How IR theories enrich OSCM frameworks
| Theories routinely used in OSCM | How IR theories complement/Extend them | Relevant IR theories |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction cost economics (TCE) | Extend cost/governance logic by factoring state interventions (sanctions, export controls, protectionist policies) as transaction hazards. Explains why efficiency may be overridden by security concerns. Helps model state opportunism as analogous to firm opportunism | Realism (security over efficiency), Geoeconomics (economic tools as instruments of power) |
| Institutional theory | Goes beyond compliance with host-country rules by explaining state motivations for intervention. IR adds insights into struggles for legitimacy; protectionism, nationalism, populism. Explains how international regimes, treaties and organisations (WTO, EU) shape institutional pressures on supply chains | Realism (states can undermine international institutions), Constructivism (norm diffusion, legitimacy), Geoeconomics (regulatory divergence as a strategic state instrument) |
| Resource dependence theory (RDT) | Extends resource access logic by showing how political alignment/misalignment affects supply chain dependencies. Explains disruptions via resource weaponisation (oil, rare earths). Adds intangible resources (legitimacy, recognition, reputation) as critical for resilience. Also explains how state alliances shape firm dependencies | Realism (resource leverage), Liberalism (institutional mediation of dependencies), Constructivism (socially constructed legitimacy), Geoeconomics (critical resources as instruments of statecraft) |
| Resource based view (RBV) | IR theories complement RBV by showing that resources are not freely tradable, but often state-mediated. Strategic resources (semiconductors, energy, rare earths) are subject to states strategic interests, sanctions, and alliances. Intangible resources, such as political legitimacy and reputation also become key VRIN assets | Geoeconomics (state mediating access and intervening in markets), Realism (resource security), Constructivism (legitimacy as VRIN resource) |
| Dynamic capabilities view (DCV) | Extends sensing/seizing/reconfiguring capabilities to include geopolitical risk foresight. Firms develop “political capabilities” (lobbying, alliance building, legitimacy management). IR theories help identify when flexibility vs structural change is required (long-lasting vs temporary geopolitical disruptions) | Liberalism (political foresight and cooperation), Constructivism (norm shifts, reputational changes), Realism (anticipating rivalry, conflict scenarios) |
| Network & complex adaptive systems (CAS) theories | Adds political alignment as a dimension of network resilience. Explains propagation of disruptions through politically misaligned or contested hubs (i.e. Russia – energy, Taiwan – semiconductors). Realism explains fragility from power asymmetries, Liberalism highlights resilience through institutionalised alliances, Constructivism highlights trust and shared norms as network stabilisers | Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism |
| Theories routinely used in | How | Relevant |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction cost economics ( | Extend cost/governance logic by factoring state interventions (sanctions, export controls, protectionist policies) as transaction hazards. Explains why efficiency may be overridden by security concerns. Helps model state opportunism as analogous to firm opportunism | Realism (security over efficiency), Geoeconomics (economic tools as instruments of power) |
| Institutional theory | Goes beyond compliance with host-country rules by explaining state motivations for intervention. | Realism (states can undermine international institutions), Constructivism (norm diffusion, legitimacy), Geoeconomics (regulatory divergence as a strategic state instrument) |
| Resource dependence theory ( | Extends resource access logic by showing how political alignment/misalignment affects supply chain dependencies. Explains disruptions via resource weaponisation (oil, rare earths). Adds intangible resources (legitimacy, recognition, reputation) as critical for resilience. Also explains how state alliances shape firm dependencies | Realism (resource leverage), Liberalism (institutional mediation of dependencies), Constructivism (socially constructed legitimacy), Geoeconomics (critical resources as instruments of statecraft) |
| Resource based view ( | Geoeconomics (state mediating access and intervening in markets), Realism (resource security), Constructivism (legitimacy as | |
| Dynamic capabilities view ( | Extends sensing/seizing/reconfiguring capabilities to include geopolitical risk foresight. Firms develop “political capabilities” (lobbying, alliance building, legitimacy management). | Liberalism (political foresight and cooperation), Constructivism (norm shifts, reputational changes), Realism (anticipating rivalry, conflict scenarios) |
| Network & complex adaptive systems ( | Adds political alignment as a dimension of network resilience. Explains propagation of disruptions through politically misaligned or contested hubs (i.e. Russia – energy, Taiwan – semiconductors). Realism explains fragility from power asymmetries, Liberalism highlights resilience through institutionalised alliances, Constructivism highlights trust and shared norms as network stabilisers | Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.