首页> 外文期刊>Construction Management and Economics >Construction price formation: full-cost pricing or neoclassical microeconomic theory?
【24h】

Construction price formation: full-cost pricing or neoclassical microeconomic theory?

机译:建筑价格形成:全成本定价还是新古典微观经济学理论?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Neo-classical microeconomic theory has been suggested to offer (1) an appropriate analytical tool for construction price determination while, at the same time, (2) full-cost pricing is most commonly accepted pricing policy of construction firms. Paradoxically, however, both are mutually exclusive theories. Only one, if any, can be correct. This paper examines both (1) and (2) by analysis of the evidence available in literature and concludes in favour of (1). It is only in disequilibrium, however, that the differences in behaviour can be clearly observed. In equilibrium, the difference between the two theories from a practical point of view is not very substantial. In addition, the endemic nature of uncertainty in the industry in general makes the task of estimating costs and prices difficult in practice. Therefore, although neoclassical microeconomic theory provides a useful means of analysis, it offers little for the practice of pricing, which is much more closely related to the marketing discipline than economics.
机译:有人提出了新古典微观经济学理论,以提供(1)确定建筑价格的适当分析工具,同时,(2)全成本定价是建筑公司最普遍接受的定价政策。然而,自相矛盾的是,两者都是互斥的理论。只有一个(如果有)是正确的。本文通过对文献中现有证据的分析,对(1)和(2)进行了检验,得出了(1)的结论。但是,只有在不平衡中,行为的差异才能清晰地观察到。在平衡中,从实践的角度来看,两种理论之间的差异不是很大。另外,总体上,行业不确定性的普遍性使得在实践中难以估算成本和价格。因此,尽管新古典微观经济学理论提供了有用的分析手段,但它对于定价实践却几乎没有作用,与经济学相比,它与市场营销学科关系更为密切。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号