Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(2):223-247; doi:10.1093/cje/bei028
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scheibl, F.
Right arrow Articles by Wood, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow D92 - Intertemporal Firm Choice and Growth, Investment, or Financing
Right arrow E22 - Capital; Investment; Capacity
Right arrow G31 - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies
Right arrow L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
Right arrow L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
Right arrow L69 - Other
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 29, No. 2, © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2005; all rights reserved

Investment sequencing in the brick industry: an application of grounded theory

Fiona Scheibl and Andrew Wood*

* University of London and University of Essex, respectively

Address for correspondence: Andrew Wood, Department of Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ; e-mail: wooda{at}essex.ac.uk.

Since the work of George Richardson on the problem of investment coordination, the literature has focused on explaining equilibrium in investment games and neglected the problem of how investments are coordinated. This paper reports the findings of a case study of the brick industry which used grounded theory techniques to develop a new analysis of investment coordination. Our main findings indicate that, despite the high cost of excess capacity and the very clear signalling of investment intentions, brick firms are reluctant to stand back and delay their own investments when a rival firm is expanding. The fact that for the most part excess investment is avoided is explained by reference to firms' heterogeneity and constraints to investment.

Key Words: Investment • Coordination • Constraints

JEL classifications: E22, L69

Manuscript received January 8, 2002; final version received September 12, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.