imageREAL Captureclassic.austlii.edu.au/Au/Journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2002/78.PdfTotal building...

111111111 .

COMPETITION THEORYAND THE BUILDING ANDCONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRYGerard de Valence

University of Technology,Sydney

1. INTRODUCTIONThe building and constructionindustry is typically seen as afragmented, very competitiveindustry. However, the degree ofcompetitiveness of different sectorsof the industry varies greatly.Economic analysis of an industrybegins with a study of its structure,and in industry economics thedefinition of the relevant 'market' isthe determining factorwhenanalysing the nature of competitionand structural characteristics of anindustry. This paper argues that thebuilding and construction industry isa case where the traditionalstructu re-conduct-performancemodel that is widely used inindustry economics cannot be easilyapplied and briefly discusses on thedifferent forms of competition foundin economics. Models of marketstructure are applied to the industryto identify relevant characteristicsof different sectors in the industry.

The traditional structure-conductperformance approach to industryeconomics originated in the US inthe 1930s with the work of Mason(1939) and Bain (1959). This is nowthe standard framework foranalysing dynamics of an industry.Industry analysis has traditionallyfocused on groups of firms withsimilar characteristics in theirproduction processes, goods orservices, and markets served in thewider economy. The distinction hasbeen between firms and industries,and the analysis has emphasisedthe importance of economies ofscale and scope (Sutton 1991,1999) or organisational structure(Williamson 1979). One majordifficulty in the standard structureconduct-performance approachhas been definition of industrieswithin theoretical criteria of producthomogeneity.

Further, some analysts see theconstruction industry as amanufacturing system, similartothe automotive industry. This viewunderpi!ns the recommendations in

the Ega n Rep0 rt (1 998) in the UK,which emphasises lean thinking inconstruction. This analogy arguesthe industry in Australia has a fewvery large key players whose task itis to 'assemble' constructed items,complete buildings ortransportfacilities for example. These keyfirms play the same role in both'production' and innovation as theautomotive assemblers, except thatthey do not have a fixed place ofassembly. Bjornsson (1998)suggests that in the future theselarge contractors will alsoresemble the auto assemblers inthat they will be much bigger andfewer - perhaps ten in the world intwentyyears time. These'assemblers' are in the processfrom moving from being 'demanddriven' in the sense of dependencyon 'hard money' projects andtraditional clients, to beingdemand-inducing, as they activelycreate opportunities through equitystakes and new forms of projectdelivery and finance. It should besaid that the analogywith carmanufacturers is controversial, andat variance to traditional views likeRaftery (1991 : 39-42) andHillebrandt (1984).

The Australian Government'sconstruction industry policydocument Building for GrowthAnalysis had the comment:

The industry is in the first stage ofaglobal industrial formation that, by2070 will see it dominated byperhaps 70 large firms.(ISR 1999: 45)

For a global consolidation on thescale suggested to take place thestructure of the industry would haveto undergo one of the mostdramatic examples ofconcentration ever: However, not allthe evidence supports that outcome(de Valence, 2001). Clearly, thefuture structure of the building andconstruction industry is becoming apoint of debate among researchersand analysts. However, what is theindustry's structure? The objective

AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION LAW NEWSLETTER #87 DECEMBER 2002 5

of this paper is to assess marketstructure issues associated with theconstruction industry.

2. INDUSTRY STRUCTUREAND COMPETITIONThe economic analysis of industryhas resulted in a framework of fourtypes of market structures, eachone having a set of distinctivecharacteristics. Table 1shows therelationship between the fourmodels of market structures foundin economics texts and thecharacteristics of each type. Theextent of control over prices isdetermined by the intensity ofcompetition in a market, which isdetermined by the number of firmsand type of product. The degree ofmonopoly power exercised by thelargest firms in an industry is theconcentration ratio, the degree towhich an industry is dominated bythe largest firms. A monopoly hasone producer, therefore theconcentration ratio is 1000/0, whileunder perfect competition there aremany firms none of which has anymarket power.

