On 28 February 2026, the Strait of Hormuz closed.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and management. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Joint military strikes against Iran triggered the effective blockade of the world’s most consequential maritime-energy chokepoint. Twenty million barrels of crude oil per day normally transit that 33 Kilometer passage which is roughly 20% of global petroleum consumption.
When the shipping lanes shut, approximately 14.8 million barrels per day were abandoned. This resulted in two hundred vessels being remained at anchor in Persian Gulf waters. Consequently, war-risk insurance costs significantly increased, and Brent crude spiked to $126 per barrel within ten days. The International Energy Agency called the situation as the largest ever oil stock release.
Two studies [1, 2], published in the weeks following the closure, approach the same question from different analytical standpoint. The researchers map how the shock can be explained through the global production networks. They also assess the Northern Sea Route as a potential mitigation mechanism. Together they reveal that the consequences of the Hormuz disruption does not land where the shock begins but it spreads all over the world.
The Import-Dependence Thinking
Energy-security research has long focused on availability, affordability, strategic stocks, and emergency response. Studies of oil-import security examine import concentration and strategic reserves. Chokepoint analyses add the maritime dimension of route dependence. Oil-price literature decomposes supply, demand, and speculative shocks. Each of these approaches describes the first stage of the problem.
The authors of the articles believe that none of these methods explain where residual cost pressure goes after reserves, rerouting, and inventories have absorbed only part of the shock.
On the other hand, the production-network addresses the second stage. It shows that aggregate outcomes depend on network position, input specificity, and interdependence. In other words, disruptions move through supplier-customer relations rather than staying near the original disturbance. As an example, the pandemic supply chain studies make the same point for broad production shutdowns. What has been less common is researching maritime energy shock from intermediate cost-transfer accounts to final-demand destinations. For a severe Hormuz disruption as researchers explain, this means treating route constraints, reserves, inventories, sticky procurement relations, and destination-country demand as parts of a single puzzle.
A Test for the Production System
The researchers construct a dynamic multi-regional input-output test using the 2022 country-sector transaction matrix from the 2025 OECD Inter-Country Input-Output release. The model maps a Strait of Hormuz blockade into a node-level shock vector for oil and gas extraction, refining, utilities, transport, and transport-support activities, with an additional route-disruption premium for major Gulf energy exporters. Added costs transmit round by round through the technical-coefficient matrix. Inventory damping reduces the share of each round’s cost pressure passed forward.
The exercise is an accounting stress test rather than an oil-price forecast. It reports where the 2022 production structure would carry a cost increase, not how traders, fleets, contracts, or macroeconomic demand would adjust in real time.
The first finding is that first-round exposure and cumulative burden do not coincide. The researchers decompose country-level risk into direct exposure to the initial shock and subsequent network cascades. These are positively related overall, with a Spearman correlation of about 0.78 and a linear fit with R² = 0.57. The relationship is meaningful, but it is not tight enough to treat entry exposure and cumulative burden as interchangeable measures. If direct Gulf dependence were a sufficient summary of vulnerability, the points in the scatterplot would cluster much more closely around the fitted line. They do not.
Several Asian production economies have positive residuals. Their first-round values are not always the largest, but their output-weighted downstream sectors keep receiving added cost in later rounds. Sectors in these economies buy material, energy-service, and transport-service inputs that already contain upstream cost increases. The mechanism is a cost-accounting one: once the shock enters the network, later-round amplification changes relative country positions in a systematic way.
The round-specific paths show the same separation in time. Singapore records incremental costs of roughly 1.76 percent and 1.46 percent in rounds one and two, followed by a rapid decline. China starts at about 1.28 percent in round one, rises to about 1.43 percent in round two, and only then begins to fall. South Korea declines from 1.26 percent to 1.09 percent. The United States drops from 0.83 percent to 0.45 percent. These paths identify which economies experience a short entry spike and which remain under pressure over several rounds. A country that peaks immediately and then retreats faces a different timing problem from a country whose burden persists between rounds two and four.
On 28 February 2026, the Strait of Hormuz closed. Joint military strikes against Iran triggered the effective blockade of the world’s most consequential maritime-energy chokepoint. Twenty million barrels of crude oil per day normally transit that thirty-three-kilometre passage—roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption. When the shipping lanes shut, approximately 14.8 million barrels per day were stranded after limited pipeline bypass capacity was exhausted. Two hundred vessels remained at anchor in Gulf waters. War-risk insurance costs surged fivefold. Brent crude spiked to $126 per barrel within ten days. The International Energy Agency responded with its largest-ever coordinated reserve release, pledging 400 million barrels.
The immediate economic damage is now being quantified. Two studies, published in the weeks following the closure, approach the same question from different analytical starting points. The first, from researchers at Beijing University of Chemical Technology and China University of Geosciences, maps how the shock propagates through global production networks. The second, from Sungkyunkwan University and the University of Leeds, assesses the Northern Sea Route as a potential mitigation mechanism. Together they reveal something that policymakers and supply chain managers need to understand: the real burden of the Hormuz disruption does not land where the shock begins.
Energy-security research has long focused on availability, affordability, strategic stocks, and emergency response. Studies of oil-import security examine import concentration and strategic reserves. Chokepoint analyses add the maritime dimension of route dependence. Oil-price literature decomposes supply, demand, and speculative shocks. Each of these approaches describes the first stage of the problem with useful precision. None of them tells you where residual cost pressure goes after reserves, rerouting, and inventories have absorbed only part of the shock.
- Singapore: 1.76%
- China: 1.28%
- South Korea: 1.26%
- United States: 0.83%
- Singapore: 1.46% (declining)
- China: 1.43% (rising)
- South Korea: 1.09% (declining)
- United States: 0.45% (declining)
- ROW energy → China refining: USD 4.6 billion
- ROW energy → India refining: USD 2.9 billion
- Canada energy → US refining: USD 2.2 billion
- ROW energy → China utilities: USD 2.1 billion
- China water transport → Singapore water transport: USD 1.8 billion
Under the 20 percent baseline upstream-energy shock, the average added cost of global downstream manufacturing falls from 2.72 percent to 2.34 percent, a reduction of about 0.38 percentage points, or roughly 14 percent in relative terms. Inventories matter in a measurable way, but their effect remains bounded.
- Burden falls from 4.11% to 2.11%
- Rank correlation: 0.973
- Avg added cost: 2.34% → 2.46%
- 10% boundary: 85.3% → 81.4%
- Rank correlation: 0.992
China absorbs about USD 614 billion in total, of which about USD 599 billion comes from domestic sources. The United States absorbs about USD 260 billion in total. Normalized by final demand, China’s burden equals 3.69% of its final demand, while the US burden equals 1.00%.
- China: $89.5 bn (55% ME)
- India: $67.3 bn (45% ME)
- Japan: $52.7 bn (~95% ME)
- South Korea: $38.2 bn (68–70% ME)
- Germany: $28.4 bn (~8% ME)
- Germany: 5.3%
- China: 3.1%
- South Korea: 2.4%
- Japan: 2.3%
- India: 1.2%
The environmental adjustment reduces gross mitigation by 3 to 6 percent across all cells. Even in the most optimistic cell—prolonged blockade with maximum NSR utilization—net mitigation of USD 74.5 billion represents only 3.4 percent of the corresponding USD 2.2 trillion global loss.
The NSR offsets 1.1 to 3.6 percent of losses even under the most optimistic assumptions. It is insurance, not substitution.
The two studies, from different methodological starting points, converge on a common structural insight. The real burden of the Hormuz disruption does not land where the shock begins. It propagates through production networks in ways that cannot be predicted by import dependence alone.
The Hormuz closure of 2026 is the largest oil supply shock in history. This has implications beyond the Strait. The same structural logic applies to other chokepoints: the Malacca Strait, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal. It applies to critical minerals, semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceutical ingredients, and rare earth elements. In each case, the vulnerability is not just in the direct exposure but in the network position.
The Bounded Role of Inventories
In the cost-pressure model, inventory damping rescales onward pass-through but leaves the dominant MRIO transfer paths largely unchanged. South Korea shows the largest reduction in subsequent burden when inventories are introduced, followed by Hungary, Slovakia, and Vietnam. South Korea is in the baseline buffer pool, while Hungary, Slovakia, and Vietnam benefit indirectly because inventory damping in upstream supplier economies reduces the residual passed further downstream. The high-burden group remains similar after damping is introduced. The inventory term lowers the level of measured added cost without replacing the input-output paths that carry it.
The threshold problem provides a more precise picture. The 10 percent downstream manufacturing added-cost contour reports the combinations of upstream-energy shock level and inventory absorption at which the average added cost of global downstream manufacturing outside the initially shocked sectors reaches 10 percent. When the inventory absorption rate is zero, the critical upstream-energy shock level required to reach that threshold is about 73.6 percent. As the inventory absorption rate rises to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent, the critical value increases to 77.7, 81.6, 85.3, 88.9, and 92.2 percent, respectively.
Under the 20 percent baseline upstream-energy shock, the average added cost of global downstream manufacturing falls from 2.72 percent to 2.34 percent, a reduction of about 0.38 percentage points, or roughly 14 percent in relative terms. Inventories matter in a measurable way, but their effect remains bounded.
Two stronger inventory checks support this interpretation. When China is added to the buffer-country pool, China’s subsequent cascade burden falls from 4.11 percent to 2.11 percent, but the rank correlation with the baseline country ranking remains 0.973. When the baseline buffer pool is retained but damping is made sector-specific, the average downstream manufacturing added cost under the 20 percent upstream-energy shock rises from 2.34 percent to 2.46 percent, and the 10 percent boundary falls from 85.3 percent to 81.4 percent. More residual pressure is passed forward. The country ranking remains close to the baseline, with a rank correlation of 0.992. Inventories reduce the amount passed on; they do not replace the main input-output routes through which the shock travels.
Where the Costs Finally Land
The final allocation step multiplies the propagated node-cost vector by the destination-country final-demand matrix and reallocates intermediate cost pressure to expenditure destinations. In the calibrated results, the largest absolute entries are China, the United States, the rest-of-world aggregate, Germany, Japan, India, Italy, and France. The values are model-implied propagated final-demand incidence, not source-inclusive total losses, observed price indices, or losses accrued over seven calendar periods.
China absorbs about USD 614 billion in total, of which about USD 599 billion comes from domestic sources and about USD 15 billion from foreign sources. China’s large domestic-source component means that cost pressure first transmitted through intermediate inputs is then assigned to Chinese final demand through Chinese production nodes; it should not be read as a direct foreign import bill. The United States absorbs about USD 260 billion in total, including about USD 199 billion from domestic sources, about USD 15 billion from Chinese production sources, and about USD 45 billion from other foreign sources.
Normalizing these annual benchmark-flow-equivalent values by destination final demand changes the scale of interpretation. The same calculation equals about 3.69 percent of final demand for China, 2.81 percent for Italy, 1.98 percent for the rest-of-world aggregate, 1.75 percent for India, 1.71 percent for France, 1.65 percent for Germany, 1.46 percent for Japan, and 1.00 percent for the United States. The United States ranks second in absolute burden but lower after normalization because its final-demand base is larger. China remains high under both measures because the modeled burden is large relative to its destination final demand as well as large in absolute terms.
The composition of the burden is as informative as its total. For the major destination accounts, domestic absorption remains the largest component, yet external pressure from Chinese production sources and from other foreign sources is also substantial. Germany absorbs about USD 17 billion from foreign sources outside China. India absorbs about USD 2 billion from Chinese production sources.
The Larger Question
The Hormuz closure of 2026 is the largest oil supply shock in history. Two studies, published within weeks of the event, provide the first rigorous assessments of the economic damage and the value of potential alternatives.
Overall, as the scholars referred to, the arctic route diversification is insurance, not substitution. It offsets 1.1 to 3.6 percent of losses even under the most optimistic assumptions. More fundamentally, network position shapes where the burden lands. Countries that seem safe because they do not import directly from the Persian Gulf can still face severe downstream pressure through material and logistics purchases.
This has implications beyond the Strait of Hormuz. The same structural logic applies to other chokepoints: the Malacca Strait, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal. It applies to critical minerals whose supply chains are geographically concentrated. It applies to semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceutical ingredients, and rare earth elements. In each case, the vulnerability is not just in the direct exposure but in the network position. This included but not limited to the breadth of upstream dependence, the depth of embedding in production systems, the number of downstream sectors that rely on the same inputs.
Diversification is a necessary but fundamentally insufficient response to the systemic risks of a carbon-dependent global economy. The Hormuz crisis of 2026, like the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 before it, demonstrates that supply-route diversification cannot substitute for transformation of the energy system itself.
The question that remains unanswered is what this transformation looks like in practice. Neither study provides a roadmap. They identify where the burden lands and why route diversification is insufficient.