Management Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


MANAGEMENT SCIENCE,
Published online in Articles in Advance, October 16, 2009
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1089
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow e-companion
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 Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Katok, E.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, D. Y.

Contracting in Supply Chains: A Laboratory Investigation

Elena Katok, Diana Yan Wu

Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
School of Business, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

ekatok{at}psu.edu
dianawu{at}ku.edu

The coordination of supply chains by means of contracting mechanisms has been extensively explored theoretically but not tested empirically. We investigate the performance of three commonly studied supply chain contracting mechanisms: the wholesale price contract, the buyback contract, and the revenue-sharing contract. The simplified setting we consider utilizes a two-echelon supply chain in which the retailer faces the newsvendor problem, the supplier has no capacity constraints, and delivery occurs instantaneously. We compare the three mechanisms in a laboratory setting using a novel design that fully controls for strategic interactions between the retailer and the supplier. Results indicate that although the buyback and revenue-sharing contracts improve supply chain efficiency relative to the wholesale price contract, the improvement is smaller than the theory predicts. We also find that although the buyback and revenue-sharing contracts are mathematically equivalent, they do not generally result in equivalent supply chain performance.

Key Words: supply chain contracts; experimental economics
History: Received: June 12, 2006; accepted: July 28, 2009.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2009 by INFORMS.