Global Supply Chains and the Geopolitics of Production

Author: Samira Khan

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

In today's world economy, global supply chains are one of the most important political structures. They used to be seen mostly as ways for companies to work together to be more efficient, but now they are part of geopolitical tensions, national security debates, and industrial policy strategies. The COVID-19 pandemic, semiconductor shortages, rising geopolitical competition, and the faster shift to low-carbon technologies are just a few of the shocks that have changed how countries and businesses handle trade and production.

 This article examines the transformation of global supply chains from a geopolitical perspective. It uses three theoretical frameworks—Pierre Bourdieu's field theory, world-systems analysis, and institutional isomorphism—to show how power, hierarchy, and norms affect the structure and growth of global production. Employing a qualitative interpretive methodology based on secondary research, the article demonstrates that current trends signify not a disintegration of globalisation, but rather a politically influenced, strategically orchestrated reconfiguration of economic networks.

 The findings underscore the rise of new regional manufacturing hubs, the heightened application of industrial policy by major economies, strategic competition concerning technologies, standards, and essential raw materials, and the increasing significance of sustainability, due diligence, and ESG standards. The article asserts that the geopolitics of production will persist as a pivotal influence in global value chains, with the allocation of benefits contingent upon the positioning of states and firms within shifting power dynamics.

Introduction

In the last 40 years, global supply chains have changed the way the world economy works. Companies spread production across several continents, outsourcing tasks that required a lot of labour while keeping design, branding, and innovation in advanced economies. Supply chain management, which used to be a small part of management, is now the most important part of trade and investment around the world. For decades, the primary objective was efficiency: minimise costs, reduce production time, maximise economies of scale, and exploit global differences in wages, taxes, and regulatory conditions.

 The reasoning behind this has changed a lot. Since 2018, a number of geopolitical and economic shocks have shown how fragile hyper-globalized production is. The U.S.-China tech race, limits on semiconductor exports, supply chain problems during the COVID-19 pandemic, and global shortages of important minerals and medical equipment have made businesses and governments rethink how they make things. The energy transition has also created new centres of competition and dependence, such as the rise in demand for lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, green hydrogen, and solar components.

 Because of this, global supply chains are now at the heart of geopolitical strategy. The words used to be "liberalisation" and "just-in-time logistics." Now they are "economic security," "friendshoring," "reshoring," "reducing dependency," and "strategic autonomy." Industrial policy, which was once seen as protectionist, is now back in style in major economies. At the same time, companies have to meet new requirements for climate reporting, human rights due diligence, and sustainability, all of which affect where they get their supplies.

This article addresses a central question:

How are global supply chains being reshaped by the geopolitics of production, and what does this mean for global inequality, industrial competitiveness, and the future of globalisation?

To answer this, the article offers an integrated theoretical framework combining three analytical perspectives rarely used together:

• Bourdieu’s field theory explains how states and firms struggle for dominance through different forms of capital.

• World-systems analysis highlights how the core–semi-periphery–periphery hierarchy structures global production.

• Institutional isomorphism clarifies how norms, regulations, and professional pressures produce convergence in supply chain governance.

By combining these approaches, the article shows that the reconfiguration of global supply chains is not simply technical or economic; it is profoundly political, relational, and embedded in global hierarchies of power.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Bourdieu’s Field Theory: Struggle and Capital in Global Production

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualised social life as composed of relatively autonomous fields—spaces of positions where actors compete using different types of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. In the field of global supply chains, these actors include:

• Nation-states and governments

• Multinational corporations

• Standard-setting and regulatory bodies

• Logistics providers

• Industry associations and ESG rating agencies

• Labour and civil society organisations

These actors struggle to shape rules governing market access, technological standards, and acceptable business practices. In this struggle:

• Economic capital includes financial resources, technology ownership, and production capacity.

• Cultural capital includes technical expertise, industrial know-how, and standards-setting capabilities.

• Social capital includes alliances, trade agreements, diplomatic partnerships, and long-term supplier networks.

• Symbolic capital includes reputation, sustainability leadership, quality certification, and “trusted partner” status.

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus—the internalised dispositions that guide professional and strategic behaviour—helps explain why firms and governments often continue established sourcing practices despite known risks, and why transitions toward resilience and sustainability require deep cultural change.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: Hierarchy and Unequal Exchange

World-systems analysis divides the global economy into core, semi-periphery, and periphery:

• Core economies control high-value sectors: advanced manufacturing, design, technology, finance.

• Semi-peripheral economies combine manufacturing, assembly, and resource extraction, often serving as global industrial hubs.

• Peripheral economies provide raw materials and low-skill labour but capture limited value.

Global supply chains reproduce these patterns. For example:

• Advanced economies retain control over semiconductors, medical innovations, AI, robotics, and standards.

• Semi-peripheral countries specialise in assembly, automotive components, electronics, and textile manufacturing.

• Peripheral countries supply critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper) and agricultural commodities.

Recent geopolitical tensions have reinforced core countries’ desire to control strategic technologies while selectively relocating certain manufacturing tasks to “friendly” semi-peripheral regions. This shift can either open new opportunities or deepen dependency, depending on local capabilities and negotiation power.

