Tan, W (2000) Total factor productivity in Singapore construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(2), pp. 154-158. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This study uses the Tornqvist index to estimate the total factor productivity (TFP) for the Singapore construction industry between 1980 and 1996. Throughout the period, the main contribution to real construction output growth was capital accumulation. TFP was found to be negative, indicating that construction productivity growth has not been spectacular, even in a dynamic and rapidly growing economy such as Singapore. The result is in broad agreement with previous estimates of TFP for the entire Singapore economy. A lot needs to be done to improve construction productivity, as the industry cannot continue to grow by increasing factor inputs indefinitely without an accompanying rise in efficiency.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | growth accounting; learning by doing; Tornqvist index; total factor productivity |
| Index terms: | construction output, accounting, total factor productivity, construction industry, construction productivity, estimate, Singapore, efficiency |
| Subjects: | performance management, Geography, industry analysis, production economics, operations management, financial and cost management, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Quality 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