IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v23y2021i6p1449-1467.html

Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply Chains: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew M. Davis

    (Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853)

  • Kyle Hyndman

    (Naveen Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

Abstract

Problem definition : We conduct a controlled human-subjects experiment in a two-tier supply chain where a supplier’s per-unit production cost may be private information while bargaining with a buyer. Academic/practical relevance : Academically, supply chain studies often assume full-information or highly structured bargaining. We consider private information with dynamic, unstructured bargaining. In practice, a buyer may not know its supplier’s cost exactly and interact with its supplier in a back-and-forth bargaining environment. Thus, understanding how a supplier’s private cost information affects both supply chain outcomes and bargaining is new to the literature and relevant to practice. Methodology : We employ insights from mechanism design to generate restrictions on the space of agreements and solve for a specific bargaining solution under private information to generate precise predictions. These predictions are then tested through a human-subjects experiment. Results : In our experiment, theory predicts that all supplier types should earn at least 50% of total profits when their cost information is private. However, we find that high-cost suppliers earn a disproportionately low share of total profits under private information, 20.16%. We show that this is because buyers, under private information, act as if they are bargaining with the lowest-cost supplier and suppliers do not appear to blame buyers for behaving this way. Based on these findings, we conduct an additional experiment where suppliers have the ability to communicate their private costs to buyers and observe that verifiable disclosure significantly increases profits for high-cost suppliers. Managerial implications : High-cost suppliers actually suffer from having their costs as private information, which runs counter to theory. However, if high-cost suppliers can credibly disclose their costs to buyers, they can significantly increase profits. Lastly, although private information does not lead to more disagreements, negotiations do take longer, which can be costly to firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew M. Davis & Kyle Hyndman, 2021. "Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1449-1467, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:6:p:1449-1467
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2020.0896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0896
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2020.0896?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 2001. "Contracting to Assure Supply: How to Share Demand Forecasts in a Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 629-646, May.
    2. Conrads, Julian & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2013. "Strategic ignorance in ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 104-115.
    3. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    4. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, August.
    5. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1993. "Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(2), pages 171-198.
    6. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    7. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "The Deadline Effect in Bargaining: Some Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 806-823, September.
    8. Teck-Hua Ho & Juanjuan Zhang, 2008. "Designing Pricing Contracts for Boundedly Rational Customers: Does the Framing of the Fixed Fee Matter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 686-700, April.
    9. Taylor Randall & Serguei Netessine & Nils Rudi, 2006. "An Empirical Examination of the Decision to Invest in Fulfillment Capabilities: A Study of Internet Retailers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 567-580, April.
    10. Siegenthaler, Simon, 2017. "Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-161.
    11. Botman, Dennis & Edison, Hali & N'Diaye, Papa, 2009. "Strategies for fiscal consolidation in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 151-160, March.
    12. Kyle Hyndman & Santiago Kraiselburd & Noel Watson, 2013. "Aligning Capacity Decisions in Supply Chains When Demand Forecasts Are Private Information: Theory and Experiment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 102-117, March.
    13. Charles J. Corbett & Deming Zhou & Christopher S. Tang, 2004. "Designing Supply Contracts: Contract Type and Information Asymmetry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 550-559, April.
    14. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    15. Valley, Kathleen & Thompson, Leigh & Gibbons, Robert & Bazerman, Max H., 2002. "How Communication Improves Efficiency in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 127-155, January.
    16. Piyali Ghosh & Geetika, 2007. "Recruitment Strategies," Asian Journal of Management Cases, , vol. 4(1), pages 5-25, January.
    17. ., 2007. "The Western Development Strategy," Chapters, in: The Dynamics of Chinese Regional Development, chapter 8, pages 141-166, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    19. Ana S. L. Rodrigues, 2007. "Effective global conservation strategies," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7171), pages 19-19, December.
    20. Andrew M. Davis & Elena Katok & Natalia Santamaría, 2014. "Push, Pull, or Both? A Behavioral Study of How the Allocation of Inventory Risk Affects Channel Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2666-2683, November.
    21. Qi Feng & Guoming Lai & Lauren Xiaoyuan Lu, 2015. "Dynamic Bargaining in a Supply Chain with Asymmetric Demand Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 301-315, February.
    22. Lamming, Richard & Caldwell, Nigel & Phillips, Wendy & Harrison, Deborah, 2005. "Sharing Sensitive Information in Supply Relationships:: The Flaws in One-way Open-book Negotiation and the Need for Transparency," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 554-563, October.
    23. George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2004. "When Ignorance Is Bliss: Information Exchange and Inefficiency in Bargaining," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 37-58, January.
    24. Andrew M. Davis & Kyle Hyndman, 2019. "Multidimensional Bargaining and Inventory Risk in Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1286-1304, March.
    25. Singer, Bas P. & Bossink, Bart A.G. & Van de Putte, J.M., 2007. "Corporate Real Estate and Competitive Strategy," Serie Research Memoranda 0005, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    26. Myerson, Roger B, 1984. "Two-Person Bargaining Problems with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 461-487, March.
    27. Basak Kalkanci & Kay-Yut Chen & Feryal Erhun, 2011. "Contract Complexity and Performance Under Asymmetric Demand Information: An Experimental Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 689-704, April.
    28. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    29. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    30. Martin A. Lariviere & Evan L. Porteus, 2001. "Selling to the Newsvendor: An Analysis of Price-Only Contracts," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 293-305, May.
    31. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Kay-Yut Chen, 2011. "Trust in Forecast Information Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1111-1137, June.
    32. Brian Tomlin, 2003. "Capacity Investments in Supply Chains: Sharing the Gain Rather Than Sharing the Pain," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 317-333, November.
    33. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    34. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    35. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruth Beer & Anyan Qi, 2024. "To Communicate or Not? Interfirm Communication in Collaborative Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(5), pages 3225-3244, May.
    2. Yinghao Zhang & Peiwen Yu & Tianjun Feng, 2024. "Full Quantity or Full Credit? Choosing the Right Buyback Policy for a Behavioral Retailer," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 2212-2230, November.
    3. Andrew M. Davis & Kyle Hyndman, 2025. "Bargaining with Voluntary Disclosure and Endogenous Matching," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 1102-1119, February.
    4. Grigory Pishchulov & Knut Richter & Sougand Golesorkhi, 2023. "Supply chain coordination under asymmetric information and partial vertical integration," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 329(1), pages 1315-1356, October.

