Pheng, L S; Hongbin, J and Leong, C H Y (2004) A comparative study of top British and Chinese international contractors in the global market. Construction Management and Economics, 22(7), pp. 717-731. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
While British contractors have one of the longest history and experience in the international construction market, Chinese contractors are relative newcomers where the global market is concerned. This study compares the performance of top British and Chinese contractors based on the OLI+S model, which incorporates the ownership (O), locational (L), internalization (I) and specialty (S) factors. The study suggests that the international involvement of top British contractors has declined from a peak in 1996, while that of the top Chinese contractors has grown steadily since the 1980s. All the OLI+S advantages of top British construction firms were higher than those of their Chinese counterparts even though the number of Chinese construction firms ranked in the top 225 international contractors by the US-based Engineering News Record was higher than that of the British firms. This study further recommends that the internalization and specialty advantages of top British firms and some of the ownership advantages of top Chinese firms may provide them with opportunities to work together in many areas.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; firms; Great Britain; international construction; performance |
| Index terms: | comparative study, construction firm, ownership, history, international construction, China |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, organization, architectural and construction history, strategic management, economics, Geography |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Geographical Context, International Construction, Business Strategy |
| 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