Supply, demand and a failure of understanding: addressing the culture clash between archaeologists' expectations for training and employment in 'academia' versus 'practice

A university degree is effectively a prerequisite for entering the archaeological workforce in the UK. Archaeological employers consider that new entrants to the profession are insufficiently skilled, and hold university training to blame. But university archaeology departments do not consider it their responsibility to deliver fully formed archaeological professionals, but rather to provide an education that can then be applied in different workplaces, within and outside archaeology. The number of individuals studying archaeology at university exceeds the total number working in professional practice, with many more new graduates emerging than archaeological jobs advertised annually. Over-supply of practitioners is also a contributing factor to low pay in archaeology. Steps are being made to provide opportunities for vocational training, both within and outside the university system, but archaeological training and education within the universities and subsequently the archaeological labour market may be adversely impacted upon by the introduction of variable top-up student fees.

The effects of the informal sector on construction

Most construction sectors around the world have a high percentage of output being produced informally. In developing countries informal construction activities can account for as much as 80% of employment (Farrell 2004). In general, the informal sector equates to a significant percentage of country’s GDP — 40% in developing countries and 18% in the OECD high-income countries. The informal sector in construction is not well understood and difficult to measure and is thriving both in the developed and developing world. Construction industries are made up of a large number of small firms and a small number of large firms. Many small firms are less likely to be able (or to want to) afford the bureaucratic demands of a nation’s fiscal and legal system. This evasion means a reduction in tax income for the government, and also leads to inaccurate estimates of the true value of construction output. Some national statistical agencies factor in an estimate of the size of the informal sector, but without effective measurement, there is no guarantee that the estimate is a fair one. The message from the paper is that the informal sector in construction is likely to grow. We need to understand the sector and recognise its impact on construction.