IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Agency decision making in freight distribution chains: Establishing a parsimonious empirical framework from alternative behavioural structures

Listed author(s):
  • Hensher, David A.
  • Puckett, Sean M.
  • Rose, John M.

In designing an approach to parameterise the preferences of agents in a distribution chain for retail goods, Hensher and Puckett [Hensher, D.A., Puckett, S.M., 2007. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks for studying agent interaction and choice revelation in transportation studies. International Journal of Transport Economics XXXIV (1), 17-47] set out a general framework in which two or more agents negotiate a contractual arrangement to provide distribution services. In developing a framework to guide the empirical study, recognition of the difficulty in sourcing agent pairs is a major challenge and one that entails some amount of practical compromise. In this paper we present a new conceptual framework capable of capturing, through ideas of concession and power, without explicit interaction between agents, the interactive element of choice and show how we implement this to deliver an empirical method that is tractable in terms of securing an adequate sample as well as being cost effective. We find that transporters appear to hold strong relative power with respect to on-time reliability and variable charges, regardless of the degree of concession offered by either type of decision maker; whereas shippers' preferences appear to dominate the supply chain response to policy measures influencing transit time. Importantly both transporters and shippers do have a significant role to play in the formation of distribution chain preferences.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.

Volume (Year): 41 (2007)
Issue (Month): 9 (November)
Pages: 924-949

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:41:y:2007:i:9:p:924-949
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Postal:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1995. "Case-Based Decision Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 605-639.
  2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
  3. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
  4. Ann Brewer & David Hensher, 2000. "Distributed work and travel behaviour: The dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees," Transportation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 117-148, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:41:y:2007:i:9:p:924-949. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.