IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v122y2024ics0305048323001342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supply chain contracting with asymmetric cost information and behavioral preferences: Theory and experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Junlin
  • Jiang, Zewu
  • Zhao, Xiaobo
  • Zhu, Wanshan
  • Xie, Jinxing

Abstract

We investigate a supply chain composed of a retailer who designs a contract with wholesale price and order quantity, and a supplier who has private information of low or high unit production cost. The standard benchmark predicts that in equilibrium, the optimal contract possesses a threshold dividing a cutoff condition and a non-cutoff condition for the retailer. Under the cutoff condition, retailers trade only with low-cost suppliers, while under the non-cutoff condition, retailers trade with both low-cost and high-cost suppliers. Suppliers accept the critical non-negative profit contracts. We incorporate behavioral factors of the retailer’s risk preference and the supplier’s fairness concern in view of the decision-making scenario. The behavioral model shows that the risk preference influences the threshold of the optimal contract design, while the fairness concern only affects the optimal wholesale price. We conduct a laboratory experiment to examine both parties’ decision behaviors and find that human retailers with risk-averse preference make local optimal strategies rather than global optimal strategies, which counter-intuitively improves the channel profit; and human suppliers with fairness concern enables human retailers to provide fair contracts, which increases the channel profit and balances the channel profit distribution. These findings imply that the behavior of retailers and suppliers plays an important role in mechanism design of supply chains.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Junlin & Jiang, Zewu & Zhao, Xiaobo & Zhu, Wanshan & Xie, Jinxing, 2024. "Supply chain contracting with asymmetric cost information and behavioral preferences: Theory and experiment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:122:y:2024:i:c:s0305048323001342
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2023.102970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048323001342
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2023.102970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva I. Hoppe & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2013. "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1516-1544.
    2. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2015. "Do sellers offer menus of contracts to separate buyer types? An experimental test of adverse selection theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 17-33.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Flannery, Timothy & Roberts, Stephen, 2018. "The use of non-monotonic contracts in a single period game: An experimental investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 177-185.
    2. March, Christoph, 2021. "Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Petra Nieken & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2023. "Contracting under asymmetric information and externalities: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 989-1021, November.
    4. Jiang, Zewu & Zhu, Wanshan & Zhang, Yang & Zhao, Xiaobo & Xie, Jinxing, 2024. "Value of screening in procurement mechanism: An experimental study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(3), pages 1031-1053.
    5. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2018. "Hidden action and outcome contractibility: An experimental test of moral hazard theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 544-564.
    6. Schmitz, Patrick W. & Hoppe-Fischer, Eva, 2015. "Hidden Action and Outcome Contractibility: An Experimental Test of Contract Theory," CEPR Discussion Papers 11002, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    8. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "On the optimality of outsourcing when vertical integration can mitigate information asymmetries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. Chunlin Wang & Joyendu Bhadury, 2022. "Consensus Game: An Extension of Battle of the Sexes Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(04), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Xianyi Wang & Xiaofang Wang & Hui He, 2021. "Contracts to Coordinate Healthcare Providers in the Telemedicine Referral System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-25, September.
    11. Patrick W Schmitz, 2022. "How (Not) to Purchase Novel Goods and Services: Specific Performance Versus at-will Contracts," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(647), pages 2563-2577.
    12. Dariel, Aurelie & Riedl, Arno & Siegenthaler, Simon, 2021. "Referral hiring and wage formation in a market with adverse selection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 109-130.
    13. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    14. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 29-36, January.
    15. Bierbrauer, Felix & Netzer, Nick, 2016. "Mechanism design and intentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 557-603.
    16. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2015. "Do sellers offer menus of contracts to separate buyer types? An experimental test of adverse selection theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 17-33.
    17. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi & Ivan Soraperra, 2014. "An ultimatum game with multidimensional response strategies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-018, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Nuno-Ledesma, Jose G., 2020. "Incentive Alignment and Reward Strength in Pay-for-Performance Contracts," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304302, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Mathias Erlei & Heike Schenk-Mathes, 2017. "Bounded Rationality in Principal-Agent Relationships," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 18(4), pages 411-443, November.
    20. Werner Güth & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione, 2024. "Exploiting Ultimatum Power When Responders Are Better Informed − Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Conflict Resolution," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 68(2-3), pages 381-403, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:122:y:2024:i:c:s0305048323001342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.