey's and Pavitt's approaches. Construction requires a strong and vibrant research base, partly funded by government. Simultaneously, the state requires a research and knowledge base in order to fulfil its roles such as for governance of technologies in the built environment. A complementarity effect arises from both public and private funding - which is therefore greater than the sum of the parts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competitiveness; public policy; R&D. construction industry; regulation; research policy; technical change |
| Index terms: | governance, knowledge base, public sector, construction activity, science, research policy, built environment, regulation, competitiveness, profitability, funding, research and development, public policy, construction industry |
| Subjects: | public policy, construction operations, economic analysis, business, economic and policy analysis, specialized education, market analysis, research management, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, political science, information systems |
| Topics: | Governance, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Education, Site Management, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| 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