Ive, G (1994) A theory of ownership types applied to the construction majors. Construction Management and Economics, 12(4), pp. 349-364. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Two sets of firms are identified from the UK of the 1980s, as the dominant types of 'construction majors': bisectoral conglomerates (BSCs) and diversified construction groups (DCGs). These types and the phenomena of industrial structure that they describe are contrasted with other forms of industrial ownership and corporate growth. The present importance of such firms is measured and described. DCGs are considered both as a structural phenomenon, rooted in particular economic structures, and as the result of a process of corporate growth and of certain strategic choices. To illuminate the structural and institutional determinants of this form, we compare its characteristics in Britain and in France. To attempt an explanation in terms of corporate strategy, we consider various hypotheses. Two hypotheses, which we term 'cash-flow balancing' and 'profit smoothing', are considered worthy of further investigation. Finally, we consider the future competitive advantage of firms with the DCG form and the impact of structural as well as conjunctural changes upon this form.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction majors; diversification; industry structure; ownership form |
| Index terms: | ownership, investigation, diversification, determinant, corporate strategy, competitive advantage, smoothing, industrial structure, France, profit |
| Subjects: | market analysis, Geography, economics, structural engineering, economic analysis, data science, business, risk assessment, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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