Stockholm School of Economics

Purpose This conceptual article develops a robust theoretical framework for Geopolitical Supply Chain Disruptions (GSCD) by integrating and synthesising extant Operations Management (OM) and Supply Chain Management (SCM) literature with a novel, interdisciplinary perspective from International Relations (IR). It aims to enhance explanatory power and overcome the limitations of conventional theories in understanding GSCD, providing a novel lens to examine the effects of escalating geopolitical tensions on supply chain design, performance and resilience. Design/methodology/approach The study identifies theories routinely applied in OSCM and their limitations in analysing the GSCD phenomenon. Building on a Practical Theorising Model, the study integrates key IR theories: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism to develop a conceptual framework that bridges SCM/OM and IR perspectives. Findings The study presents theoretical propositions addressing the causes, propagation and consequences of geopolitical disruptions in supply chains. These propositions combine theories routinely used in SCM/OM literature with IR perspectives, laying a foundation for new managerial strategy and future empirical validation. The study also offers a formal definition of GSCD, useful for future researchers. Originality/value This study is the first to theorise geopolitical disruptions in supply chains through an IR lens, offering an innovative interdisciplinary approach. It contributes a novel conceptual framework and research directions for advancing this still-emerging but critical field.

Driven by diverse institutional contexts, regional venture capital (VC) markets have expanded unevenly over the past decades, with the US market remaining the global leader. Although considerable attention has been devoted to understanding the institutional drivers of VC activity, scholars are only beginning to examine whether and how institutions shape VCs’ investment decisions, particularly in non-US markets. Addressing this theoretically and practically relevant gap, we provide new insights based on a comprehensive survey of 611 independent VC managers in Continental Europe. Comparing European VCs’ practices with those of their US counterparts, we unveil both homogeneity and significant heterogeneity, particularly in investment selection, valuation methods, and the perceived drivers of investment performance. Our findings highlight the central role of institutions in shaping VC practices and provide valuable insights into this underexplored dimension of the global VC landscape, with implications for investors, entrepreneurs, and policymakers. Venture capital plays a crucial role in financing innovative startups and supporting economic growth. The United States hosts the world's most developed venture capital market, and its practices are often treated as the global benchmark. But do venture capitalists in Continental Europe operate in the same way, or does the European institutional environment shape different approaches? To answer this question, we conducted a large-scale survey of 611 venture capital managers from 396 independent VC firms across Continental Europe. We compare their practices with those of US venture capitalists across the full investment cycle from deal sourcing and screening to valuation, contracting, syndication, and exits. We find both convergence and divergence. On the one hand, European and US VCs target similar returns, achieve comparable exit multiples, use similar contractual terms, and agree that the quality of the entrepreneurial team is central to both success and failure. On the other hand, European VCs screen fewer opportunities per investment, rely more on comparable based valuation methods, place relatively less weight on business models and markets, and differ in their syndication motives. Our study shows that venture capital practices have partly converged across continents, but national and regional institutional contexts still matter. Understanding these similarities and differences can help entrepreneurs better prepare for fundraising, investors refine their strategies, and policymakers design more effective innovation policies.

Among the most common tropes in wellbeing research is that it is U-shaped over the lifespan, declining into middle age before rising again into older age. However, the thesis has come under critique or re-appraisal, including even from its original proponents, with claims the pattern is now eroding (possibly due to younger people doing worse lately compared to peers in earlier eras). To explore this question we examined Gallup World Poll data spanning 19 years (2006-2024), covering nearly 3 million participants across 169 countries/territories, exploring the age-related distribution of two forms of subjective wellbeing: evaluative (Cantril’s ladder) and affective (Positive Experience Index). With the ladder, although a very vague U-shape was evident if combining all years and regions, when analyzed individually, few years or regions came close to a simple U-shape pattern—as judged by a proposed rubric for ascertaining “U-ness”—although some did bear some resemblance. Additionally, to complement the heuristic U-score, we also developed a statistical system for assessing structural U-shaped scores that quantify the geometric coherence of age–wellbeing profiles, which indicated that the strongest U-dominant years globally occurred in 2018 and 2019, which reflect relatively deep and coherent midlife troughs. As for positive experience, this instead tended to simply decline with age, albeit with a slight uptick around age 60. But any general patterns were subject to considerable variation, both in terms of year and region. With the year, there was a general trend of both outcomes improving over time, but especially for older people, meaning the general U-shape curve (vague and imperfect as it was) was becoming more “J-shaped.” And with regions, there were striking outliers to the general trends, such as the EU with respect to the ladder (with a simple decline with age), and North America with regard to positive experiences (which did have a U-shape, with older people doing as well as younger people). The data show the complicated nature of age-related wellbeing trends and point towards the need for more research.