IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v34y1981i2p191-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Davis-Bacon Act: An Appraisal of Recent Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Robert S. Goldfarb
  • John F. Morrall III

Abstract

The intensified controversy in recent years over the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires the payment of prevailing wages on federally funded construction projects, has resulted in several new studies of the effects of that act. This invited paper reviews the evidence presented in these recent studies on several aspects of the act, including how Davis-Bacon wage determinations compare to local construction wages as measured by sources other than the act's administrators; the effects of lags in the act's data-gathering process; and the savings that would result from calculating the prevailing rate as the arithmetic mean of local wages instead of the current use of the modal rate in most cases. The authors conclude that although the cost studies to date have been faulty in several respects, it is reasonably clear that Davis-Bacon is unattractive on grounds of economic efficiency alone. The question remains, however, whether these efficiency costs are offset, partially or wholly, by the possible equity benefits of the act.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert S. Goldfarb & John F. Morrall III, 1981. "The Davis-Bacon Act: An Appraisal of Recent Studies," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 34(2), pages 191-206, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:34:y:1981:i:2:p:191-206
    DOI: 10.1177/001979398103400202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979398103400202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/001979398103400202?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kevin Duncan & Peter Philips & Mark Prus, 2006. "Prevailing wage legislation and public school construction efficiency: a stochastic frontier approach," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 625-634.
    2. Daniel P. Kessler & Lawrence F. Katz, 2001. "Prevailing Wage Laws and Construction Laborc Markets," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 54(2), pages 259-274, January.

    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:sae:ilrrev:v:34:y:1981:i:2:p:191-206. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    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.