Betts, M (1987) British public expenditure on construction less than claimed? Construction Management and Economics, 5(1), pp. 13-20. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In Great Britain the demands for increased public construction investment have been increasing. However, although it is necessary to establish the amount currently being spent before being able to consider the need for an increase, this is dificult as there are two disparate sets of data available on public construction investment. Expenditure data are collected from public sector clients who commission construction work and output data are supplied by the contractors who undertake the work. Between 1976/7 and 1984/5 the expenditure data exceeded the output data by an average of 81.4% and the percentage difference has been increasing. This paper identifies the causes of the differencesb etween the two sets of data and where possible quantifies them. Even after amending for these quantifiable differences the expenditure data exceeded the output data by an average of 10.5% for new public housing work and 29.4% for new public non-housing work. As the remaining unquantifiable differences are clearly significant this paper concludes by examining possible future methods of compiling accurate data on the level of public construction investment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | expenditure; output |
| Index terms: | public construction, public expenditure, public housing, housing, construction work, public-sector client |
| Subjects: | construction type, sociology, political science, building construction, operations management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Construction Technology, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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