Increased Transparency in Procurement: The Role of Peer Effects

References

• Aghion P, Tirole J (1997) Formal and real authority in organizations. J. Political Econom. 105(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beer R, Ahn HS, Leider S (2018) Can trustworthiness in a supply chain be signaled? Management Sci. 64(9):3974–3994.Link, Google Scholar
• Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):122–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billingsley A (2015) What is the Government Purchase Card? SBTDC (September 2), http://www.sbtdc.org/2015/09/what-is-the-government-purchase-card/.Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2011) The strategy vs. the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):375–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buell RW, Norton MI (2011) The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Sci. 57(9):1564–1579.Link, Google Scholar
• Buell RW, Kim T, Tsay CJ (2017) Creating reciprocal value through operational transparency. Management Sci. 63(6):1673–1695.Link, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Cobo-Reyes R, Jiménez N, Lacomba JA, Lagos F (2012) The hidden advantage of delegation: Pareto improvements in a gift exchange game. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2358–2379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaturvedi A, Katok E, Beil DR (2018) Split-award auctions: Insights from theory and experiments. Management Sci. 65(1):71–89.Link, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL (2006) Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc. Influence 1(1):3–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis AM, Hyndman K (2017) An experimental investigation of managing quality through monetary and relational incentives. Management Sci. 64(5):2345–2365.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis AM, Katok E, Kwasnica AM (2011) Do auctioneers pick optimal reserve prices? Management Sci. 57(1):177–192.Link, Google Scholar
• Dimant E (2019) Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity. J. Econom. Psych. 73:66–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donohue K, Katok E, Leider S (2018) The Handbook of Behavioral Operations (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2000) Reciprocity and wage undercutting. Eur. Econom. Rev. 44:1069–1078.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby WJ, Katok E (2017) Behavioral research in competitive bidding and auction design. Donohue K, Katok E, Leider S, eds., The Handbook of Behavioral Operations (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ), 525–556.Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby WJ, Katok E, Santamaria N (2012) A laboratory investigation of rank feedback in procurement auctions. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 14(1):128–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht-Wiggans R, Katok E (2006) E-sourcing in procurement: theory and behavior in reverse auctions with noncompetitive contracts. Management Sci. 52(4):581–596.Link, Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Leider S (2012) Contractual and organizational structure with reciprocal agents. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 4(2):146–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Kosfeld M (2006) The hidden costs of control. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1611–1630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):980–994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Thöni C (2010) Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage-effort hypothesis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 76(3):531–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Gerhards L, Nosenzo D (2017) The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing. Eur. Econom. Rev. 97:72–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Nosenzo D, Sefton M (2012) The impact of social comparisons on reciprocity. Scandinavian J. Econom. 114(4):1346–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Nosenzo D, Sefton M (2013) Peer effects in pro-social behavior: Social norms or social preferences? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):548–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2004) The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0: A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Working paper, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
• Haitao Cui T, Raju JS, Zhang ZJ (2007) Fairness and channel coordination. Management Sci. 53(8):1303–1314.Link, Google Scholar
• Hamman JR, Loewenstein G, Weber RA (2010) Self-interest through delegation: An additional rationale for the principal-agent relationship. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1826–1846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haruvy E, Katok E (2013) Increasing revenue by decreasing information in procurement auctions. Production Oper. Management 22(1):19–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho TH, Su X (2009) Peer-induced fairness in games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):2022–2049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho TH, Su X, Wu Y (2014) Distributional and peer-induced fairness in supply chain contract design. Production Oper. Management 23(2):161–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian J. Statist. 6(2):65–70.Google Scholar
• Katok E, Kwasnica AM (2008) Time is money: The effect of clock speed on seller’s revenue in Dutch auctions. Experiment. Econom. 11(4):344–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katok E, Pavlov V (2013) Fairness in supply chain contracts: A laboratory study. J. Oper. Management 31(3):129–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraft T, Valdes L, Zheng Y (2018) Supply chain visibility and social responsibility: Investigating consumers’ behaviors and motives. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 20(4):617–636.Link, Google Scholar
• Krupka EL, Weber RA (2013) Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):495–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krupka EL, Leider S, Jiang M (2016) A meeting of the minds: Informal agreements and social norms. Management Sci. 63(6):1708–1729.Link, Google Scholar
• Kwasnica AM, Katok E (2007) The effect of timing on jump bidding in ascending auctions. Production Oper. Management 16(4):483–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loch CH, Wu Y (2008) Social preferences and supply chain performance: An experimental study. Management Sci. 54(11):1835–1849.Link, Google Scholar
• Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econom. Stud. 60(3):531–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mittone L, Ploner M (2011) Peer pressure, social spillovers, and reciprocity: An experimental analysis. Experiment. Econom. 14(2):203–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Özer Ö, Zheng Y (2017) Establishing Trust and Trustworthiness for Supply Chain Information Sharing. Handbook of Information Exchange in Supply Chain Management (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland), 287–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Özer Ö, Zheng Y, Chen KY (2011) Trust in forecast information sharing. Management Sci. 57(6):1111–1137.Link, Google Scholar
• Özer Ö, Zheng Y, Ren Y (2014) Trust, trustworthiness, and information sharing in supply chains bridging China and the United States. Management Sci. 60(10):2435–2460.Link, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(5):1281–1302.Google Scholar
• Reid AE, Cialdini RB, Aiken LS (2010) Social norms and health behavior. Steptoe A, ed., Handbook of Behavioral Medicine: Methods and Applications (Springer-Verlag, New York), 263–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psych. Sci. 18(5):429–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiliotopoulou E, Donohue K, Gürbüz MÇ (2016) Information reliability in supply chains: The case of multiple retailers. Production Oper. Management 25(3):548–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thöni C, Gächter S (2015) Peer effects and social preferences in voluntary cooperation: A theoretical and experimental analysis. J. Econom. Psych. 48:72–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tunca TI, Wu DJ, Zhong FV (2014) An empirical analysis of price, quality, and incumbency in procurement auctions. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 16(3):346–364.Link, Google Scholar
• Wan Z, Beil DR (2009) RFQ auctions with supplier qualification screening. Oper. Res. 57(4):934–949.Link, Google Scholar
• Wan Z, Beil DR, Katok E (2012) When does it pay to delay supplier qualification? Theory and experiments. Management Sci. 58(11):2057–2075.Link, Google Scholar