Skitmore, M; Runeson, G and Chang, X (2006) Construction price formation: Full-cost pricing or neoclassical microeconomic theory? Construction Management and Economics, 24(7), pp. 773-783. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Neo-classical microeconomic theory has been suggested to offer (1) an appropriate analytical tool for construction price determination while, at the same time, (2) full-cost pricing is most commonly accepted pricing policy of construction firms. Paradoxically, however, both are mutually exclusive theories. Only one, if any, can be correct. This paper examines both (1) and (2) by analysis of the evidence available in literature and concludes in favour of (1). It is only in disequilibrium, however, that the differences in behaviour can be clearly observed. In equilibrium, the difference between the two theories from a practical point of view is not very substantial. In addition, the endemic nature of uncertainty in the industry in general makes the task of estimating costs and prices difficult in practice. Therefore, although neoclassical microeconomic theory provides a useful means of analysis, it offers little for the practice of pricing, which is much more closely related to the marketing discipline than economics.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; contracts; costs; marketing; neo-classical microeconomics; policy; prices; pricing; theory |
| Index terms: | pricing, estimating, evidence, marketing, microeconomics, construction firm, price determination |
| Subjects: | business, organization, business development, tendering, evaluation and assessment methods, economic analysis, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Cost Management |
| 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