References
- Andreassen, T. W. (1995). (Dis)satisfaction with public services: The case of public transportation. Journal of Services Marketing, 9, 30–41.10.1108/08876049510100290
- Ahmed, H. J. A. (2009). Managerial ownership concentration and agency conflict using logistics regression approach: Evidence from Bursa Malaysia. Journal of Management Research, 1(1), 1–10.
- Anwar, A. H. M. M. (2013). Integrating traveller preference heterogeneity in transportation planning from the perspective of principal-agent theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wollongong, Australia.
- Anwar, A. H. M. M., Tieu, K., Gibson, P., Berryman, M., Win, K. T., McCusker, A., & Perez, P. (2015). Exploring agency relationship in transport service sector by analysing traveller choice behaviour. Paper presented at the 14th international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management, MIT Cambridge, MA, USA (pp. 157–177).
- Anwar, A. H. M. M., Tieu, K., Gibson, P., Win, K. T., & Berryman, M. J. (2014). Analysing the heterogeneity of traveller mode choice preference using a random parameter logit model from the perspective of principal-agent theory. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 17, 447–471.10.1504/IJLSM.2014.061015
- Ashok, K., William, R. D., & Yuan, S. (2002). Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 31–46.10.1509/jmkr.39.1.31.18937
- Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., … Munizaga, M. A. (2002). Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges. Marketing Letters, 13, 163–175.10.1023/A:1020254301302
- Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J. L., Bernardino, A. T., Gopinath, D. A., Morikawa, T., & Polydoropoulou, A. (2002). Integration of choice and latent variable models. In S. Mahmassani (Ed.), Perpetual motion: Travel behaviour research opportunities and challenges (pp. 431–470). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
- Bolduc, D., Boucher, N., & Alvarez-Daziano, R. (2008). Hybrid choice modeling of new technologies for car choice in Canada. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2082, 63–71.10.3141/2082-08
- Bureau of Transport Statistics. (2012). 2010/11 Household travel survey summary report, 2012 release. Sydney: Transport for New South Wales.
- Cohen, A., & Baruch, Y. (2010). An agency theory perspective of the Israeli labor market segmentation: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 186–193.10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.001
- Evans, J. E. (2004). Chapter 9 – Transit scheduling and frequency. In Traveller response to transportation system changes (Chapter 9: TCRP Report No. 95). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
- Grammenos, T., & Papapostolou, N. C. (2012). US shipping initial public offerings: Do prospectus and market information matter? Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48, 276–295.10.1016/j.tre.2011.07.009
- Iseki, H., Taylor, B. D., & Miller, M. (2006). The effects of out-of-vehicle time on travel behavior: Implications for transit transfers. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
- Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
- Johansson, M. V., Heldt, T., & Johansson, P. (2006). The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40, 507–525.
- Kivisto, J. (2005). The government–higher education institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 1–17.
- Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–777.10.2307/2110997
- Ortuzar, J. de D., & Willumsen, L.G. (2001). Modelling transport (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
- Pedersen, L. B., Kaer, T., Kragstrup, J., & Hansen, D. G. (2012). Do general practitioners know patients’ preferences? An empirical study on the agency relationship at an aggregate level using a discrete choice experiment. Value in Health, 15, 514–523.10.1016/j.jval.2012.01.002
- Puyvelde, S. V., Caers, R., Bois, C. D., & Jegers, M. (2013). Mangers and employees in non-profit organizations: A discrete choice experiement. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24, 63–85.
- Rasmussen, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2012). Government support programmes to promote academic entrepreneurship: A principal-agent perspective. European Planning Studies, 20, 527–546.10.1080/09654313.2012.665035
- Raveau, S., Alvarez-Daziano, R., Yanez, M. F., Bolduc, D., & Ortuzar, J. de D. (2010). Sequential and simultaneous estimation of hybrid discrete choice models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2156, 131–139.10.3141/2156-15
- Reed, T. B. (1995). Reduction in the burden of waiting for public transit due to real-time schedule information: A conjoint analysis study. Paper read at vehicle navigation and information systems conference (6th: 1995: Seattle, Wash.), Piscataway, NJ.
- Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.
- Scott, A., & Vick, S. (1999). Patients, doctors and contracts: An application of principal-agent theory to the doctor–patient relationship. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 46, 111–134.10.1111/sjpe.1999.46.issue-2
- Thompson, C. R., & McKee, M. (2011). An analysis of hospital capital planning and financing in three European countries: Using the principal-agent approach to identify the potential for economic problems. Health Policy, 99, 158–166.10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.07.015
- Zsidisin, G. A., & Ellram, L. M. (2003). An agency theory investigation of supply risk m anagement. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39, 15–27.10.1111/jscm.2003.39.issue-3
- Zu, X., & Kaynak, H. (2012). An agency theory perspective on supply chain quality management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 423–446.