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Convergence Through Pressure

Institutional isomorphism describes how organisations converge in behaviour through three mechanisms:

• Coercive pressures: legal requirements, due-diligence laws, export controls, investment screening.

• Mimetic pressures: imitation of industry leaders during uncertainty (e.g., adopting resilience frameworks).

• Normative pressures: professional standards, sustainability certifications, industry associations, ESG norms.

In global supply chains, isomorphism plays a key role in shaping:

• ESG reporting practices

• Human rights and environmental due diligence

• Supplier codes of conduct

• Digital standards, cybersecurity norms, and data governance

• Carbon accounting and climate disclosure

• Anti-corruption and traceability requirements

This convergence influences how firms choose suppliers, invest in new geographies, and restructure production networks.

3. Method

This article uses a qualitative interpretive methodology based on the synthesis of secondary academic literature, industry analyses, policy documents, and recent research from 2020–2025. The method includes:

1. Systematic scoping of peer-reviewed articles on geopolitics, global value chains, industrial policy, and supply chain resilience.

2. Thematic coding aligned with the three theoretical frameworks (field, world-system, isomorphism).

3. Comparative interpretation of emerging trends across sectors (semiconductors, clean technology, pharmaceuticals, food systems, digital services).

4. Triangulation of findings across multiple disciplines including economics, political science, sociology, development studies, and supply chain management.

The analysis does not use proprietary data; all insights derive from publicly available academic and policy sources, ensuring transparency and replicability.

4. Analysis

4.1 The Shift from Efficiency to Resilience and Security

For most of the 1990s and 2000s, global supply chains operated under a logic of maximum efficiency:

• Lean inventories

• Fragmented production

• Ultra-specialised hubs

• Lower labour and regulatory costs through offshoring

• Just-in-time logistics

This model created extraordinary global connectivity but also fragile interdependencies, which became visible during major disruptions. Recent events have forced a fundamental shift toward resilience and security, prioritising:

• Redundancy

• Inventory buffers

• Multi-sourcing

• Regionalised production

• Built-in flexibility

• Traceability and compliance systems

In Bourdieu’s terms, the field of production experienced a redefinition of valuable capital: resilience, trustworthiness, and regulatory alignment now carry more symbolic and economic value than minimal cost.

4.2 Friendshoring and Nearshoring: A New Geography of Production

The most profound geoeconomic trend is the move toward friendshoring and nearshoring, in which firms prioritise locations that are:

• Politically aligned

• Geopolitically stable

• Compliant with sustainability norms

• Embedded in trade alliances

• Technologically trustworthy

This strategy has reshaped global production in several ways.

Emergence of New Semi-Peripheral Hubs

Countries in:

• Southeast Asia

• Eastern Europe

• Latin America

• North Africa

• Middle East

• East Africa

are increasingly attracting investment in electronics, automotive components, textiles, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy equipment.

Their advantages include:

• Political alignment with key markets

• Competitive labour costs

• Improving logistics infrastructure

• Expanding industrial capabilities

• Access to trade agreements

This parallels world-systems dynamics in which new semi-peripheral states experience upward mobility when global power centres reconfigure production.

Partial Reshoring to Core Economies

Advanced economies are reshoring or subsidising:

• Battery manufacturing

• Semiconductor fabrication

• Medical equipment production

• Pharmaceutical ingredients

• Renewable energy components

These sectors are considered strategic due to national security concerns and the energy transition.

4.3 Critical Minerals and Resource Geopolitics

The energy transition has dramatically increased demand for:

• Lithium

• Cobalt

• Nickel

• Rare earth elements

• Copper

• Graphite

• Manganese

These minerals are vital for electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and digital devices.

Opportunities for Producer Countries

Resource-rich countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia may benefit from:

• New foreign investment

• Refining and processing capacity

• Downstream manufacturing (battery components)

• Technology transfer possibilities

Risks: Extractive Dependency

However, without strong institutions, these countries risk:

• Remaining locked in extraction

• Environmental degradation

• Volatile commodity prices

• Limited domestic value addition

• Unequal terms in negotiations with global corporations

World-systems theory helps explain why many resource-rich countries remain in the periphery unless they successfully transition into higher-value segments.

4.4 Standards, Regulation, and the Power of Norms

Geopolitics increasingly operates through standards and norms rather than only through tariffs or military alliances.

Key regulatory areas influencing supply chains include:

• Cybersecurity

• Artificial intelligence

• Data privacy and localisation

• Carbon border measures

• ESG reporting

• Human rights due diligence

• Renewable energy certification

Institutional isomorphism drives widespread adoption of these norms, often originating in major economies where regulators, investors, and consumers exert strong influence.

This creates two outcomes:

1. Convergence in supply chain governance across both developed and developing economies.

2. Compliance burden for smaller firms and poorer countries that lack technical and financial resources.

4.5 Technology Competition and Strategic Decoupling

The competition for technological dominance—especially in semiconductors, cloud computing, AI, robotics, and biotechnology—has become a defining feature of global geopolitics.