Another approach to marketstructure is to base the distinctionon product homogeneity

Table 1. Market Structures and Characteristics

[sameness) or hetrogeneity[differentiation). Using thisapproach monopoly and perfectcompetition are similar, withhomogeneous products, andoligopoly and monopolisticcompetition are similar, withdifferentiated products [Schererand Ross 1990: 17). Scherer andRoss also develop and define twodifferent ideas of competition ineconomics, one emphasizing theconduct of sellers and buyers andthe other emphasizing marketstructure. On the conduct side,competition depends on resourcesmoving from industries wherereturns are low to those withcomparatively high returns. Thisrequires the absence of barriers toresource transfers. A different,structural concept of competitionsees a market as competitive whenthe number of firms selling ahomogeneous commodity is solarge, and each individual firm'sshare of the market is so small, thatno individual firm can influenceprice by varying the quantity ofoutput.

Competitiveness has also becomean important element in theeconomic performance of countries

Characteristics Perfect Competition Monopolistic Oligopoly Monopoly

competition

Numberoffirms Very large Many Few One

in market

Product Identical, Differentiated Either identical or Unique, no close

standard ised differentiated substitutes

Barriers to entry None Few Significant Very high

Firm's control None Limited Constrained Considerable,

over price often regulated

Non-price None Emphasis on brand Through product Use of PR and

competition names, trademarks differentiation advertising

Concentration ratio 0 Low High 100

Examples Agriculture, Retail, cleaning, Automobiles, Water, gas distribution

dry cleaning electrical goods chocolate ba rs

Source: Adapted from McTaggart, Findlay and Parkin 1999: 13.4.

6 AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION LAW NEWSLETTER #87 DECEMBER 2002

and those industries that areexposed to internationalcompetition. The competitiveness ofnations in the global economy liesin the four broad attributes of anation described by Porter (1991 Lattributes that individually and as asystem constitute Porter's 'diamondof national advantage'. This is theplaying field that each nationestablishes and operates for itsind ustries. These attri butes are:

1. Factor conditions-the nation'sposition in factors of production,such as skilled labour orinfrastructure, necessary tocompete in a given industry.

2. Demand conditions-the natureof home-market demand for theindustry's product or service.

3. Related and supportingindustries-the presence orabsence in the nation of supplierindustries and other relatedindustries that are internationallycompetitive.

4. Firm strategy, structure, andrivalry-the conditions in the nationgoverning how companies arecreated, organized, and managed,as well as the nature of domesticrivalry. (Porter 1991: 139)

3. FIRMS, INDUSTRIESAND MARKETSIn the one-product perfectcompetition market model therelationship between firms, theindustry and markets is relativelystraightforward. Firms belonging tothe same industry produce a singleidentical product, which they all sellin the same market. In thisframework the industry and themarket are identical because eachhas the same group of firms asproducers. However, this identitydoes not exist where firms are largeand produce a range of products,manyofwhich are not closesubstitutes, and sell in more thanone market. In this case industryand market are not equivalent. As aresult there is an ongoing debateabout the industry, market orfirm

as the appropriate level foranalysis.

Theories of imperfect competition(Chamberlin 1932, Robinson 1933)focused attention on the structureof markets, and led to thestructure-conduct-performanceparadigm. However, as ananalytical framework for largediversified enterprises thisframework may not be suitable.While the behaviour andperformance of small firms may bestrongly influenced by theexogenously determined structureof their market, because they areassumed to operate underconditions of perfect or nearperfect competition, for largediversified firms the influence ofmarket structure on behaviour andperformance is less marked.

There are problems with thestructure-conduct-performanceframework. Diversified firms have anumber of products and participatein a number of markets. Further,many firms possess the abilitytoalter the level of output and pricesin a given market, often throughtechnical innovations that affectcustomers' willingness to pay fortheir particular products. In thiscase, the conduct of large firmsmay change market structure. Also,the existence of marketimperfections gives individual firmsa degree of discretion in the goalsthat they pursue, and discretion inthe forming of business goalsweakens the dependence of marketperformance upon marketstructure.

In industry economics R&D andinnovation is typically seen as oneof the key ways for fi rms toinfluence the effects of marketstructure, along with marketing,strategy and operationsmanagement. Industries are alsotypically in manufacturing, and areusually seen in terms of a numberof firms which advance along asingle technological trajectory, andthese firms then compete in


enhancing the quality of theirindividual versions of the samebasic product (homogeneity ofproductLln this case, firms makedecisions on how much R&D tofinance, and apply that R&D toproduct development. This view fitssome industries well, howevermany industries encompass severalgroups of products ratherthan alarge number of versions of a singleproduct. The products may be closesubstitutes in consumption, butembody different technologies, soR&D projects that enhanceproducts in one group maygenerate spillovers for products inother groups (de Valence 2001).

For the construction ind ustry thedefinition of the market isparticularly opaque. Are allbuildings and structures to beregarded as a single product, or arebridges, shopping malls andapartment blocks distinct anddifferent markets? Some firmscross these boundaries, some staywithin them. It can be argued that

Table 2. Private Sector Construction Establishments: Numberoperating ('000)

the role of builders and contractorsis to organise the productionprocess, thus providing a service,while the delivery of the product (abuilding or structure) is theresponsibility of the subcontractorswho carry out the work.

4. THE CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRYThe construction industry inAustralia accounted for just under7% of GOP and nearly 8% of totalemployment in 1999-2000. Theoutput of the construction industryis composed of three distinctindustry sectors: engineeringconstruction, non-residentialbuilding, and residential building.They are not closely related, havingtheir own distinguishingcharacteristics, and the volatility ofthe industry is not equallydistributed across them.

There have been four ConstructionIndustry Surveys (CIS) done by theAustralian Bureau of Statistics(ABS). The fourth and most recent

1996-97 1988-89 1984-85

Total building construction 33.1 19.6 24.5Total non building construction 3.1 3.9 3.4Total general construction 36.3 23.5 27.9Total special trade construction 158.0 74.5 77.0

Source: ABS 1996-97, 1988-89 and 1984-85 Construction Industry Surveys.

Table 3. Summary of Performance by Business Employment Size

Selected indicators Units Employment Employment Employment All businesses

less than 5 5 to 19 20 or more

Operating businesses '000 182 11.1 1.2 194.3Employment '000 332.2 85.9 66.0 484.1Wages and salaries $m 3 221.7 2 309.8 2 648.3 8 179.8Turnover $m 27 951.2 13 713.7 16 234.0 57 898.8Total income $m 28 202.5 13 801.0 16 591.2 58 594.7Total operating expenses $m 24 123.0 13 288.0 15 987.1 53 398.1Operating profit before tax $m 4 066.5 616.4 781.7 5 464.6Industry gross product $m 8 657.2 3 582.2 3941.9 16 181.2

Source: ABS. Private Sector Construction Industry, 1996-97. Cat. No. 8772.0.


was for 1996-97. Table 2showsthree CIS for 1984-85, 1988-89and 1996-97, and the distribution offi rms across the ind ustry sectors.The doubling in the numberofsubcontracting firms is the mostnotable feature. This reflects thetrend toward contract employment,which is cheaperthan full-time

\ employees, and due to low-bidtendering driving prices downacross the industry.

All four surveys have found theconstruction industry isoverwhelmingly made up of smallfirms with under 20 employees,which contribute most of theindustry's output and account foralmost all of the total number ofenterprises. Table 3 shows thenumerical dominance of smallfirms in the construction industry.Businesses with employrnent ofless than five accounted for 94% ofall businesses in the industry, andover two-thirds of all employees. Incontrast, less than 1% ofbusinesses had employnlent of 20ormore.

Businesses with employrnent ofless than five accounted for slightlyless than half the total income andexpenses, whereas businesses withemployment of 20 or moreaccounted for almost one-third ofthese items. Almost three-quartersof construction industry profitbefore tax came from businesses

with employment of less than five.Higher profit margins werereported by smaller businesses, sothe numerical dominance ofbusinesses with employment lessthan five drives the industryaverage above the profit marginsreported by businesses withemployment of five or more.

When the data on performance isconverted to percentages (Table 4)the importance of the 0.62% oflarge firms can be appreciated.Their 13.6% of employee earn32.3% of salaries and wages,generate over 14% of profits andnearly 25% of output. Despite thenumber of small firms, the largefirms in the industry clearly playasignificant role. As the tables show,firms with 20 or more employeescontribute a disproportionate shareof industry value added, turnoverand employment.

The largest contractors belong tothe Australian ContractorsAssociation (ACA). The 1997-98Annual Report of the organisationgave total turnover of the then 18members in as over $15 billion, orover half total non-residentialconstruction forthatyear, andemployment of over 49,000 (ACA1998). The Annual Reports alsostate 'members account for around40% of total construction activity inAustralia' (ACA 2001 :24; 1996 2).

Higher profit margins werereported by smallerbusinesses, so the numericaldominance of businesseswith employment less thanfive drives the industryaverage above the profitmargins reported bybusinesses with employmentof five or more.

Table 4. Percentage by Firm Size

Selected indicators Employment Employment Employment All businessesless than 5 5 to 19 20 or more

Operating businesses 93.67 5.71 0.62 100.00Employment 68.62 17.74 13.63 100.00Wages and salaries 39.39 28.24 32.38 100.00Turnover 48.28 23.69 28.04 100.00Total income 48.13 23.55 28.32 100.00Total operating expenses 45.18 24.88 29.94 100.00Operating profit 74.42 11.28 14.30 100.00Industry gross product 53.50 22.14 24.36 100.00

Source: Table 3.


The common observation is that theindustry is extremely fragmented,and this is the reason for many ofthe perceived problems areas in theindustry, such as slow uptake ofnew technology, low levels of R&D,little process re-engineering, lackof training and skills development,absence of strategic planning andso on. However, the industry canalso be seen as highlyconcentrated, with the largest firmsaccounting for more than 50% ofindustry output in the nonresidential building and engineeringconstruction sectors (thesecompanies do little residentialwork, although their turnoverincludes some high-rise residentialand contract mining work).Therefore the biggest firms in theconstruction industry dominate theindustry's output and industry cashflow. The shape of the industrystructure is that of a flat pyramid,with a handful (20) of very largecontractors and a few [1 ,200) largecontractors at the top, and manysmall subcontractors in the bottomsection.

5. MARKET SECTORS INCONSTRUCTIONIn the industrial organization orindustry economics literature,industries are usually seen in termsof a number of firms which advancealong a single technologicaltrajectory, and these firms competein enhancing the quality of theirindividual versions of the samebasic product (homogeneity ofproduct). Thisviewfitssomeindustries well, however manyindustries encompass severalgroups of products rather than alarge number of versions of a singleproduct. The products may be closesubstitutes in consumption, butembody different technologies,where R&D projects that enhanceproducts in one group maygenerate huge spillovers forproducts in other groups.

Such complex overlapping patternsof substitutability have bedevilled


industrial organization analysis fordecades, since Chamberlin (1932)first developed the definition of anindustry as limited by the chain ofsubstitution, where industries weredefined by their product. Ifindustries are broken into separatesub-industries in orderto addressthis problem, the choice can bebetween any number of differentgroups of products. The productsmay be close or distant substitutesfor products of firms on othertechnological trajectories. When thelinkages are strong they reflect thepresence of scope economies,where the linkages are weak thesescope economies will be absentand there will be a low degree ofsubstitution across sub-markets.

