Bon, R and Pietroforte, R (1990) Historical comparison of construction sectors in the United States, Japan, Italy and Finland using input–output tables. Construction Management and Economics, 8(3), pp. 233-247. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper uses the input–output tables compiled since World War II in four advanced industrial countries – United States, Japan, Italy, and Finland – to analyse the role of construction in their economies. Several questions are discussed: How does the construction sector interact with other sectors of the economy? How does this interaction change over time? How does it differ from country to country? The paper first briefly introduces the input–output data and the indicators used for comparative analysis. For reasons of space, the historical values of these indicators are presented only in graphical form. Next, the paper compares the construction sector in the four countries in terms of their shares in gross national product and national income, direct and total backward and forward linkage indicators, and direct and total inputs from manufacturing and service sectors. Special attention is paid to changes in construction technology, that is, changes in the relative shares of manufacturing and service sectors in the input profile of the construction sector. For reasons of space again, the emphasis is placed on international comparisons, rather than on intersectoral comparisons. Finally, the main findings and directions for future research are summarized.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction technology; input–output analysis; international comparisons |
| Index terms: | Italy, construction sector, United States, international comparison, Japan, comparative analysis, income, war, forward linkage, interaction, construction technology, Finland |
| Subjects: | economic theory, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, conflict and crisis studies, Geography, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics, digital engineering |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| 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