Competition Among Sellers in Online Exchanges

References

• Allen B., Deneckere R., Faith T., Kovenock D. Capacity precommitment as a barrier to entry: A Bertrand-Edgeworth approach. North Amer. Winter Meetings Econometric Soc. (1992) JanuaryGoogle Scholar
• Angwin Julia. Renaissance in cyberspace. The Wall Street J. (2003) November 20):B1Google Scholar
• Baer M., Davis J. Some assembly required. Business 2.0 (2001) February 20):76–85Google Scholar
• Bandyopadhyay S., Barron J. M. A generalized model of competition among sellers in a B2B exchange. (2004) . Working paper, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayatte, INGoogle Scholar
• Bandyopadhyay S., Rees J. M., Barron J. M. Simulating sellers in online exchanges. Decision Support Systems (2005) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Bandyopadhyay S., Chaturvedi A., Barron J., Rees J., Mehta S., Sloot P. M. A., et al. Simulating sellers’ behavior in a reverse auction B2B exchange. Internat. Conf. Comput. Sci., Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. (2003) 365–374No. 2660Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barlas D. The value of reverse auctions. Line56 (2003) July). http://www.line56.com/articles/default.asp?articleid=4788Google Scholar
• Barua A., Lee B. An economic analysis of the introduction of an electronic data interchange system. Inform. Systems Res. (1997) 8(4):398–422Link, Google Scholar
• Bhargava H. K., Choudhary V., Krishnan R. Pricing and product design: Intermediary strategies in an electronic market. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2000) 5(5):37–56Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biglaiser G. Middlemen as experts. RAND J. Econom. (1993) 24(2):212–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd J. H., Prescott E. C. Financial intermediary coalitions. J. Econom. Theory (1986) 38:211–232Crossref, Google Scholar
• CNet News Dell cuts prices across range of products. (2003) August). http://news.com.com/2100-1003_3-5066500.html?tag=fd_topGoogle Scholar
• Dai Q., Kauffman R. J. To B2B or not to B2B: An evaluative model for e-procurement adoption. (2003) . Working paper, MIS Research Center, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
• Dasgupta P., Maskin E. The existence of equilibrium in discontinuous economic games, II: Applications. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1986) 53(1):27–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deneckere Raymond J., Kovenock D. Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly with unit cost asymmetry. Econom. Theory (1996) 8:1–25Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fast Company How I saved $100 million on the Web. (2001) 43(February):174Google Scholar
• Helper S., MacDuffie J. P., Kogut Bruce. B2B and modes of exchange: Evolutionary and transformative effects. The Global Internet Economy (2001) Google Scholar
• Jap S. D. The impact of online, reverse auctions on buyer-supplier relationships. (2000) . Working paper, EBusiness@MIT Center, Leaders for Manufacturing Program and MIT-Ford AllianceGoogle Scholar
• Katok E., Roth A. E. Auctions of homogeneous goods with increasing returns: Experimental comparison of alternative “Dutch” auctions. Management Sci. (2004) 50(8):1044–1063Link, Google Scholar
• Kreps D., Scheinkman J. Quantity precommitment and Bertrand competition yield Cournot outcomes. Bell J. Econom. (1983) 326–337Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey & Company The automotive industry: A new model to be invented! (2000) AugustGoogle Scholar
• Oliver J. A machine learning approach to automated negotiation and prospects for electronic commerce. J. Management Inform. Systems (1996) 13(3):83–112Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A., Daniel T. E., Searle D. A. Reinforcement-based adaptive learning in asymmetric two-person bargaining with incomplete information. Experiment. Econom. (1998) 1:221–253Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riggins F. J., Kriebel C., Mukhopadhyay T. The growth of interorganizational systems in the presence of network externalities. Management Sci. (1994) 40:984–998Link, Google Scholar
• Roland Berger Strategy Consultants and Deutsche Bank Automotive e-commerce: A (virtual) reality check. (2000) June). http://www.rolandberger.comGoogle Scholar
• Roth A. E., Erev I. Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games Econom. Behavior (1995) 8(1, Special Issue: Nobel Symposium):164–212Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin P. A., Benton W. C. Jointly constrained order quantities with all-units discounts. Naval Res. Logist. (1993) 40:255–278Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A., Wolinsky A. Middlemen. Quart. J. Econom. (1987) 102(3):581–594Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandholm T. W., Crites R. H. Multiagent reinforcement learning in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. BioSystems (1996) 37:147–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sinha I. Cost transparency: The net’s real threat to prices and brands. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2000) 78(March–April):3–8Google Scholar
• Tomak K., Xia M. Evolution of B2B marketplaces. Electronic Markets (2002) 12(2Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varian H. A model of sales. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1980) 70(4):651–659Google Scholar
• Waltner C. Procurement pays off—Companies are finding that procurement software comes with a quick ROI. Inform. Week (1999) 745(July 26). http://www.informationweek.com/745/ procure.htmGoogle Scholar
• Zhu K. Strategic investment in information technologies: A real-options and game-theoretic approach. (1999) . Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Zhu K. Information transparency in electronic marketplaces: Why data transparency may hinder the adoption of B2B exchanges. Electronic Markets (2002) 12(2, Special Issue on B2B E-Commerce):92–99Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu K. Information transparency of business-to-business electronic markets: A game-theoretic analysis. Management Sci. (2004) 50(5):670–685Link, Google Scholar
• Zhu K., Weyant J. Strategic decisions of new technology adoption under asymmetric information. Decision Sci. (2003) 34(4):643–675Crossref, Google Scholar