Dzeng, R J and Wang, S S (2008) An analysis of infrastructure development based on national competitiveness perspectives. Construction Management and Economics, 26(1), pp. 47-61. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Development of the infrastructure is one of the key factors in determining the competitiveness of a nation. Most world competitiveness reports include infrastructure development as a primary set of indicators in assessing the competitiveness of nations. We ranked the indicators based on their performances in terms of not only standard deviations but also leading and falling-behind groups classified by the cluster analysis. The discriminant competitiveness graphic-based representation of the indicator performance allowed policy makers to formulate infrastructure strategies. Simulated experiments based on the competitiveness data of Canada, Taiwan and Thailand also demonstrated that such ranking resulted in a better selection of weak indicators for improvement.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | clustering analysis; discriminant competitiveness graphics; infrastructure; national competitiveness |
| Index terms: | competitiveness, Thailand, clustering, deviation, Canada, cluster analysis, Taiwan, strategy, experiment, infrastructure development |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, data science, data collection methods, market analysis, management, infrastructure engineering, Geography |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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