9th July 2008, 01:37 AM
Thank you Vulpes, you said most of what I had to say already!!
I would add that the difference between the archaeological industry and others, such as the rail industry, is not a lack of regulators, but that the value of archeaological work is artificially constructed by planning guidance, rather than valuable in of it self (from a "buy and sell" economic point of view, of course....obviously we know that every post hole is precious). So the value of the rail contract is determined by materials with known values (like steel), and objectives which can be reliably measured ("does that track look straight to you?"), whereas the value of archaeological work is determined by the amount of work required in the brief, which can vary, and a "product" whose quality is difficult to quantify as the objectives can change depending on where you are and what your research objectives are.
So the difference is not that rail is regulated and archaeology is not, but that rail can be objectively regulated and there is a recognition of the need for this regulation (because train crashes are no fun for anyone), whereas in archaeology the work is tricky to regulate consistently, and there is not an acceptance at higher levels (in the wider construction industry and government) for the need for more resources here.
Also, I would think we are never likely to see a monopoly in the archaeological industry because there are so many companies, most of which manage to do a good job for their clients. Think of how dominant Tesco is in the world of supermarkets, and yet even they do not have a monopoly!!!
"don't panic!"
I would add that the difference between the archaeological industry and others, such as the rail industry, is not a lack of regulators, but that the value of archeaological work is artificially constructed by planning guidance, rather than valuable in of it self (from a "buy and sell" economic point of view, of course....obviously we know that every post hole is precious). So the value of the rail contract is determined by materials with known values (like steel), and objectives which can be reliably measured ("does that track look straight to you?"), whereas the value of archaeological work is determined by the amount of work required in the brief, which can vary, and a "product" whose quality is difficult to quantify as the objectives can change depending on where you are and what your research objectives are.
So the difference is not that rail is regulated and archaeology is not, but that rail can be objectively regulated and there is a recognition of the need for this regulation (because train crashes are no fun for anyone), whereas in archaeology the work is tricky to regulate consistently, and there is not an acceptance at higher levels (in the wider construction industry and government) for the need for more resources here.
Also, I would think we are never likely to see a monopoly in the archaeological industry because there are so many companies, most of which manage to do a good job for their clients. Think of how dominant Tesco is in the world of supermarkets, and yet even they do not have a monopoly!!!
"don't panic!"