Applying this discussion of submarkets to the building andconstruction industry raises anumber of interesting issues. Thefirst is, of course, the general lackof specialisation of firms in theconstruction industry in terms oftheir product. The answerto thequestion 'What does the industryproduce?' is varied; some believethat the industry provides services(management, coordination,finance), others believe the industrydelivers products (buildings andstructures). The former groupargues that the main task of theindustry is one of coordinating siteprocesses while the latter are moreconcerned with the building itself.The building and constructionindustry is typically broken into theengineering, non-residential, andresidential building sectors, andthere are some firms that cross allof these areas, however, typicallyfirms work in either the residentialor the non-residential sectors.Many of the larger firms cover bothengineering and non-residentialbuilding in their activities. Within thenon-residential building sector,there are ten or twelve differentsub-markets, divided into offices,retail, factories, health, and so on.Some firms specialize in buildingparticular types of buildings, in

Australia Grocon specialises inhigh-rise office buildings andWestfield specialises in shoppingcentres, however more commonly abuilding contractor will apply theirmanagement skills to a range ofbuilding types, and not limitthemselves to specific sub-markets.Bovis Lend Lease, Multiplex andLeightons are examples of firmsthat provide constructionmanagement or projectmanagement services with a focuson managing processes. Fortheconstruction industry, specific submarkets are difficult to identifybecause firms can be highlyspecialized in one area, orthey canbe highly generalized and put up awide range of buildings andstructures.

6. MARKET STRUCTUREFrom the data on the constructionind ustry, what ca n be sa id of ma rketstructure? When the buildingind ustry is assessed in terms ofbarriers to entry it is clear that thereare two levels in operation. Thereare currently few significantbarriers to entry to the buildingindustry for small firms, and suchbarriers will continue to be lowwhile the industry maintains currentpractices based on a large numberof small, specialisedsubcontractors. There is, however, alimited number of contractorscapable of managing large projects,and the barriers to entry at thislevel in the form of prequalificationare significant, based on trackrecord, financial capacity andtechnical capability. Due to the riskcharacteristics of large projects a

contractor has to havedemonstrated the ability to manageand coordinate such works.Because there are only a few largecontractors capable of undertakingmajor projects they tend to developstrong links with these clients, andthese relationships are a significantbarrier to entry to the types ofprojects carried out for such clientsfor other contractors. Asprequalification becomes morerigorous and widespread in theindustry, this is emerging as themost important barrierto entry.

Table 5 is an attempt to classifydifferent sectors of the industry tomarket structure types. One of theinteresting aspects of this analysisis that, on any given constructionproject, there will be a range ofmarket structures in existence, withthe various different forms ofcompetitive behaviour overlappingbetween these. Monopolisticcompetition is the form of the morecapital intensive subcontractors inthe heating, ventilation and airconditioning [HVAC) sector: This partof the industry in Australia has fourlarge firms [more or less national inscope) and a few dozen smallerfirms working in local markets.Medium size builders that havespecialised in particular types ofbuildings and/or have developedrelationships with repeat clients arealso in this category. The parts ofthe industry that fits the perfectcompetition model are the smalland medium size contractors thatrely on low-bid tendering to getworkandlabourbasedsubcontractors, such as formwork,

Due to the riskcharacteristics of largeprojects a contractor has tohave demonstrated theability to manage andcoordinate such works...As prequalification becomesmore rigorous andwidespread in the industry,this is emerging as the mostimportant barrier to entry.

Table 5. Construction Industry Characteristics

Construction

Subcontractors

Contractors

PerfectCompetition

Labourbasedsubcontracting

Many small andmedium contractors

Monopolisticcompetition

Mechanical services[HVAC)

Some medium sizedcontractors

Oligopoly

Lifts, buildingautomation

Large head contractors


steel fixing, bricklaying andconcreting.