    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. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    2. Colin F. Camerer & Gideon Nave & Alec Smith, 2019. "Dynamic Unstructured Bargaining with Private Information: Theory, Experiment, and Outcome Prediction via Machine Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1867-1890, April.
    3. Andrew M. Davis & Bin Hu & Kyle Hyndman & Anyan Qi, 2022. "Procurement for Assembly Under Asymmetric Information: Theory and Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2694-2713, April.
    4. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Yufei Ren, 2014. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2435-2460, October.
    5. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    6. Yinghao Zhang & Peiwen Yu & Tianjun Feng, 2024. "Full Quantity or Full Credit? Choosing the Right Buyback Policy for a Behavioral Retailer," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 2212-2230, November.
    7. Andrew M. Davis & Rihuan Huang & Douglas J. Thomas, 2022. "Retailer Inventory Sharing in Two-Tier Supply Chains: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8773-8790, December.
    8. Hyndman, Kyle, 2021. "Dissolving partnerships under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 702-720.
    9. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif & Våge Knutsen, Magnus, 2022. "The power of outside options in the presence of obstinate types," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 454-468.
    10. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    11. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2023. "Wage claim detracts reciprocity in labor relations: experimental study of gift exchange games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 18(3), pages 573-597, July.
    12. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    13. Corgnet, Brice & Gächter, Simon & Hernán-González, Roberto, 2025. "The contractual dispute resolution game: Real-effort experiments on contract negotiation and arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    14. Fadong Chen & Yingshuai Zhao & Ulrich Thonemann, 2023. "The Value of Response Time Information in Supply Chain Bargaining," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 19-35, January.
    15. Felix Papier & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2021. "The Effect of Social Preferences on Sales and Operations Planning," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 1368-1395, September.
    16. Olivier Bochet & Manshu Khanna & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Beyond Dividing the Pie: Multi-Issue Bargaining in the Laboratory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 163-191.
    17. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2015. "Efficiency versus equality in real-time bargaining with communication," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-18, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Karen Donohue & Özalp Özer, 2020. "Behavioral Operations: Past, Present, and Future," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 191-202, January.
    19. Sebastian Schiffels & Guido Voigt, 2021. "Capacity Reservation and Wholesale Price Contracts under Forecast Sharing: A Behavioral Assessment," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3579-3598, October.
    20. Oded Berman & Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi & Dmitry Krass, 2019. "Truthful Cheap Talk: Why Operational Flexibility May Lead to Truthful Communication," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1624-1641, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:6:p:1449-1467. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.