Yung, P (2009) Institutional arrangements and construction safety in China: An empirical examination. Construction Management and Economics, 27(5), pp. 439-450. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Previous studies merely attempted to identify factors affecting safety performance from the micro perspective of project management, while they never questioned why those factors, such as lack of the top-management support and training, existed. A macro perspective, informed by the corollary of the Coase Theorem, was adopted here to show that suitable institutional arrangements are essential for better safety performance in a construction industry. Province-level construction safety records in China from 1994 to 2000 were used to test the effects of institutional arrangements on construction safety in China. Major factors affecting construction safety were found to be the implementation of construction safety laws, the rate of subcontracting, while neither the extent of using temporary workers, nor the availability of resources, nor the level of per capita GDP have any effects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | coase theorem; farmer worker; institutional arrangements; safety; subcontracting |
| Index terms: | construction industry, implementation, project management, subcontracting, China, construction safety, safety performance, temporary worker |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, Geography, demography, occupational health and safety management, environmental health, industry analysis, organization, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Supply Chain Management, Urban Studies |
| 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