Bon, R and Yashiro, T (1996) Some new evidence of old trends: Japanese construction, 1960-1990. Construction Management and Economics, 14(4), pp. 319-323. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Using the seven input-output tables compiled in Japan to date, this paper extends earlier analysis by adding the analysis of 1985 and 1990 tables. This paper shows that the Japanese construction sector's share in GNP has declined since 1980; the GNP share of manufacturing is continuing to decline and that of services is continuing to grow; the economy-wise effect of construction activity is continuing to decline; and the construction inputs from manufacturing are continuing to decline whereas the sector's inputs from services are continuing to grow. All these are signs of a growing 'maturity' of the Japanese economy, which in this regard appears to follow the path of other advanced industrial countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | input-output analysis; Japan; economic development |
| Index terms: | input-output analysis, economic development, construction activity, evidence, input-output table, Japan, construction sector |
| Subjects: | Geography, industry analysis, economic analysis, construction operations, economic development, evaluation and assessment methods, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Site Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| 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