Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transaction cost analysis of supply chain logistics services: firm-based versus port-focal

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

With the overwhelming findings that systemic risk dominates idiosyncratic risk in individual firms along a supply chain or in an industrial sector, and noting the fact that supply chain literature so far has been firm-based, it is critical to analyse inter-firm transactions and related risks which have largely been omitted from current supply chain research. To advance along this critical dimension, we develop a transaction cost frontier model that allows inter-firm transaction facilities in terms of a port-focal supply chain modelling framework. The key findings are as follows. (1) Environment heterogeneity is a characteristic transaction attribute, and logistics efficiency is critically dependent on both intra-firm asset specificity (Williamson, 2002) and inter-firm environment heterogeneity when ports are considered as transaction facilities. Port logistics demonstrates that horizontal integration (as opposed to vertical integration) becomes more cost effective as environment heterogeneity increases, given the same degree of asset specificity among individual ports. (2) An adaptive advantage (eg, transaction efficiency) is identified and characterized through the port-focal industrialization of supply chains, and is found to be an explanatory cause for the geographically concentrated horizontal specialization and differentiation, as increasingly observed in practice. Logistics industrialization will bring about the growth of port-focal urbanization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aigner A, Lovell CAK and Schmidt P (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics 6 (1): 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anupindi R and Bassok Y (1999). Centralization of stocks: retailers vs. manufacturer. Management Science 45 (2): 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Cheney HB, Minhas BS and Solow RW (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics 43 (3): 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cachon G (2003). Supply chain coordination with contracts. In: De Kok T and Graves S (eds). Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Supply Chain Management. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cachon G and Lariviere M (2005). Supply chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts: Strengths and limitations. Management Science 51 (1): 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen F, Federgruen A and Zheng Y (2001). Coordination mechanisms for a distribution system with one supplier and multiple retailers. Management Science 47 (5): 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu C-H and Choi TM (2013). Supply chain risk analysis with mean-variance models: A technical review. Annals of Operations Research, doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1386-4, published online 16 May.

  • Coelli T, Rao DP and Battese GE (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dada M and Srikanth KN (1987). Pricing policies for quantity discounts. Management Science 33 (10): 1247–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dal Bó E and Rossi MA (2007). Corruption and inefficiency: Theory and evidence from electric utilities. Journal of Public Economics 91 (5–6): 939–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diewert WE (1971). An application of the Shephard duality theorem: A generalized Leontief production function. Journal of Political Economics 79 (3): 481–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons H and Gilbert S (1998). The role of returns policies in pricing and inventory decisions for catalogue goods. Management Science 44 (2): 276–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federgruen A and Nan Y (2008). Selecting a portfolio of suppliers under demand and supply risks. Operations Research 56 (4): 916–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SM and Weng ZK (1998). Incentive effects favor non-consolidating queues in a service system: The principal-agent perspective. Management Science 44 (12): 1662–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gümüş M, Ray S and Gurnani H (2012). Supply-side story: Risks, guarantees, competition, and information asymmetry. Management Science 58 (9): 1694–1714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JH, Yoon H and Yeom I (2010). Active queue management for flow fairness and stable queue length. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 22 (4): 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere M (1998). Supply chain contracting and co-ordination with stochastic demand. In: Tayur S, Ganeshan R and Magazine M (eds). Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management. Kluwer: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell CAK and Pastor JT (1995). Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Operations Research Letters 18 (3): 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1963). Constant elasticity of substitution production functions. The Review of Economic Studies 30 (2): 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasternack B (1985). Optimal pricing and return policies for perishable commodities. Marketing Science. 4 (2): 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott E (1998). Needed: A theory of total factor productivity. International Economic Review 39 (3): 525–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz JL and Sirvent I (2011). A DEA approach to derive individual lower and upper bounds for the technical and allocative components of the overall profit efficiency. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (11): 1907–1916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikhzadeh M, Benjaafar S and Gupta D (1998). Machine sharing in manufacturing systems: Total flexibility versus chaining. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 10 (4): 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi C and Chen B (2007). Pareto-optimal contracts for a supply chain with satisficing objectives. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (6): 751–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (3): 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T (2002). Supply chain coordination under channel rebates with sales effort effects. Management Science 48 (8): 992–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsay A (1999). Quantity-flexibility contract and supplier-customer incentives. Management Science. 45 (10): 1339–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsay A (2001). Managing retail channel overstock: Markdown money and return policies. Journal of Retailing 77 (4): 457–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Mieghem JA and Rudi N (2002). Newsvendor networks: Inventory management and capacity investment with discretionary activities. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 4 (4): 313–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng ZK (1995). Channel coordination and quantity discounts. Management Science 41 (9): 1509–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2002). The theory of the firm as governance structure: From choice to contract. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain management. IJSCM 44 (2): 1559–1576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan J, Sun X and Liu J (2009). Assessing container operator efficiency with heterogeneous and time-varying production frontiers. Transportation Research-B 43 (1): 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work is supported by RGC-GRF grant #119213.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. City University of Hong Kong, PR, Hong Kong, China

    John J Liu

  2. Morgan State University, Baltimore, USA

    Ziping Wang

  3. Towson University, Baltimore, USA

    Dong-Qing Yao

  4. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA

    Xiaohang Yue

Authors
  1. John J Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ziping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dong-Qing Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaohang Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Wang, Z., Yao, DQ. et al. Transaction cost analysis of supply chain logistics services: firm-based versus port-focal. J Oper Res Soc 67, 176–186 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.117

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.117

Keywords

Search

Navigation