Chang, C Y and Ive, G (2007) Reversal of bargaining power in construction projects: Meaning, existence and implications. Construction Management and Economics, 25(8), pp. 845-855. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Reversal of bargaining power arising from asset specificity is important for the understanding of hold-up problems. Various types of asset specificity have been identified in different transaction contexts, but a previously unidentified or unnamed type is developed here: process specificity. Numerous widely used financial and contractual preventive measures in construction practice can be justified as responses to this problem of process specificity. These include bonds and retentions. However, these measures have limitations. Specifically, the client-led change orders cannot be completely averted and when they occur, the pricing of additional work largely relies on negotiation, implying that bargaining power determines the result. Consequently, the hold-up problem remains a managerial issue. To mitigate this problem, clients should choose a procurement system by aligning project attributes with the procurement system characteristics.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset specificity; bargaining power; opportunism; procurement; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | construction project, meaning, opportunism, transaction cost, negotiation, bargaining, procurement system, asset specificity, change order, pricing, retention |
| Subjects: | business, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, economic concepts, production management, contractual condition, management, economics, financial analysis, conflict resolution, sociology |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Human Resources, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Procurement, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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