13th April 2007, 02:21 PM
You don't regulate the market by regulating prices as it doesn't work (as the Soviets demonstrated), you regulate it by determining that a certain amount of work must be done to a certain quality "or else" which provides a baseline measure of work which in turn stabalises prices to an extent; there will still be variation, particularly in mitigation as the quantity of archaeology is often not clear even after evaluation.
This is the equivilant to building regulations in that it is simply a mechanism to ensure that work is done to a certain standard which has an indirect, but significant effect on the market value of the work involved. However as I have said before, archaeological officers need more resources to do this than other professions as badly done archaeological work is not as obvious as a badly built house.
Hence - "This ensures that competitive costs represent real efficiencies and not a reliance on doing less." - does not imply that curators should have any thing to do with costs at all; it's none of their business. I was simply stating that if curators had enough resources and confidence of backing from their employers (Councils) to be fearless in enforcement and more rigorous in checking (I am not implying that curators don't try, but I am yet to find one that has said 'yep, couldn't possibly want any more resources, I get to check all my sites as vigorously as I like and I have all the time in world to read over every report in minute detail!), it would have a significant effect on costs across the market.
don't panic!
This is the equivilant to building regulations in that it is simply a mechanism to ensure that work is done to a certain standard which has an indirect, but significant effect on the market value of the work involved. However as I have said before, archaeological officers need more resources to do this than other professions as badly done archaeological work is not as obvious as a badly built house.
Hence - "This ensures that competitive costs represent real efficiencies and not a reliance on doing less." - does not imply that curators should have any thing to do with costs at all; it's none of their business. I was simply stating that if curators had enough resources and confidence of backing from their employers (Councils) to be fearless in enforcement and more rigorous in checking (I am not implying that curators don't try, but I am yet to find one that has said 'yep, couldn't possibly want any more resources, I get to check all my sites as vigorously as I like and I have all the time in world to read over every report in minute detail!), it would have a significant effect on costs across the market.
don't panic!