IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v33y2015i2p126-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Graham Ive and the methodology of construction economics

Author

Listed:
  • Gerard de Valence
  • Goran Runeson

Abstract

Graham Ive's central contribution to our methodological debate was his insistence on the firm as the analytical unit. Ive argues we should reject theories if the aspect of construction we are examining does not satisfy the assumptions of a particular theoretical model. We see this in his rejection of neoclassical economic theories in the two topics discussed in this paper: the adoption of innovations in construction; and microeconomic analysis as it relates to price determination in the market for construction. The former requires studying not just participants in the building process, but also participants in the innovation process, and the latter uses post-Keynesian pricing theory where prices are set according to mark-up procedures and vary with costs, but not directly with demand. This is in contrast to the general equilibrium, perfectly competitive price setting of neoclassical economics. Ive and his collaborators show a way towards better research in their emphasis on theory and the insistence that for construction economics the analytical units are the industry and the firm, not the project. Ive's concern is that the processes involved in organizing the production of buildings should be seen as a distinctive and defining element of our analysis of the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerard de Valence & Goran Runeson, 2015. "Graham Ive and the methodology of construction economics," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 126-133, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:33:y:2015:i:2:p:126-133
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2015.1021702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2015.1021702
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2015.1021702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia M. Hillebrandt, 1974. "Economic Theory and the Construction Industry," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-01927-4, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ceric Anita & Ivic Ivona, 2021. "Network analysis of interconnections between theoretical concepts associated with principal–agent theory concerning construction projects," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 2450-2464, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, In-Gyu, 1998. "A model of selective tendering: Does bidding competition deter opportunism by contractors?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 907-925.
    2. Michael Buzzelli & Richard Harris, 2006. "Cities as the Industrial Districts of Housebuilding," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 894-917, December.
    3. Xue Xiao & Martin Skitmore & Heng Li & Bo Xia, 2019. "Mapping Knowledge in the Economic Areas of Green Building Using Scientometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Chen-Yu Chang, 2015. "A festschrift for Graham Ive," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 91-105, February.
    5. GÖran Runeson & Gerard de Valence, 2015. "A critique of the methodology of building economics: trust the theories," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 117-125, February.
    6. Stephen Ngai & Derek Drew & H. P. Lo & Martin Skitmore, 2002. "A theoretical framework for determining the minimum number of bidders in construction bidding competitions," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 473-482.
    7. Terence Lam & Keith Gale, 2014. "Highway maintenance: impact of framework agreements upon project financial performance," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 460-472, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:33:y:2015:i:2:p:126-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.