The degree of monopoly powerexercised by the largest firms in anindustry is expressed in theconcentration ratio, which typicallyuses the largest four firms in anindustry, ranked by market share orsales as a percentage of totalindustry sales [other measures arecapacity, output, employment orvalue added) accounted for by thelargest firms. The large contractorsin the engineering construction andnon-residential building sectorshave the characteristics of anoligopoly. There are significantbarriers to entry through clientprequalification requirements fortechnical capability, track recordand financial capacity.

Two subcontracting sectors are alsohighly concentrated. There are onlythree major manufacturers thatsupply lifts and building automationsystems [BAS).

The construction industry ispredominantly made up of smallfirms, so the traditional approachbased on the number of firms,barriers to entry and market powerreveals the typical view of afragmented, diverse industry offirms with low barriers to entry. Thissupports the view of the industry asbeing an industrywith thecharacteristics of perfectcompetition. The practice of opentenders has been abandoned inAustralia, but continuingwidespread use of low bid tenderingand reliance on price competitionencourages the view that theindustry is perfectly competitive.

However, the data also shows anindustry that is highly concentratedin a small number of largecontractors. At this level theindustry is oligopolistic, with highbarriers to entry due to theprequalification systems andcapability requirements used byclients to select contractors for


major projects. Oligopolisticcompetition focuses on competitionthrough product differentiation, orin the case of building andconstruction through specialisationin particular types of projects legbridges, high-rise}, forms ofprocurement leg Design and Build,negotiated work}, finance, orrelationships with clients[alliancing, partnering). Suppliers oflifts and building automationsystems are also in this type ofmarket.

Between these two marketstructures there are some firms inthe industry that are in monopolisticcompetition. Those medium sizecontractors that have specialisedand differentiated their productfrom others, or have developedongoing relationships with clients[and thus get a large amount ofnegotiated work}, have clearlybroken out of the price-drivencompetition end of the business.Also, there are subcontractors inthe HVAC sectorthat havedeveloped the characteristics ofmonopolistic competition.

7. CONCLUSIONThe key determinant of the degreeof competition in any market is thenumber of firms that are supplyingproducts and the number of buyersthat are the purchasers of thatoutput. Where there are few firms,competition tends to be less intenseand price is higherthan in marketswhere there are many firms andcompetition is severe. The buildingand construction market ischaracterised by a wide range ofdifferent products, and some ofthese products are bundled withservices such as installation andmaintenance. This makes it amarket that often does not fit easilyinto the framework of thecompetition authority, in Australiathe Australian Consumer andCompetition Commission [ACCC},and makes the fit with thetheoretical structure given todifferent types of markets also

problematic. In theory, whereindustrial economics specifiesproduct and market characteristicsin order to identify the form ofmarket structure, the requirementis typically for either identicalproducts, or for clearly identifiablemarkets forthose products.

The importance of industrystructure to industry economics liesin the way that structure is seen asthe most important determinant ofcompetition in an industry, and theform that competition takes. Theextent of control over prices isdetermined by the intensity ofcompetition in a market, which is, inturn, determined by the numberoffirms and type of product. Relatedissues are the way the process ofcompetition affects prices andprofits, the ease of entry of newfirms into or frequency of exit froman industry, the impact of demandshocks (ie the business cycle) andthe effects of new technologies.

The economic analysis of industryhas resulted in a framework of fourtypes of market structures, eachone having a set of distinctivecharacteristics. Table 5 showed therelationship between theconstruction industry and the threerelevant models of marketstructure, with the characteristics ofeach type. This establishes that theanswerto the question 'What is theform market structure takes in thebuilding and construction industry?'depends on the specific pa rt of theindustry being analysed.

For many of the issues associatedwith questions about theperformance of the constructionindustry the traditional structureconduct-performance model maynot be applicable. This is in part dueto structural characteristics of theindustry and the processes used todeliver buildings and structures,and partly due to the project basednature of the industry, where asequence of projects is the focusrather than the production processitself. In conclusion, it appears that

the appropriate model of theconstruction industry's marketstructure will depend on thedefinition of industry products ormarkets adopted and the sector ofthe industry that is to be analysed.The oligopolistic characteristics ofthe large contractors in the industryhave tended to be overlookedbecause of the numericaldominance of small firms, whichtypically operate under conditionsof perfect competition.

