Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment
-
Darren Hudson
Published/Copyright:
February 6, 2004
Contracting is a contentious issue in agriculture. Competing theories assert that risk or transactions cost drive contracting decisions, with some argument that autonomy also plays a role. We examine preferences for different contract attributes using a choice-based conjoint experiment. Results of a study of agricultural producers show that both risk and transactions cost play a role in contracting decisions. Autonomy also plays a role, especially to the extent that producers wish to avoid total loss of autonomy. These results suggest that the effects of risk and transactions cost are relative and should both be considered when analyzing contracting decisions.
Keywords: risk; transactions cost; autonomy; contracting; choice-based conjoint; experiments; surveys
Published Online: 2004-2-6
©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- Delineating the Relevant U.S. Sweetener Markets
- Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment
- Economics of Private Labels: A Survey of Literature
- Promotion Carryover as a Missing-Data Problem
- Consumers' Responses to Front vs. Back Package GM Labels in Japan
- Strategic Public Policy Toward Agricultural Biotechnology with Externalities in Developing Countries
- Market Segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiff's Argument in Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
- Market Conduct in the U.S. Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry
- Revisiting the Price Effects of Rising Concentration in U.S. Food Manufacturing
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiff's Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Comment
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiffs' Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Response to Comment
Keywords for this article
risk;
transactions cost;
autonomy;
contracting;
choice-based conjoint;
experiments;
surveys
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- Delineating the Relevant U.S. Sweetener Markets
- Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment
- Economics of Private Labels: A Survey of Literature
- Promotion Carryover as a Missing-Data Problem
- Consumers' Responses to Front vs. Back Package GM Labels in Japan
- Strategic Public Policy Toward Agricultural Biotechnology with Externalities in Developing Countries
- Market Segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiff's Argument in Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
- Market Conduct in the U.S. Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry
- Revisiting the Price Effects of Rising Concentration in U.S. Food Manufacturing
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiff's Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Comment
- Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiffs' Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Response to Comment
