基于农产品供应链金融的物流作业承接双边讨价还价博弈
|
摘要
农产品供应链金融是物流与金融合作的创新产物,对破解农产品供应链中农户、合作社和生产加工企业等融资困局具有重要意义,而农产品易变质、难运输、难储存等属性决定其开展质押融资更需要高水平物流服务商的参与。基于此,在模型中引入具有资源整合和方案优化能力的第四方物流(4PL),并针对业务中物流作业承接价格的确定问题,运用鲁宾斯轮流讨价还价博弈思想,构建了信息不对称情况下农产品供应链金融中第四方物流分别与银行和第三方物流(3PL)双边讨价还价博弈模型。根据博弈顺序,分别对第四方物流先与第三方物流再与银行以及先与银行再与第三方物流讨价还价两种情况进行讨论。研究发现,相较一般存货,质押物为农产品时,第四方物流给出的报价较高,第四方物流的报价与其自身讨价还价能力无关,银行和第三方物流的报价与其完成物流作业的成本有关及第四方物流先与银行博弈时的报价会高于先与第三方物流博弈时的报价等结论。
Agri-products supply chain finance is the cooperation innovation of logistics and finance, which has an important significance in solving financing difficulties of farmers, cooperatives, and producing and processing enterprises in the supply chain of agri-products. However, the fact that agri-products are perishable, difficult for transportation, difficulty for storage, and other attributes determine that the development of pledge financing requires the participation of a fourth party logistics(4 PL) with resource integration and optimization scheme ability. Aimed at the pricing problem of logistics tasks, this paper constructs a bargain game model with asymmetric information among the 4 PL, the bank, and the 3 PL by using Rubinstein altering offer. Besides, it discussed the problem from two aspects. It is found that the price offering of the 4 PL is not related to its own patience, the price offering of the bank and the 3 PLs is related to the logistics operation cost of their own, and the 4 PL first bargaining with the bank will offer a higher price than the first bargaining with the 3 PLs.
Agri-products supply chain finance is the cooperation innovation of logistics and finance, which has an important significance in solving financing difficulties of farmers, cooperatives, and producing and processing enterprises in the supply chain of agri-products. However, the fact that agri-products are perishable, difficult for transportation, difficulty for storage, and other attributes determine that the development of pledge financing requires the participation of a fourth party logistics(4 PL) with resource integration and optimization scheme ability. Aimed at the pricing problem of logistics tasks, this paper constructs a bargain game model with asymmetric information among the 4 PL, the bank, and the 3 PL by using Rubinstein altering offer. Besides, it discussed the problem from two aspects. It is found that the price offering of the 4 PL is not related to its own patience, the price offering of the bank and the 3 PLs is related to the logistics operation cost of their own, and the 4 PL first bargaining with the bank will offer a higher price than the first bargaining with the 3 PLs.
引文
[1] 纪伟.农产品供应链金融研究现状及评述[J].物流工程与管理,2015,37(6):99-101.
[2] Bade D,Mueller J.New for the millennium:4PL [J].Transportation & Distribution,1999,40(2):78-80.
[3] Bhatti R S,Kumar P,Kumar D.Analytical modeling of third party service provider selection in lead logistics provider environments [J].Journal of Modeling in Management,2010.5(3):275-286.
[4] Bhatti R S,Kumar P,Kumar D.Analytical modeling of third party service provider selection in lead logistics provider environments[J].Journal of Modelling in Managmente,2010,5(3):275-286.
[5] Gattorna J.Strategic supply chain alignment best practice in supply chain management[M].American:Gower Publishing Comany,1998.
[6] Stefansson G.Collaborative logistics managment and the role of third-party service providers[J].International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,2006,36(2):76-92.
[7] 姚建民.4PL模式下网购供应链资源整合决策[J].系统管理学报,2016,25(2):308-316.
[8] Visser E J.Logistics innovation in global supply chains:An empirical test of dynamic transantion-cost theory[J].Geo Journal,2007,70(2):213-226.
[9] Fulconis F,Saglietto L,Pache G.Strategy dynamics in the logistics industry a transactional center perspective[J].Management Decision,2007,45(1):104-117.
[10] Buchenau J.lnnovative poducts and adaptations for rural finance[C]//Paving the Way Forward:An International Conference on Best Practices in Rural Finance.[s.n.]:[s.l.],2003.
[11] 林毅夫.推广龙头企业担保公司缓解三农融资难题[J/OR].2007,http://business.sohu.com.
[12] 关喜华.农业供应链金融模式探索与实践一基于龙江银行农业产业金融创新的调研分析[J].银行家,2011(11):110-113.
[13] 满明俊.农业产业链融资模式比较与金融服务创新—基于重庆调研的经验与启示[J].农村金融研究,2011(7):24-29.
[14] 李巍.浅析农产品供应链物流的金融模式[J].物流工程,2011(9):44-45.
[15] 张永升,杨伟坤,马文杰.基于合作社的农业价值链融资研究—以重庆市金刀峡农业合作社为例[J].世界经济,2010(10):34-38.