If the ACA claims and ASS data aretaken into account, the constructionindustry appears to be dominatedby a few large contractors(enterprises). These largeenterprises are commonly linked togroups of smaller specialistcontractors. The industry can thusbe seen as operating as clusters offirms competing on the basis of thecontractor's management abilityand the skills provided by theassociated subcontractors. Thisapplies to both the residential andnon-residential sectors, with projectmanagers on commercial buildingand engineering works and themajor builders of project homestypically subcontracting out 90% ormore of the work done.

The importance of this finding hasimplications in two key policy areas.Firstly, in competition policy,administered by the AustralianCompetition and ConsumerCommission and its counterpartsoverseas, determinations of anticompetitive behavior are based onthe definition of 'market' and'industry' used. From the data in thispaper it is clearthat the definitionofthe industry is far from being asettled issue. Therefore, theappropriate definition of the'industry' for competition policywilldepend on the specific 'market'under consideration. Secondly,despite repeated efforts byGovernments, both in Australia andelsewhere, the performance of theindustry, using measurements suchas the rate of productivity growth,


levels of research and innovation,training and process improvement,is often seen as poor. One part ofthe explanation for the failure ofindustry policy in the past is themisunderstood structure of theindustry, and the implications ofthat misunderstanding for policyinitiatives.

REFERENCESABS [1996-97, 1988-89, 1984-85).Construction IndustrySurveys.Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat.No. 8772.0.

ACA, 1996, 1998,2001. AnnualReports, Australian ContractorsAssociation, Sydney.

Bain, J. S. (1959). IndustrialOrganisation. Wiley, New York.

Bjornsson, H. (1998). 'ITRevolutionises Construction.'Building Innovation andConstruction Technology 2.

Chamberlin, E. H., 1932. The TheoryofMonopolistic Competition, 1stEdition Cambridge, Mass., HarvardUP, Mass

de Valence, G., (2001). Trends inProcurement and Implications forInnovation and Competitiveness ofAustralian Building andConstruction, CI BW65 WorldBuilding Congress, Wellington N.Z.

Egan Report (1998). RethinkingConstruction. Department ofEnvironment, Transport and theRegions, London.

Hillebrandt, P. (1984). EconomicTheory in the Construction Industry.MacMillan, London.

ISR (1999). Building for Growth: AnAnalysis of the Australian Buildingand Construction Industries.Department of Industry, Scienceand Resources, Canberra ..

McTaggart, D., FindlayC. andParkin M., 1999. Economics, ThirdEdition, Addison-Wesley,Melbourne

Mason, E. S. (1939). 'Price andProduction Policies of Large-Scale


Enterprise.' American EconomicReview, 29, March, 61-74.

Porter, M. E. (1991). TheCompetitive Advantage ofNations.Free Press, New York.

Raftery, J. (1991). Principles ofBuilding Economics. BSPProfessional Books, Oxford.

Robinson, J., 1933. The Economicsof Imperfect Competition,Macmillan, London.

Scherer, F.M. and Ross, D., 1990.Industrial Market Structure andEconomic Performance, 3rd Edition,Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Sutton,J. (1999). TechnologyandMarket Structure: TheoryandHistory. MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass.

Sutton, J. (1991). Sunk Costs andMarket Structure: PriceCompetition, Advertising, and theEvolution of Concentration. MITPress, Cambridge, Mass.

Williamson, O. E. (1979).'Transaction-Cost Economics: TheGovernance of ContractualRelations.' Journal of LawandEconomics, 22, 233-61.

imageREAL Captureclassic.austlii.edu.au/Au/Journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2002/78.PdfTotal building...

Documents

Transcript of imageREAL Captureclassic.austlii.edu.au/Au/Journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2002/78.PdfTotal building...