IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/14747.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Digital Concrete: Productivity in Infrastructure Construction

In: Technology, Productivity, and Economic Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Diane Coyle
  • Rehema Msulwa

Abstract

Construction is a large sector of the UK economy and official statistics show that construction productivity has flatlined despite adoption of advances in digital technology and increased outsourcing. We examine the evolution of the UK infrastructure construction industry and the scope for its digitization, describing the changing industry structure and the range of digital technologies being adopted. We consider the implications of technological innovation for productivity, both actual and measured. We focus on two possible explanations for this particular piece of the productivity puzzle: time lags and different potential sources of mismeasurement.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Diane Coyle & Rehema Msulwa, 2024. "Digital Concrete: Productivity in Infrastructure Construction," NBER Chapters, in: Technology, Productivity, and Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:14747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14747.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver Lewis & Avner Offer, 2022. "Railways as patient capital," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 38(2), pages 260-277.
    2. Finn Orstavik, 2014. "Innovation as re-institutionalization: a case study of technological change in housebuilding in Norway," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(9), pages 857-873, September.
    3. Paul Goodrum & Carl Haas & Robert Glover, 2002. "The divergence in aggregate and activity estimates of US construction productivity," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 415-423.
    4. Daniel M. Hall & Jennifer K. Whyte & Jerker Lessing, 2020. "Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 322-339, April.
    5. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1.
    7. Kevin J. Stiroh & Dale W. Jorgenson, 2000. "U.S. Economic Growth at the Industry Level," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 161-167, May.
    8. Editors The, 2007. "From the Editors," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Huffman, Wallace E. & Evenson, Robert E., 2003. "New Econometric Evidence On Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Determinants: Impact Of Funding Sources," Working Papers 18201, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.
    3. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 645-684, March.
    4. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    5. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    6. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    7. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    8. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/941 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    10. Soumyananda Dinda, 2018. "Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short-run dynamics," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 106-121, January.
    11. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    13. Hana Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How an Open Innovation Strategy for Commercialization Affects the Firm Performance of Korean Healthcare IT SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    14. John Van Reenen & Rupert Harrison & Rachel Griffith, 2006. "How Special Is the Special Relationship? Using the Impact of U.S. R&D Spillovers on U.K. Firms as a Test of Technology Sourcing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1859-1875, December.
    15. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    16. repec:dpr:wpaper:1212 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Rouven E. Haschka & Helmut Herwartz, 2022. "Endogeneity in pharmaceutical knowledge generation: An instrument‐free copula approach for Poisson frontier models," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 942-960, November.
    18. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    19. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    20. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    21. Fernández-Bonilla, Fernando & Navío-Marco, Julio & Gijón, Covadonga, 2021. "Business Innovation in the Spanish Companies (2003-2016): The Human Factors Definitively Count," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238021, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    22. Stéphane Lemarié & Valérie Orozco & Jean-Pierre Butault & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni & Bertrand Schmitt, 2020. "Assessing the long-term impact of agricultural research on productivity: evidence from France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1559-1586.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure

    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:nbr:nberch:14747. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.