Key strategies used by major powers include:

• Export controls

• Technology transfer restrictions

• Investment screening

• Subsidies and industrial policy

• IP protection and licensing controls

• Talent attraction and immigration policy

Technological decoupling creates ripple effects across global supply chains, as firms must adjust their sourcing, partnerships, and compliance strategies.

4.6 Implications for the Global South

The reconfiguration of production has asymmetric effects across developing countries.

Winners

Countries that:

• Provide political stability

• Align with major powers

• Invest in skills and infrastructure

• Comply with ESG and regulatory requirements

• Offer industrial incentives

can attract high-value manufacturing and services.

Examples include diversification into:

• Electronics

• Aerospace components

• Renewable energy manufacturing

• Logistics and port services

• Data centres and digital services

Losers

Countries that:

• Face political instability

• Lack infrastructure

• Do not meet ESG or due diligence standards

• Are overly dependent on one trading partner

• Have weak institutions

risk being bypassed in the new geography of production.

5. Findings

Finding 1: Globalisation is Being Reconfigured, Not Reversed

Global supply chains remain extensive, but they are becoming:

• Regionally clustered

• Politically aligned

• More transparent and regulated

• Less dependent on single hubs

Finding 2: Power in the Field of Global Production is Consolidating

The ability to shape standards, technologies, and regulations confers enormous symbolic and economic capital.

Core economies maintain dominance through:

• Intellectual property

• Standard-setting

• High-tech capabilities

• Large R&D ecosystems

Finding 3: New Semi-Peripheral Hubs Are Emerging

Geopolitical diversification has created new industrial opportunities in:

• Southeast Asia

• Eastern Europe

• Middle East

• Latin America

• Africa

However, competition among them is intense.

Finding 4: Institutional Isomorphism is Redefining Supply Chain Governance

ESG, due diligence, and sustainability norms are diffusing globally. Firms cannot ignore these expectations without losing market access or investor trust.

Finding 5: Resource Geopolitics Shapes Industrial Development

The energy transition has made critical minerals central to geopolitical competition. Producer countries must avoid remaining locked in extractive roles and pursue value-added industrialisation.

Finding 6: Inequality May Deepen Without Coordinated Policy

Reshoring in rich economies, stricter standards, and geopolitical fragmentation may increase inequality between:

• Core and peripheral economies

• Large and small firms

• Compliant and non-compliant suppliers

6. Conclusion

The geopolitics of production has permanently reshaped global supply chains. Efficiency no longer dominates decision-making; resilience, reliability, and political alignment now define strategic positioning. Using Bourdieu’s field theory, we see a competitive arena where the most powerful actors use economic, symbolic, and cultural capital to shape global norms. Through world-systems theory, we understand how these changes reinforce or restructure global hierarchies. Institutional isomorphism explains why firms and states increasingly converge around new norms of sustainability, security, and compliance.

Global supply chains are not collapsing. They are evolving into more political, more regulated, and more strategically curated systems. The challenge for the global community is to ensure that these new structures promote:

• Fairer value distribution

• Sustainable development

• Equitable access to technology

• Opportunities for semi-peripheral and peripheral upgrading

How countries respond—through industrial policy, regional cooperation, human capital investment, and strategic diplomacy—will determine their role in the next era of global production.

Hashtags

#GlobalSupplyChains #GeopoliticsOfProduction #EconomicSecurity #WorldSystems #SustainableTrade #IndustrialPolicy #STULIBResearch

References

• Baldwin, R. and Freeman, R. (2022). Disentangling the Globalisation-Reshoring Nexus. London: CEPR Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

• Gereffi, G. (2018). Global Value Chains and Development: Redefining the Contours of 21st Century Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316534403

• Gereffi, G. (2020). ‘What Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Teach Us About Global Value Chains? The Case of Medical Supplies’. Journal of International Business Policy, 3(3), pp.287–301. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00062-w

• Javorcik, B. (2020). ‘Global Supply Chains Will Not Be the Same in the Post-COVID-19 World’. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 28(2), pp.180–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12252

• Kaplinsky, R. (2022). Sustainable Value Chains in the Global South: Linking Industrialisation and Social Upgrading. London: Routledge.

• Nadvi, K. (2021). ‘Industrial Policy, State Activism and Global Value Chains’. Development and Change, 52(5), pp.1009–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12665

• Pietrobelli, C. and Staritz, C. (2018). ‘Upgrading, Interactive Learning, and Innovation Systems in Global Value Chains: Lessons from Latin America’. In: C. Pietrobelli and R. Rabellotti (eds) Global Value Chains, Innovation and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 121–146.

• Pietrobelli, C. (2023). ‘Industrial Policy, Green Transformation and Global Value Chains’. World Development, 159, 106071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106071

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Yeung, H.W.-C. and Coe, N.M. (2015). ‘Toward a Dynamic Theory of Global Production Networks’. Economic Geography, 91(1), pp.29–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12063

• Zhan, J.X. (2021). ‘GVC Transformation and a New Investment Landscape in the 2020s: Driving Forces, Directions, and a Forward-Looking Research and Policy Agenda’. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(2), pp.206–220. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00088-0