Supply Chains and Antitrust Governance

References

• Albuquerque P, Bronnenberg BJ (2009) Estimating demand heterogeneity using aggregated data: An application to the frozen pizza category. Marketing Sci. 28(2):356–372.Link, Google Scholar
• Aydın G, Hausman WH (2009) The role of slotting fees in the coordination of assortment decisions. Production Oper. Management 18(6):635–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belavina E, Girotra K (2012) The relational advantages of intermediation. Management Sci. 58(9):1614–1631.Link, Google Scholar
• Blair RD, Harrison JL (1999) Reexamining the role of Illinois brick in modern antitrust standing analysis. George Washington Law Rev. 68(1):1–43.Google Scholar
• Bloom PN, Gundlach GT, Cannon JP (2000) Slotting allowances and fees: Schools of thought and the views of practicing managers. J. Marketing 64(2):92–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brodley JF (1995) Antitrust standing in private merger cases: Reconciling private incentives and public enforcement goals. Michigan Law Rev. 94(1):1–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cachon GP (2003) Supply chain coordination with contracts. Graves SC, de Kok AG, eds. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 11 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 227–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Kök AG (2010) Competing manufacturers in a retail supply chain: On contractual form and coordination. Management Sci. 56(3):571–589.Link, Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Terwiesch C (2003) Matching Supply with Demand: An Introduction to Operations Management (McGraw-Hill Custom Pub., New York).Google Scholar
• Calvo E, Cui R, Serpa JC (2019) Oversight and efficiency in public projects: A regression discontinuity analysis. Management Sci. 65(12):5651–5675.Link, Google Scholar
• Cavanagh ED (2004) Illinois brick: A look back and a look ahead. Loyola Consumer Law Rev. 17(1):2.Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Özer Ö (2019) Supply chain contracts that prevent information leakage. Management Sci. 65(12):5619–5650.Link, Google Scholar
• Cho S-H (2013) Horizontal mergers in multitier decentralized supply chains. Management Sci. 60(2):356–379.Link, Google Scholar
• Chod J, Rudi N (2005) Resource flexibility with responsive pricing. Oper. Res. 53(3):532–548.Link, Google Scholar
• Chu LY, Sappington DE (2009) Procurement contracts: Theory vs. practice. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 27(1):51–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chu W (1992) Demand signalling and screening in channels of distribution. Marketing Sci. 11(4):327–347.Link, Google Scholar
• Corbett CJ, Zhou D, Tang CS (2004) Designing supply contracts: Contract type and information asymmetry. Management Sci. 50(4):550–559.Link, Google Scholar
• Cui TH, Kong G, Pourghannad B (2020) Is Simplicity the Ultimate Sophistication? The Superiority of Linear Pricing. Prod. Oper. Management 29(7):1767–1788.Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Lande RH (2013) Toward an empirical and theoretical assessment of private antitrust enforcement. Seattle Univ. Law Rev. 36(3):1269.Google Scholar
• Goyal M, Netessine S (2007) Strategic technology choice and capacity investment under demand uncertainty. Management Sci. 53(2):192–207.Link, Google Scholar
• Gui L, Atasu A, Ergun Ö, Toktay LB (2015) Efficient implementation of collective extended producer responsibility legislation. Management Sci. 62(4):1098–1123.Link, Google Scholar
• Hwang M, Park S (2015) The impact of Walmart supercenter conversion on consumer shopping behavior. Management Sci. 62(3):817–828.Link, Google Scholar
• Hwang W, Bakshi N, DeMiguel V (2018) Wholesale price contracts for reliable supply. Production Oper. Management 27(6):1021–1037.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jain N, Hasija S, Popescu DG (2013) Optimal contracts for outsourcing of repair and restoration services. Oper. Res. 61(6):1295–1311.Link, Google Scholar
• Jerath K, Netessine S, Zhang ZJ (2007) Can we all get along? Incentive contracts to bridge the marketing and operations divide. Preprint, submitted July, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228849431_Can_We_All_Get_Along_Incentive_Contracts_to_Bridge_the_Marketing_and_Operations_Divide.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalkancı B, Chen K-Y, Erhun F (2011) Contract complexity and performance under asymmetric demand information: An experimental evaluation. Management Sci. 57(4):689–704.Link, Google Scholar
• Kalkancı B, Chen K-Y, Erhun F (2014) Complexity as a contract design factor: A human-to-human experimental study. Production Oper. Management 23(2):269–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karon DR (2003) Your Honor, Tear down that Illinois Brick Wall—The national movement toward indirect purchaser antitrust standing and consumer justice. Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 30:1351.Google Scholar
• Katok E, Wu DY (2009) Contracting in supply chains: A laboratory investigation. Management Sci. 55(12):1953–1968.Link, Google Scholar
• Keysee CJ, Clark CE, Samenow CU, Morrison S (1929) Recovery of treble damages under the Sherman Act. Yale Law J. 38(4):503–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim S-H (2015) Time to come clean? disclosure and inspection policies for green production. Oper. Res. 63(1):1–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Komninos A, Beckert W, van Damme E, Dewatripont M, Franks J, ten Kate A, Legros P (2009) Quantifying antitrust damages: Towards non-binding guidance for courts. Study prepared for the European Commission. Accessed December 18, 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/quantification_study.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Krishnan H, Kapuscinski R, Butz DA (2004) Coordinating contracts for decentralized supply chains with retailer promotional effort. Management Sci. 50(1):48–63.Link, Google Scholar
• Krishnan H, Kapuscinski R, Butz DA (2010) Quick response and retailer effort. Management Sci. 56(6):962–977.Link, Google Scholar
• Landes WM, Posner RA (1979) Should indirect purchasers have standing to sue under the antitrust laws? An economic analysis of the rule of Illinois brick. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 46(3):602–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lariviere MA, Padmanabhan V (1997) Slotting allowances and new product introductions. Marketing Sci. 16(2):112–128.Link, Google Scholar
• Lariviere MA, Porteus EL (2001) Selling to the newsvendor: An analysis of price-only contracts. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 3(4):293–305.Link, Google Scholar
• Litwin E, Hubbard H, LLP R (2010) Time to Rebuild The Illinois Brick Wall. Bloomberg Law Reports. Accessed December 18, 2020, https://bit.ly/2KAvcXCGoogle Scholar
• Lloyd RM (2014) Proving damages for lost profits: The before-and-after method. Research paper 243, University of Tennessee Legal Studies, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
• MacAvoy CJ (1997) Antitrust treatment of slotting allowances. ABA Section of Antitrust Law 45:9–11.Google Scholar
• McAfee RP, Mialon HM, Mialon SH (2008) Private v. public antitrust enforcement: A strategic analysis. J. Public Econom. 92(10-11):1863–1875.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Messinger PR, Chu W (1995) Product proliferation and the determination of slotting and renewal allowances. Seoul J. Bus. 1(1):93–115.Google Scholar
• Notaro G (2014) Methods for quantifying antitrust damages: The pasta cartel in Italy. J. Competition Law Econom. 10(1):87–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perakis G, Roels G (2007) The price of anarchy in supply chains: Quantifying the efficiency of price-only contracts. Management Sci. 53(8):1249–1268.Link, Google Scholar
• Price G (2013) One short of a load: Why an Illinois brick repealer will increase private antitrust enforcement in Montana. Montana Law Rev. 74(2):7.Google Scholar
• Schinkel M, Tuinstra PJ, Rüggeberg J (2008) Illinois walls: How barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion. RAND J. Econom. 39(3):683–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Segal IR, Whinston MD (2006) Public vs. private enforcement of antitrust law: A survey. Working paper no. 335, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Sherali HD (1984) A multiple leader Stackelberg model and analysis. Oper. Res. 32(2):390–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Shunko M, Debo L, Gavirneni S (2014) Transfer pricing and sourcing strategies for multinational firms. Management Sci. 23(12):2043–2057.Google Scholar
• Strimel M, Ilter EN (2018) The Latest: Trump DOJ’s Next Target: The Illinois Brick Indirect Purchaser Rule? Natl. Law Rev. (February 2), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/latest-trump-doj-s-next-target-illinois-brick-indirect-purchaser-rule.Google Scholar
• Sullivan MW (1997) Slotting allowances and the market for new products. J. Law Econom. 40(2):461–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tomlin B (2009) Impact of supply learning when suppliers are unreliable. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 11(2):192–209.Link, Google Scholar
• Toto D, Dominic M (1990) Slotting allowances and competition in the food industry: paying the price for non-price competition. Sales Market. Management 21(6):72–89.Google Scholar
• Tuncel O, Hasija S, Taneri N (2019) Why are Minimum Order Quantity Contracts Popular in Practice? A Behavioral Investigation. INSEAD Working Paper.Google Scholar
• Van Mieghem JA, Dada M (1999) Price vs. production postponement: Capacity and competition. Management Sci. 45(12):1639–1649.Link, Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Hu X, Gurnani H, Guan H (2017) Multichannel distribution strategy: Selling to a competing buyer with limited supplier capacity. Management Sci. 64(5):2199–2218.Link, Google Scholar