| Course | MT433 Global Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Country risk assessment |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT433 Unit 7
Turkey 2.55, India 3.50: Scoring Where a Towel Importer Should Add a Mill, an MT433 Unit 7 Country Risk Assessment
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT433: Global Supply Chain Management
Unit 7 Country Risk Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The scores, weights and Catawba Linen Supply's shipment profile are composite judgments; every event in the evidence register is real and dated, and the sources cited are real.
What Is Being Assessed
Catawba already sources most of its standard towels from Faisalabad. The question is which second country would most reduce the risk to its shipments, not which country is most stable in general. A second source that shares Pakistan's risks would add little protection even if it scored well on its own.
The Grid and Its Weights
Each country is rated from 1, low risk, to 5, high risk, on three dimensions. Political risk, weighted 30 percent, covers events that could disrupt a mill's operations or payments: unrest, abrupt changes of government, currency crises. Port and route risk, weighted 30 percent, covers whether containers can leave the port and reach Savannah on schedule. Policy risk, weighted 40 percent, covers trade measures by either government that change cost or admissibility, including U.S. surcharges and the exporting country's own export rules. Policy carries the most weight because the Unit 2 comparison showed that a single policy line, the 2025 surcharges, decided the landed cost ranking.
India: 3.50
Political risk is rated 2. The 2024 general election, held from April to June 2024, returned the governing coalition, and no event since has disrupted textile exports from Gujarat.
Port and route risk is rated 3. Mundra is an efficient port, but since Red Sea attacks on shipping began in late 2023, cargo from western India to the U.S. East Coast has largely been routed around the Cape of Good Hope, adding about two weeks and exposing shipments to the same lane disruptions as Karachi. Notteboom et al. (2024) document how the diversions lengthened transit times and disrupted schedules across the affected lanes.
Policy risk is rated 5. The U.S. surcharge on Indian goods announced in 2025 reached 50 percent of value, the highest of the three countries, and Unit 2 showed it moves Gujarat from the cheapest mill price to the most expensive landed cost.
Weighted, India scores 3.50.
Turkey: 2.55
Political risk is rated 3. The detention of Istanbul's mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, in March 2025 set off large protests and a sharp sell-off in the lira, and the central bank spent reserves and raised rates to steady it. The episode shows a risk of sudden currency and political shocks, which matter to a buyer paying in dollars mostly through their effect on mill finances.
Port and route risk is rated 1.5. Izmir ships to Savannah through the Mediterranean and across the Atlantic, with no need to pass the Red Sea or the Cape, and transit is about 30 days from the mill gate.
Policy risk is rated 3. The 2025 U.S. surcharge on Turkish goods was 15 percent, the lowest of the three. Turkey's customs union with the European Union keeps its export rules stable.
Weighted, Turkey scores 2.55.
Pakistan for Reference: 3.30
Pakistan is scored on the same grid at 4 for political risk, given the disputed 2024 election and the brief military clashes with India in May 2025; 3 for port and route, since Karachi cargo also rounds the Cape; and 3 for policy, with a 19 percent surcharge. It scores 3.30.
India and Pakistan share the Cape lane, so a second source in India would protect Catawba least against the risk it already carries.
Testing the Weights
Weights that decide the outcome when nudged would undermine the result, so the grid is rerun under four other weightings. With equal weights, India scores 3.33 and Turkey 2.50. With political risk weighted half, India scores 2.90 and Turkey 2.55, the closest result. With port and route weighted half, India 3.40 and Turkey 2.25. With political and policy weighted 40 each, India 3.40 and Turkey 2.70. Turkey ranks lower risk under every weighting tested.
What Would Change the Scores
Several events would move the grid. A cut in the U.S. surcharge on Indian goods to the Pakistani level would lower India's policy score from 5 to about 3 and its total to about 2.70, still above Turkey. A reopening of the Red Sea route to regular commercial traffic would lower both South Asian route scores. A second political crisis in Turkey, or capital controls on the lira, would raise Turkey's political score. The register lists each of these as a trigger for rescoring.
Limits
The scores are judgments, not measurements. Caldara and Iacoviello (2022) and Baker et al. (2016) built indexes that count news coverage of geopolitical events and policy uncertainty, and those measures move sharply in crises; a score assigned today can be out of date within weeks. The register should be updated each quarter.
Recommendation
Turkey is the better second source for standard towels. Its higher mill price, $3.94 against $3.47 from Faisalabad, is offset partly by lower freight and carrying cost, and its route does not share Pakistan's exposure. The Unit 8 proposal will test whether a source nearer still, in Mexico, does better for the line where speed matters most.
