Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study uncovers distinct disruption mechanisms across crises in the construction workforce, highlighting persistent reliance on migrant labor.
Despite a growing body of research on crisis impacts in construction, limited attention has been given to how workforce disruptions compare across different crisis types. This study examines how the New Zealand construction workforce was impacted by three major crises: the Global Financial Crisis (2008), the Canterbury and Kaikoura Earthquakes (2010–2016), and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022). Employing a qualitative multi-method approach, we conducted a structured review of the literature and qualitative thematic analysis of sixteen semi-structured interviews with construction professionals. The findings are organised across three core domains: workforce availability, coping mechanisms, and long-term career shifts. Labour Market Shock Models, Human Capital Theory, and Adaptive Capacity concepts are used as complementary analytical lenses. Distinct disruption mechanisms were identified across crises: economic contraction triggered widespread redundancies during the financial crisis; natural hazards created labour surges but introduced health and safety risks, while pandemic-driven border closures and health protocols produced cyclical labour shortages. To support cross-crisis comparison, the study develops a Crisis Impact Matrix and uses a complementary Disruption Dynamics Framework, to illustrate how workforce disruptions evolve over time. Together, they provide a structured way of comparing workforce disruptions across crisis contexts and examining how their impacts evolve over time. The findings highlight recurring workforce vulnerabilities, including dependence on migrant labour, limited domestic skill pipelines, and reactive policy responses. The findings also identify implications for workforce planning, immigration policy, local skills development, and long-term workforce resilience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mirhosseini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: