This morning, David Shillingford shared DP World’s Global Report on supply chain resilience. The report surveyed hundreds of decision-makers across 8 sectors and 9 regions, identifying five trends and three recommendations for navigating disruption.
Reading through the findings, I was struck by a familiar pattern — one that traces back 95 years.
The DP World Findings
The report’s key insights:
The burden of disruption is uneven — the Global South pays the heaviest price
Two faces of disruption exist — chronic and catastrophic
Resilience requires broad investment — not technology alone
Disruption is a customer and reputation problem — not just a cost problem
Everyone is aligned on resilience — from board-level and below
The recommendations:
Start where disruption bites hardest
Get the basics right, then make them smarter
Treat disruption as a customer and reputation risk
Sound advice for 2026. But here’s what caught my attention: these insights aren’t new.
Liverpool, 1930
In 1931, economist E.G. Robinson published observations about external economies of scale that would later be expanded in his book The Structure of Competitive Industry (Cambridge Economic Handbooks, 1958).
Robinson distinguished between two types of external economies:
Immobile external economies — requiring firms to be in close proximity to realize benefits
Mobile external economies — available to firms located well beyond the territory in which they are provided
His example of a mobile external economy? The Liverpool cotton exchange — which could be utilized by firms both locally and globally, to the apparent benefit of all stakeholders.
Robinson’s conclusion was remarkable for his era:
“The advantages of large-scale industries concentrating in one country were declining as the importance of mobile economies were increasing.”
This was 1931. No internet. No global logistics networks. No AI. Yet Robinson saw what DP World is documenting 95 years later: resilience isn’t about proximity — it’s about governance of interconnected systems.
August 2007: The Connection I Couldn’t Ignore
In August 2007, I wrote a post titled “Public Sector Procurement Practice and the Principles of External Economies, Clustering and the Global Value Chain.”
In that post, I made a note that has stayed with me:
“I cannot help but draw a conceptual comparison between the Liverpool cotton exchange of the early 1900s and the emergence of agent-based modeling and the resultant Metaprise architecture that is behind technological development in 2007.”
I was seeing the same pattern Robinson saw — mobile economies enabled by technology, requiring governance structures that transcend geography.
And I noted Robinson’s “remarkable prognostication ability given his era and the absence of the major technological breakthroughs that have defined our modern global economy today.”
The Governance Question That Never Changes
What Robinson understood in 1931, what I was modeling in 1998 with SR&ED funding for the Department of National Defence, and what DP World is documenting in 2026 is the same fundamental truth:
The technology changes. The governance question doesn’t.
Era
Technology
Governance Question
1930s
Liverpool cotton exchange
How do mobile economies benefit all stakeholders?
1998
Agent-based modeling (RAM)
How do we coordinate decisions across distributed systems?
2007
Global value chains
How does government leverage cluster competencies?
2026
AI + global logistics
How do we build resilience through governance, not just technology?
What DP World Gets Right
The report’s third recommendation stands out:
“Get the basics right, then make them smarter.”
This is the antidote to technology-first thinking. It echoes what I wrote in 2007 about Humphrey and Schmitz’s value chain governance framework:
“Governance is an essential element of a value chain in that coordination is required to take decisions not only on ‘what’ should be, or ‘how’ something should be produced but sometimes also ‘when,’ and ‘how much’ and even at ‘what’ price.”
DP World’s finding that “resilience requires broad investment — not through technology alone” is the same insight. You can’t automate your way to resilience. You have to govern your way there.
Rob Handfield’s Comment
Supply chain expert Rob Handfield responded to David’s post:
“It will take years (if not decades) for trade localization to occur — but that is certainly one way to become more resilient — closer is better! A supply chain resilience committee is the best way to get the scenarios right, and start planning ahead. Then use AI to run some models using a solid data foundation…”
He’s describing what Robinson anticipated in 1931 — the tension between immobile economies (proximity) and mobile economies (global coordination). And he’s recommending what we were building in 1998: agent-based models with governance structures.
The industry is rediscovering principles that are nearly a century old.
The 95-Year Through-Line
Year
Source
Key Insight
1931
E.G. Robinson
Mobile economies transcend proximity; governance determines who benefits
1998
SR&ED/DND Research
Agent-based modeling enables coordination across distributed systems
2007
Procurement Insights
Global value chains require governance, not just technology
Robinson saw it. I modeled it. DP World is documenting it.
The technology has changed dramatically. The governance question hasn’t changed at all.
The Question for 2026
DP World’s report asks organizations to consider where disruption bites hardest and to treat it as a customer and reputation risk — not just a cost problem.
That’s the right question. But it leads to a deeper one:
Has your organization built the governance structures to coordinate decisions across a globally distributed system — or are you still hoping technology will solve coordination for you?
Robinson knew the answer in 1931. The Liverpool cotton exchange worked because of governance, not geography.
Ninety-five years later, the principle holds. The only question is whether we’ve learned it yet.
Procurement Insights
From Liverpool 1930 to DP World 2026: The Supply Chain Governance Question That Never Changes
Posted on January 29, 2026
0
By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
This morning, David Shillingford shared DP World’s Global Report on supply chain resilience. The report surveyed hundreds of decision-makers across 8 sectors and 9 regions, identifying five trends and three recommendations for navigating disruption.
Reading through the findings, I was struck by a familiar pattern — one that traces back 95 years.
The DP World Findings
The report’s key insights:
The recommendations:
Sound advice for 2026. But here’s what caught my attention: these insights aren’t new.
Liverpool, 1930
In 1931, economist E.G. Robinson published observations about external economies of scale that would later be expanded in his book The Structure of Competitive Industry (Cambridge Economic Handbooks, 1958).
Robinson distinguished between two types of external economies:
His example of a mobile external economy? The Liverpool cotton exchange — which could be utilized by firms both locally and globally, to the apparent benefit of all stakeholders.
Robinson’s conclusion was remarkable for his era:
This was 1931. No internet. No global logistics networks. No AI. Yet Robinson saw what DP World is documenting 95 years later: resilience isn’t about proximity — it’s about governance of interconnected systems.
August 2007: The Connection I Couldn’t Ignore
In August 2007, I wrote a post titled “Public Sector Procurement Practice and the Principles of External Economies, Clustering and the Global Value Chain.”
In that post, I made a note that has stayed with me:
I was seeing the same pattern Robinson saw — mobile economies enabled by technology, requiring governance structures that transcend geography.
And I noted Robinson’s “remarkable prognostication ability given his era and the absence of the major technological breakthroughs that have defined our modern global economy today.”
The Governance Question That Never Changes
What Robinson understood in 1931, what I was modeling in 1998 with SR&ED funding for the Department of National Defence, and what DP World is documenting in 2026 is the same fundamental truth:
The technology changes. The governance question doesn’t.
What DP World Gets Right
The report’s third recommendation stands out:
This is the antidote to technology-first thinking. It echoes what I wrote in 2007 about Humphrey and Schmitz’s value chain governance framework:
DP World’s finding that “resilience requires broad investment — not through technology alone” is the same insight. You can’t automate your way to resilience. You have to govern your way there.
Rob Handfield’s Comment
Supply chain expert Rob Handfield responded to David’s post:
He’s describing what Robinson anticipated in 1931 — the tension between immobile economies (proximity) and mobile economies (global coordination). And he’s recommending what we were building in 1998: agent-based models with governance structures.
The industry is rediscovering principles that are nearly a century old.
The 95-Year Through-Line
Robinson saw it. I modeled it. DP World is documenting it.
The technology has changed dramatically. The governance question hasn’t changed at all.
The Question for 2026
DP World’s report asks organizations to consider where disruption bites hardest and to treat it as a customer and reputation risk — not just a cost problem.
That’s the right question. But it leads to a deeper one:
Has your organization built the governance structures to coordinate decisions across a globally distributed system — or are you still hoping technology will solve coordination for you?
Robinson knew the answer in 1931. The Liverpool cotton exchange worked because of governance, not geography.
Ninety-five years later, the principle holds. The only question is whether we’ve learned it yet.
Related Reading:
The technology changes. The governance question doesn’t.
-30-
Share this:
Related