References
Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1593-1636. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw024
Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194-1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H., & Cullinane, K. (2024). The Red Sea crisis: Ramifications for vessel operations, shipping networks, and maritime supply chains. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 26(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-024-00287-z
MT433 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
For Unit 7, the job is to assess the risks of sourcing from candidate countries as they reach one buyer's shipments, not general national stability. Instructors expect a small set of dimensions defined in terms of the business, with weights justified before scoring. Each rating should rest on dated evidence with a source, collected in a register. The assessment should consider how a candidate's risks overlap with the existing source's, since a second source sharing the same route or policy exposure protects little. Weights should be tested by rerunning the scores under alternatives. Limits should be stated, since scores are judgments that age quickly. The conclusion should recommend a country and connect it to the next sourcing decision.
Inside the MT433 Unit 7 example
The sample defines what is being assessed and why overlap with Pakistan matters. The grid's three dimensions are defined in business terms, with the reason policy carries the most weight. India and Turkey each get a section scoring the three dimensions against dated events, citing Notteboom and colleagues on Red Sea diversions. Pakistan is scored on the same grid for reference, under a highlighted line on shared Cape exposure. A weighting test reruns the totals four ways. A section names the events that would move the scores. A limits section cites Caldara and Iacoviello and Baker and colleagues on how fast risk measures move. The recommendation names Turkey and passes the question of a nearer source to Unit 8.
MT433 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Country risk papers tend to slip when they rate a country's general stability rather than the risks that reach one buyer's shipments, so a paragraph on governance indexes with no link to towels earns little. Ratings without dated evidence read as opinion; graders commonly want the event, its date and its source beside each score. Weights that appear without justification, or that flip the outcome when nudged, invite questions a paper should have answered. Credit goes to assessing overlap with the current source. Testing alternative weightings shows rigor. Naming triggers for rescoring shows the assessment can be maintained. A clear grid, a dated evidence register and a recommendation linked to the sourcing plan round out the expectations.
MT433 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weak assessment copies a country's ranking from a published index and calls it risk. Another frequent error rates each country without saying what the ratings mean for shipments. Students often give scores without dates or sources, so the reader cannot tell whether an event is current. Weights are usually chosen without reasons and never tested. Many papers ignore the existing source, recommending a second country that shares its main risk. Before submitting, rerun your grid with each weight raised and lowered by ten points. If the recommended country changes under any reasonable weighting, say so, and explain which judgment the recommendation depends on.
Get an MT433 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
List the candidate countries the Unit 7 case offers, the product and where the buyer sources it today, then attach the rubric. A free first assessment follows in 24-48h, with each rating backed by a dated event, weights defended and tested, and every risk sorted by whether it halts shipments or only raises cost. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT433 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT433 Unit 1: Global Product Chain Board Post
- MT433 Unit 2: Landed Cost Comparison
- MT433 Unit 3: Tariff Classification Memo
- MT433 Unit 4: Incoterms Trade Terms Analysis
- MT433 Unit 5: Currency Exposure Brief
- MT433 Unit 6: Trade Dispute Seminar Reflection
- MT433 Unit 8: Nearshoring Proposal
- MT433 Unit 9: Trade Compliance Review
- MT433 Unit 10: Global Sourcing Strategy
- MT431 Unit 7: Income Property Pro Forma
- MT423 Unit 7: Glide Path Design
- MT422 Unit 7: Fund Comparison Report
MT433 Unit 7 questions, answered
Should policy risk include the importing country's decisions?
For a US buyer, yes. Tariffs, surcharges and forced labor enforcement decided in Washington can change landed cost or stop goods as surely as an export ban decided abroad. The example scores both governments under policy, which is why India rates worst there: its US surcharge, not any Indian decision, drives that score.
How can ratings on a five-point scale be made defensible?
By tying each rating to a named, dated indicator and stating what would raise or lower it. The example's register lists the event behind every score, such as a 2025 detention or the Cape routing that began in late 2023, and it tests the weights by shifting them. A rating that survives a reader's objection is worth more than a precise-looking decimal.
Why does correlation between sources matter?
Because diversification only protects against risks the two sources do not share. The example's core mill ships from Karachi around the Cape; cargo from Mundra would take the same route, so one disruption would hit both at once. Turkey's lane runs through the Mediterranean, a large part of why the paper recommends it despite a higher mill price.
Where can I find a free MT433 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds the full MT433 Unit 7 assessment, scoring India and Turkey as second towel sources on a weighted grid with dated evidence.
Why does India score worse than Turkey in the MT433 Unit 7 sample?
Its 50 percent U.S. surcharge drives a policy score of 5, and its cargo shares Karachi's Cape route, so it would add little protection.