Qualitative policy analysis reveals mechanisms of supply disruption recovery in mining procurement, highlighting that resilience requires supplier capability depth rather than mere local spending.
Local content policy in mining is assessed almost entirely through domestic expenditure, ownership and employment. This article asks a question those measures cannot answer: when does policy induced domestic participation change what happens after a supply interruption, and when does it relocate the contractual interface while leaving the operative dependency offshore? Local content research explains whether procurement generates linkages and upgrading; resilience research explains how networks recover from disruption. Neither specifies when the first produces the second. The article develops capability conditioned localisation as a conditional mechanism: local content instruments expand domestic market access, and the participation this produces improves category recovery performance only through the accumulation of supplier capability depth, a conversion conditional on category economics, buyer development practices and the effective independence of the domestic supply base. Four capability domains are derived as jointly necessary enablers of a restoration task, and capability depth is formalised as the coverage based minimum across the applicable domains, a necessity conjecture anchored in constraint and necessary condition reasoning. The linear localisation ladder is replaced by a configuration of capability depth against effective supplier independence. The framework is illustrated through three Ghanaian procurement categories, drawing on a coded corpus of 107 documents, 23 of them primary and 84 secondary. Each case is a plausibility probe separating what the record establishes from what the framework infers, and naming rival explanations. The article specifies auditable metrics and states five testable propositions. This manuscript is a preprint and has not yet undergone peer review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emmanuel Turkson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: