Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment in Supply Chain Networks of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Political Science Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complexities in today’s Supply Chain Networks (SCN) have exposed them to various risks, vulnerabilities, and disruptions. Recently, the Chinese $62 billion investment in the wake of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which includes a network of highways and railways projects, will be a milestone for regional connectivity. Through CPEC, China aims to connect its north-western province Xinjiang to global supply chain networks via Gwadar port Pakistan. Since 9/11, Pakistan has become a terrorism stuck state, resulting in the loss of political and economic stability, reducing the infrastructure development and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Under these circumstances, risk assessment of supply chain networks in a responsive way toward these problems is crucial for authorities. This paper aims to identify and investigate the relationship between supply chain risks using the Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique. Additionally, interdependencies among risks have been calculated, and classification is done via cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC) analysis based on corresponding dependency and driving power. Results show that political and economic stability has the highest driving power and lowest dependence power, indicating that all the risks are directly or indirectly associated with it. Simultaneously, epidemics and ecosystem changes have the highest dependence power and most insufficient driving power, which shows its significant dependency on other risks. Finally, based on our model, authorities can design a resilient supply chain network responsive to several risks, and efficient operations are assured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Muslim_League_(N).

References

  • Ahmar, D. 2014. Strategic meaning of the china-Pakistan economic corridor. Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad 4 (1): 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alawamleh, M., and K. Popplewell. 2011. Interpretive structural modeling of risk sources in a virtual organization. International Journal of Production Research 49 (20): 6041–6063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, Y., et al. 2019. Risk assessment of China-Pakistan fiber optic project (CPFOP) in the light of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). Advanced Engineering Informatics 40 (1): 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsamavi, A., J. Murray, and M. Lenzen. 2014. The employment footprints of nations: uncovering master-servant relationships. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18 (1): 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apergis, N., and S. Miller. 2006. Consumption asymmetry and the stock market: empirical evidence. Economics Letters 93 (3): 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arif, M. 2017. Shipping, logistics and supply chain summit. Islamabad: Pakistan Observer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attri, R., N. Dev, and V. Sharma. 2013. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach: an overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences 2319 (4): 1171–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attri, R., B. Singh, and S. Mehra. 2017. Analysis of interaction among the barriers to 5S implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach. Benchmarking: an International Journal 24 (7): 1834–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, P., and R. Oloruntoba. 2005. Assurance of security in maritime supply chains: conceptual issues of vulnerability and crisis management. Journal of International Management 11 (4): 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., B. Fahiminia, A. Jabbarzadeh, and Ghavamifar. 2017. Supply chain design for efficient and effective blood supply in disasters. International Journal of Production Economics 183 (1): 700–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. 2015. The ISPS code and the cost of port compliance: an initial logistics and supply chain framework for port security assessment and management. In Port Management, ed. P. Macmillan, 109–137. Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biswal, J., et al. 2018. Interpretive structural modeling-based framework for analysis of sustainable supply chain management enablers: Indian thermal power plant perspective. Journal of Operations and Strategic Planning 1 (1): 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolturk, E., et al. 2016. Multi-attribute warehouse location selection in humanitarian logistics using hesitant fuzzy AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 8 (2): 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, C., et al. 2018. A novel multi-objective programming model of relief distribution for sustainable disaster supply chain in large-scale natural disasters. Journal of Cleaner Production 174 (1): 1422–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae, B. 2015. Insights from hashtag# supplychain and twitter analytics: considering twitter and twitter data for supply chain practice and research. International Journal of Production Economics 165 (4): 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaghooshi, A., et al. 2018. Planning for disruptions in supply chain networks. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 6 (2): 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, S. 2018. Global investment flows plummeted 23% in 2017 to three-year low. California: Bloomberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, N., Z. Khalid, and H. Farooq. 2018. Analyzing the interaction among factors hindering the growth of SMEs: evidence from the cutlery sector of Pakistan. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences 11 (1): 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S. 2019. Supply chain management: strategy, planning, and operation, 7th ed. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S., and M. Sodhi. 2004. Supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review 46 (1): 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoper, M. 2016. Logistics & supply chain management, 2nd ed. London: Pearson UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., H. Peck, and D. Towill. 2006. A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain strategies. The International Journal of Logistics Management 17 (2): 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshmukh, S., A. Gupta, R. Shankar, and J. Thakkar. 2005. Selection of third-party logistics (3PL): a hybrid approach using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and analytic network process (ANP). In Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 6 (1): 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, B. 1991. Perception of risk: studies of risk attitudes, perceptions, and definitions. Stockholm: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duperrin, J., and M. Gudet. 1975. SMIC 74—a method for constructing and ranking scenarios. Futures 7 (4): 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eskandarpour, M., P. Dejax, J. Miemczyk, and O. Peton. 2015. Sustainable supply chain network design: an optimization-oriented review. Omega 54 (1): 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahiminia, B., J. Sarkis, and H. Davarzani. 2015. Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 162 (1): 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faizal, K., D. Palaniappan, and PL, K. 2014. Risk assessment and management in supply chains. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering 14 (3): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooque, U. 2016. China-Pakistan economic corridor and its impact on region. Beijing: The Medium Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, M., and N. Hamaguchi. 2016. Supply chain internationalization in East Asia: inclusiveness and risks. Papers in Regional Science 95 (1): 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganeshan, R., and T. Harrison. 1995. An introduction to supply chain management, 1st ed. Pensal: Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattorna, J. 2017. Best Practice in supply chain management. In Strategic supply chain alignment, ed. J. Gattorna, 460–482. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ghumro, A., and A. Hakro. 2007. Foreign direct investment, determinants and policy analysis: case study of Pakistan. London: University of Glasgow, Department of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gligor, D., A. Tan, and T. Nguyen. 2018. The obstacles to cold chain implementation in developing countries: insights from Vietnam. The International Journal of Logistics Management 29 (3): 942–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goasduff, L. 2021. Data sharing is a business necessity to accelerate digital business. Oklahoma: Gartner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., S. Azevedo, H. Carvalho, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2015. Lean, green and resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: an interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 12 (1): 12–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekaran, A., K. Lai, and T. Cheng. 2008. Responsive supply chain: a competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega 36 (4): 549–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, X., J. Hintsa, P. Wieser, and A. Hameri. 2007. Voluntary supply chain security program impacts: an empirical study with BASC member companies. World Customs Journal 1 (2): 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbi, J., et al. 2018. Making a bridge between livelihoods and forest conservation: lessons from non timber forest products’ utilization in South Sumatera, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 94 (2): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, C., R. Lamming, J. Zheng, and T. Johnsen. 2001. A taxonomy of supply networks. Journal of Supply Chain Management 37 (3): 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A., and R.V. Hoek. 2011. Logistics management and strategy. Newyork: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, W., T. Zheng, H. Yildiz, and S. Talluri. 2015. Supply chain risk management: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research 53 (16): 5031–5069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugo, A., and E. Pistikopoulos. 2005. Environmentally conscious long-range planning and design of supply chain networks. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (15): 1471–1491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humby, S., et al. 2007. An analysis of research into the future of purchasing and supply management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 13 (1): 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, E. 2017. China-Pakistan economic corridor: Will it sustain itself? Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 10 (2): 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, M., and A. Jamali. 2019. Geo-political dynamics of the China-Pakistan economic corridor: a new great game in South Asia. Chinese Political Science Review 4 (3): 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, E., and M. Rao. 2020. China-Pakistan economic cooperation: the case of special economic zones (SEZs). Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 13 (4): 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishrat, H. 2016. CPEC and Pakistani economy: an appraisal. Islamabad: Center of Excellence for CPEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, D. 2018. Supply chain risk management: bullwhip effect and ripple effect. In Structural dynamics and resilience in supply chain risk management, 19–44. Cham, Washington: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett, M. 2018. Natural disasters and supply chain disruption. Smart Business 3: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 1998. The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 59 (1): 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javaid, U. 2016. Assessing CPEC: potential threats and prospects. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan 53 (2): 254–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javed, H., and M. Ismail. 2021. CPEC and Pakistan: its economic benefits, energy security and regional trade and economic integration. Chinese Political Science Review 6 (2): 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayakumar, A., A. Krishnaraj, and C. Raghunayag. 2017. A review of mathematical models for supply chain network design. International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering 4 (12): 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensom, P., and T. Pedersen. 2012. Offshoring and international competitiveness: antecedents of offshoring advanced tasks. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (2): 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, L., and R. Wellhausan. 2016. Under one roof: supply chains and the protection of foreign investment. American Political Science Review 110 (1): 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josh, D. 2019. Seven Reasons why businesses should be sharing data. Bloomberg: Open Data Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalatizi, D., A. Matopoulos, M. Bourlakis, and W. Tate. 2018. Supply chain strategies in an era of natural resource scarcity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (3): 784–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalim, D. 2020. Gwadar port: serving strategic interests of Pakistan. South Asian Studies 31 (1): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, R. 2016. 15,000 troops of Special Security Division to protect CPEC projects, Chinese nationals. Karachi: Dawn News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirilmaz, O., and S. Erol. 2017. A proactive approach to supply chain risk management: shifting orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply-side risks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 23 (1): 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klibi, W., A. Martel, and A. Guitouni. 2010. The design of robust value-creating supply chain networks: a critical review. European Journal of Operational Research 203 (2): 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K. 2001. Technology for supporting supply chain management: introduction. Communications of the ACM 44 (6): 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laghari, J. 2013. Climate change: melting glaciers bring energy uncertainty. Nature News 502 (7473): 617–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmens, S., C. Decouttere, C. Vandaele, and M. Bernuzzi. 2016. A review of integrated supply chain network design models: key issues for vaccine supply chains. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 109 (1): 366–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., and H. Yeh. 2013. Analysis of tour values to develop enablers using an interpretive hierarchy-based model in Taiwan. Tourism Management 34 (1): 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfall, J., et al. 2015. Toward resilient food systems through increased agricultural diversity and local sourcing in the Carolinas. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5 (4): 608–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, D. 1975. An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE 63 (3): 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancheri, N., et al. 2018. Resilience in the tantalum supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 129 (2): 56–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandal, A., and S. Deshmukh. 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14 (6): 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuj, I., and J. Mentzer. 2008. Global supply chain risk management. Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G., and D. Krause. 2016. Theory building surrounding sustainable supply chain management: assessing what we know, exploring where to go. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52 (2): 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, J., and I. Manuj. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38 (3): 192–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, V. 1995. Organizational risk perception and reduction: a literature review. British Journal of Management 6 (2): 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad, F. 2017. Securing telecommunications infrastructure. Islamabad: Institute of Strategic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M., and M. Cheung. 2008. Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT Sloan Management Review 49 (4): 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagurnay, A., M. Yu, and Q. Qiang. 2011. Supply chain network design for critical needs with outsourcing. Papers in Regional Science 90 (1): 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naveed, A. 2017. CPEC and effect on economy and logistics. Islamabad: CPEC Official.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrman, A., and R. Lindorth. 2004. Categorization of supply chain risk and risk management. Supply Chain Risk 15 (2): 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palak, G., S. Eksioglu, and J. Geunes. 2014. Analyzing the impacts of carbon regulatory mechanisms on supplier and mode selection decisions: an application to a biofuel supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 154 (3): 198–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayides, P., 2017. Global supply chain integration and competitiveness of port terminals. In: 1st, ed. Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains. London: Routledge, pp. 43–56

  • Papadopoulos, T., et al. 2017. The role of Big Data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2): 1108–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, H. 2005. Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35 (4): 210–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, H. 2006. Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk, and supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 9 (2): 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, Z., A. Khan, W. Lifang, and I. Hussain. 2021. The geopolitics of the CPEC and Indian Ocean: security implication for India. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affair 13 (2): 122–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rana, M.A. 2014. Threat to Sino-Pak friendship. Lahore: Dawn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravi, V., and R. Shankar. 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (8): 1011–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzinger, L. 2015. The China-Pakistan economic corridor regional dynamics and China’s geopolitical ambitions. Seattle: The National Bureau of Asian Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, J. & Notteboom, T., 2017. Re-assessing port-hinterland relationships in the context of global commodity chains. In: 1st, ed. Ports, cities, and global supply chains. London: Routledge, pp. 67–82.

  • Saberi, S., J. Cruz, J. Sarkis, and A. Nagurney. 2018. A competitive multiperiod supply chain network model with freight carriers and green technology investment option. European Journal of Operational Research 266 (3): 934–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaikh, F., Q. Ji, and Y. Fan. 2016. Prospects of Pakistan-China energy and economic corridor. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (1): 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. 2001. Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism. The International Journal of Logistics Management 12 (2): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sial, S. 2014. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: an assessment of potential threats. Pak Institute for Peace Studies 6: 156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvestre, B. 2015. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: environmental turbulence, institutional voids, and sustainability trajectories. International Journal of Production Economics 167 (1): 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, A. 2015. China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s new geopolitics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, L. S. M. D. M. a. C. R., 2006. Planning for disruptions in supply chain networks. In Models, methods, and applications for innovative decision making. INFORMS, pp. 234–257.

  • Storey, I. 2006. China’s Malacca dilemma. Beijing: China Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  • Synder, L., et al. 2016. OR/MS models for supply chain disruptions: a review. IIE Transactions 48 (2): 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Synder, L., Scaparra, M., Daskin, M. & Church, R., 2006. Planning for disruptions in supply chain networks. In Models, methods, and applications for innovative decision making. Maryland, INFORMS, pp. 234–257.

  • Tachizawa, M.E., and C. Yew Wong. 2014. Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19 (5): 643–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C. 2006. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 9 (1): 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economic Times, 2016. Definition of 'Risk'. [Online] Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/risk. [Accessed 3rd August 2018].

  • The Nation, 2018a. German investors keen to invest in Pakistan. [Online] Available at: https://nation.com.pk/24-Apr-2018/german-investors-keen-to-invest-in-pakistan [Accessed 24 October 2021].

  • The Nation, 2018b. Political stability needed to achieve real objectives of CPEC project: [Online] Available at: https://nation.com.pk/01-Apr-2018/political-stability-needed-to-achieve-real-objectives-of-cpec-project-ahsan [Accessed 12 September 2018].

  • Todyo, Y., K. Nakajima, and P. Matous. 2015. How do supply chain networks affect the resilience of firms to natural disasters? Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake. Journal of Regional Science 55 (2): 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukamuhabwa, B., M. Stevenson, J. Busby, and M. Zorzini. 2015. Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research 53 (18): 5592–5623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valmohammadi, C., and S. Dashti. 2016. Using interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytical process to identify and prioritize the interactive barriers of e-commerce implementation. Information & Management 53 (2): 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., S. Rathi, and S. Patwa. 2015. Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 26 (1): 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S., and C. Bode. 2008. An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. 1974. Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1 (1): 74–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., and H. Haasis. 2018. The freight village as a pathway to sustainable agricultural products logistics in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (4): 1227–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., and J. Lam. 2016. Estimating economic losses of industry clusters due to port disruptions. Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice 91 (1): 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, K., K. Schiebe, J. Blackhurst, and A. Kumar. 2018. Supply chain network robustness against disruptions: topological analysis, measurement, and optimization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 66 (1): 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., H. Krikke, M. Caniels, and Y. Wang. 2017. Twin-objective supply chain collaboration to cope with rare but high-impact disruptions whilst improving performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28 (2): 488–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zia, U.R., A. Khan, and C. Jaffry. 2017. Emerging political economy of CPEC–future dynamics and perspectives for Pakistan. Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR) 2 (2): 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management Sciences, GIK Institute, Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology (GIKI), Topi, 23640, Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa, Pakistan

    Muhammad Asees Awan & Yousaf Ali

Authors
  1. Muhammad Asees Awan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yousaf Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yousaf Ali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to show.

Ethical Statement

I testify on behalf of all co-authors that our article submitted to Chinese Political Science Review journal has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere. The manuscript is not currently being considered for publication in another journal. All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantive work leading to the manuscript, and will hold themselves jointly and individually responsible for its content.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Awan, M.A., Ali, Y. Risk Assessment in Supply Chain Networks of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 7, 550–573 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-021-00199-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-021-00199-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation