This paper analyzes the structure of post-deregulation contracting in the trucking industry from a transactions-cost perspective, focusing on the effects of frequent transactions, specific investment, and rate uncertainty. Contrasting the “filed rate doctrine” and “negotiated rates policy,” it examines the “undercharge crisis” and the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Maislin v. Primary Steel. The paper concludes that Maislin failed dramatically to eliminate rate uncertainty, but despite the impassioned protests of shippers, the decision reduced only slightly the incentive for them to enter into long-term freight contracts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CalderwoodJ.“Attack of the Rate Sharks.”Transportation and Distribution, 28 (August 1987), 57.
2.
DempseyP.“Running on Empty: Trucking Regulation and Economic Theory.”Administrative Law Review, 43 (1991), 253–319.
3.
KleinB.CrawfordG. and AlchianA.“Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process.”Journal of Law and Economics, 21 (1978), 297–326.
4.
Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc., et al. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 110 S.Ct. 2759 (1990).
5.
McGinleyL. and MachalabaD.“Fight Over Freight.”Wall Street Journal, 73 (16 June 1992), A1, A8.
6.
MurphyD.“Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.: What Happened to Deference?”Case Western Reserve Law Review, 41 (1991), 627–641.
7.
RosenfeldI.SchultzJ. and WinterD.“Shippers Lick Wounds, Seek Relief After High Court Undercharge Ruling.”Traffic World, 222 (14 July 1990), 7–9.
8.
SacasasR.MunterP. and SandersG.“Unwanted Assets? Motor Carriers and Auditors in a Post-Maislin World.”Transportation Journal, 31 (1991), 51–57.
9.
SchulzJ.“Shippers Beset by Undercharges Urge Repeal of ‘Filed-Rate’ Doctrine.”Traffic World, 229 (16 March 1992), 20–21.
10.
WilliamsonO.“Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations.”Journal of Law and Economics, 22 (1979), 233–261.
