1. (). . . In The Shipping Act of 1984, a precursor to the OSRA legislation, significantly weakened the conference system by mandating the allowance for independent action, permitting long-term, non-confidential contracting and ending ‘closed conferences’. Antitrust immunity for conferences was, however, retained and conferences maintained their dominance on US trade lanes for the next 14 years[ pp. ] . .
2. (1987–2004) PIERS (Port Import Export Reporting Service) data show that excluding the Maersk–Sealand alliance, which ultimately led to their merger in 2000, the global alliance share of total slots deployed on US trade lanes stood at 46.2% in 2004 and 43.6% in 1998. PIERS, US Global Container Report. various issues
3. Hoffman, J. (1998) Concentration in liner shipping: its causes and impacts for ports and shipping services in developing regions United Nations Economics Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. May, provides a comprehensive analysis of the causes of concentration in the liner shipping industry
4. Fox, N.(1994). Review of Industrial Organization. . In An oligopoly model of ocean liner ahipping[ pp. ] . . 9(4), 343–357, makes the case that conferences fix prices but individual members subsequently compete with one another based on quality of service or service frequency
5. Fox, NR and White, LJ. (1997) US ocean shipping policy: going against the tide Annals of the America Academy of Political and Social Science, 553, pp. 75 - 86. Transport at the Millenium