IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Revisiting the ‘Bon curve’

Listed author(s):
  • Chia Fah Choy
Registered author(s):

    Bon’s proposition of an inverted U-shaped relationship between the share of construction activities and stages of economic development, which is commonly known as the ‘Bon curve’, has been explored in earlier studies. The previous studies adopted cross-sectional comparison comprising a number of selected countries over a period of time. This study revisits Bon’s theories with data maintained by the United Nations Statistics Division, which covers 205 economies from 1970 to 2009. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc tests and quadratic regression were used in the verification process. Cross-sectional comparison and longitudinal analysis were used to verify Bon’s propositions. The inverted U-shaped relationship between construction activities and level of development was not confirmed when the aggregated data of all countries over time were considered simultaneously. The relationships across countries at a given time were not confirmed in the majority of the yearly aggregated data. The relationships within countries over time were confirmed in 78 economies, mostly from high and upper-middle income countries. Bon’s proposition of ‘volume follows share’ was not confirmed. Declines in construction were found in most of the high income economies. In conclusion, Bon’s curve is to be interpreted as explaining variation within the developed economies over time.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Construction Management and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 7 (April)
    Pages: 695-712

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:29:y:2011:i:7:p:695-712
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.578959
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:29:y:2011:i:7:p:695-712. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.