Gruneberg, S and Fraser, B (2012) Construction purchasing power parities: Potential roles and limitations. Building Research & Information, 40(3), pp. 348-356. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Before comparing or aggregating the output of construction industries in different countries, a common unit of measurement is needed. Two approaches to finding a suitable means of measuring construction internationally are considered: exchange rates and construction purchasing power parities (PPPs). A specific construction industry PPP (CPPP) is required, as a general PPP based on consumer goods prices is not necessarily appropriate as a measure of an industry. To establish CPPPs, a basket of inputs is required. Steel is examined as an example of an input. Steel prices and exchange rate data were collected from the European Union, Southern China and the United States. Six forms of steel were compared. Plate steel was found to have a PPP mean value closest to the exchange rates, but no one type of steel was found to be the most appropriate to use in calculating CPPPs. Although the arguments in favour of CPPPs over the use of exchange rates are strong, from the analysis it is not possible to establish a clear superiority of CPPPs. This makes it necessary to check the suitability of CPPPs compared with exchange rates before comparing or aggregating the construction industries of different countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction economic data; construction measures; economic comparison; exchange rates; international construction; purchasing power parities; steel |
| Index terms: | construction industry, China, suitability, international construction, construction economics, European Union, purchasing, United States |
| Subjects: | strategic management, financial analysis, procurement strategy, design criteria, industry analysis, physical geography and landforms, Geography |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Cost Management, International Construction, Design Practice |
| 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