[16] 王士勇.农业产业链融资障碍及对策研究[J].现代经济信息,2011(12):314.
[17] 段伟常,胡挺.供应链金融在现代农业中的应用原理研究[J].金融理论与实践,2012(1):23-27.
[18] 杨进先.农业供应链金融模式探索[J].中国金融,2012(22):85-86.
[19] Chris L.Effectively managing vertical supply relationships:A risk management model for outsourcing [J].International Journal of Supply Chain Management,1999(4):176-183.
[20] David B,Marija B.Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space[J].International Journal of Production Economics,2007,108(1):291-301.
[21] Tobias S,Rao V M,Harrison T P.Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic hierarchy process:Providing decision support for the off shoring decision by a US manufacturing company [J].Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,2008,14(2):100-111.
[22] Aan M.Future manufacture environment[J].Solid State Technology,2011,11(6):33-42.
[23] 方茂杨.国内金融支农典型模式述评与改进[J].金融理论与实践,2013(12):92-96.
[24] 李涵,王兆旭,邹磊.农产品订单融资的可行路径研究:理论分析与具体实践[J].征信,2014(4):67-71.
[25] 王筱萍,王文利.农村中小企业集群供应链融资:内生风险治理机制与效应[J].农业经济问题,2015(10):34-42.
1)图1呈现的仅是银行、4PL和多个3PL就物流作业价格讨价还价博弈流程图,未完全呈现农产品质押融资的运作流程。本文的博弈分析也局限在银行、4PL和3PL之间,未考虑融资企业的情况
[2] Bade D,Mueller J.New for the millennium:4PL [J].Transportation & Distribution,1999,40(2):78-80.
[3] Bhatti R S,Kumar P,Kumar D.Analytical modeling of third party service provider selection in lead logistics provider environments [J].Journal of Modeling in Management,2010.5(3):275-286.
[4] Bhatti R S,Kumar P,Kumar D.Analytical modeling of third party service provider selection in lead logistics provider environments[J].Journal of Modelling in Managmente,2010,5(3):275-286.
[5] Gattorna J.Strategic supply chain alignment best practice in supply chain management[M].American:Gower Publishing Comany,1998.
[6] Stefansson G.Collaborative logistics managment and the role of third-party service providers[J].International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,2006,36(2):76-92.
[7] 姚建民.4PL模式下网购供应链资源整合决策[J].系统管理学报,2016,25(2):308-316.
[8] Visser E J.Logistics innovation in global supply chains:An empirical test of dynamic transantion-cost theory[J].Geo Journal,2007,70(2):213-226.
[9] Fulconis F,Saglietto L,Pache G.Strategy dynamics in the logistics industry a transactional center perspective[J].Management Decision,2007,45(1):104-117.
[10] Buchenau J.lnnovative poducts and adaptations for rural finance[C]//Paving the Way Forward:An International Conference on Best Practices in Rural Finance.[s.n.]:[s.l.],2003.
[11] 林毅夫.推广龙头企业担保公司缓解三农融资难题[J/OR].2007,http://business.sohu.com.
[12] 关喜华.农业供应链金融模式探索与实践一基于龙江银行农业产业金融创新的调研分析[J].银行家,2011(11):110-113.
[13] 满明俊.农业产业链融资模式比较与金融服务创新—基于重庆调研的经验与启示[J].农村金融研究,2011(7):24-29.
[14] 李巍.浅析农产品供应链物流的金融模式[J].物流工程,2011(9):44-45.
[15] 张永升,杨伟坤,马文杰.基于合作社的农业价值链融资研究—以重庆市金刀峡农业合作社为例[J].世界经济,2010(10):34-38.
[16] 王士勇.农业产业链融资障碍及对策研究[J].现代经济信息,2011(12):314.
[17] 段伟常,胡挺.供应链金融在现代农业中的应用原理研究[J].金融理论与实践,2012(1):23-27.
[18] 杨进先.农业供应链金融模式探索[J].中国金融,2012(22):85-86.
[19] Chris L.Effectively managing vertical supply relationships:A risk management model for outsourcing [J].International Journal of Supply Chain Management,1999(4):176-183.
[20] David B,Marija B.Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space[J].International Journal of Production Economics,2007,108(1):291-301.
[21] Tobias S,Rao V M,Harrison T P.Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic hierarchy process:Providing decision support for the off shoring decision by a US manufacturing company [J].Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,2008,14(2):100-111.
[22] Aan M.Future manufacture environment[J].Solid State Technology,2011,11(6):33-42.
[23] 方茂杨.国内金融支农典型模式述评与改进[J].金融理论与实践,2013(12):92-96.
[24] 李涵,王兆旭,邹磊.农产品订单融资的可行路径研究:理论分析与具体实践[J].征信,2014(4):67-71.
[25] 王筱萍,王文利.农村中小企业集群供应链融资:内生风险治理机制与效应[J].农业经济问题,2015(10):34-42.
1)图1呈现的仅是银行、4PL和多个3PL就物流作业价格讨价还价博弈流程图,未完全呈现农产品质押融资的运作流程。本文的博弈分析也局限在银行、4PL和3PL之间,未考虑融资企业的情况