Myers, D (2003) The future of construction economics as an academic discipline. Construction Management and Economics, 21(2), pp. 103-106. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The contribution made by economic theory when studying construction-related subjects has a muddled history. This theme was carefully reviewed in Ofori (1994) where he bluntly concluded that: 'Construction economics cannot be regarded as a bona-fide subject' (p. 304). This short note takes a retrospective look at George Ofori's paper and suggests that during the subsequent period little has changed. This is despite the publication of government reports that stressed the importance of creating a culture of economic efficiency within construction and the need for the industry to become sustainable. This paper is informed by a brief survey of what is currently taught at British universities under the title of construction economics. Two points for debate emerge. The first is the worrying observation about the present state of play, as it seems that construction economics continues to lack any coherent conceptual structure. The second is the more promising suggestion that in the foreseeable future the sustainability agenda could provide the impetus necessary for construction economists to agree a common purpose and conceptual approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | academic consensus; construction economics; economic theory; sustainable construction; university education |
| Index terms: | survey, publication, construction economics, history, economic theory, efficiency, sustainable construction |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, economic analysis, performance management, financial analysis, sustainable construction, architectural and construction history, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Quality Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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