Jewell, C and Flanagan, R (2012) Measuring construction professional services exports: A case for change. Building Research & Information, 40(3), pp. 337-347. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
There is limited understanding of the role of services in the wave of globalization and how the strengths of the UK service sector help to respond to the challenge of global competition. The way in which the construction export data are collected does not reflect the impact of globalization and the changes in the construction business environment, such as increasing foreign ownership, foreign affiliates and changing forms of procurement. The paper describes construction service exports, how they are collected and classified, highlighting the challenges of recording the export performance of construction services in a changing world. A case for change is made to ensure the collection of statistics better reflects the role of construction professional services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction economic data; construction industry; design services; exports; professional services; services |
| Index terms: | construction industry, statistics, globalization, ownership, competition, export, construction professional, professional service, construction economics |
| Subjects: | professional development, economics, industry analysis, economic factors, financial analysis, market analysis, mathematical modelling, organization, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, International Construction, Organizational Design |
| 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