PurposeThis paper aims to analyze the effect of a recent disruption of Mexico's gasoline supply chain on the usage of public bike-sharing systems in Mexico City and Guadalajara.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use a detailed data set to understand the usage patterns of Ecobici and Mibici. The authors assess both systems with a differences-in-differences econometric model using the least popular stations as a control group.FindingsThe authors find that the number of rides increased significantly shortly after the event because less popular stations became more utilized.Social implicationsThe authors show that when the effects of gasoline shortages were noticeable, usage rates increased in Guadalajara and Mexico City, but the rise primarily came from the users selecting more bikes from the less popular stations. Therefore, the authors show that citizens in both cities regarded bike-sharing as an adequate means of transportation, maximizing system usage during a disruptive time. This finding suggests that cities should invest in improving public bike-sharing systems to reduce carbon emissions and increase their population's well-being.Originality/valueThe authors use a publicly available data set to understand how citizens answered to a major disruption. Furthermore, this is one of the first papers that align supply chain risk management with sustainable transportation and analyzes its effects on citizen behavior in a Latin American setting.

No abstract

The relationship between innovation and competition has been vastly studied over the past fifty years. However, one piece of the puzzle that has not been studied in detail is how in certain industries competition has an effect in the number of products that are removed from the market. That is why in this paper, I use scanner data to analyze the effect of competition on product removal. In particular, I track sales in the beer industry across a set of 1107 over a period of four years. Following previous studies, I use the merger between SABMiller and Molson Coors as an unexpected change in the industry to estimate future market concentration. I find that there is a negative relationship between removal and concentration. Therefore, retailers decide to remove products from their shelves in a faster way when the market is more competitive to open the gates for a more dynamic assortment.

No abstract

No abstract