Crommelin, L; Loosemore, M; Easthope, H and Randolph, B (2024) How information asymmetries exacerbate building defects risks for purchasers of Australian residential multi-owned properties. Building Research & Information, 52(6), pp. 644-657. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Increasing urbanization is driving rapid growth in residential multi-owned properties (RMOPs) worldwide. Concerns about the quality of these buildings are also growing in many countries. Yet research into the quality of RMOPs (particularly apartments) remains scant and under-theorized. Addressing this knowledge gap, this paper reports the results of research which employed information asymmetry theory to provide new insights into the prevalence and risks of building defects in the Australian RMOP construction market. Using data about defects in 635 RMOPs built in Sydney between 2008 and 2017 and semi-structured interviews with sixty-six experienced practitioners, the results highlight the severity of the defects crisis. The research identified two types of information asymmetries which exacerbate the risk of buying into a defective building for RMOP customers: data fragmentation and data robustness. From a policy and practical perspective, this highlights the challenges faced by consumers in undertaking 'due diligence' and the need for reforms that address these information asymmetries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; condominiums; information asymmetries; principal-agent theory; quality; strata |
| Index terms: | fragmentation, information asymmetry, interview, building defect, agent, practitioner, Australia, purchaser, urbanization, construction market |
| Subjects: | Geography, sociology, market analysis, business, transaction economics, data collection methods, practitioner, urban planning, professional practice |
| Topics: | Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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