A Sociological Analysis of State Exchange Structures in the Petrochemical Industry for Establishing Product Diversification Economic Action (The Private Markets of Iran and China)

Iran-China petrochemical exchanges cannot be explained merely through conventional economic indicators of supply, demand, and comparative advantage due to their dependency on institutional structures, trade networks, power relations within the global value chain, and technological capabilities. The purpose of this research is a sociological explanation of the mechanisms within the exchange structure of the Iranian and Chinese governments through which the economic action of product diversification can be established in Iran’s petrochemical industries. This study was conducted using a qualitative approach and grounded theory strategy. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 36 petrochemical industry managers, experts, and trade intermediaries, alongside the analysis of trade documents. The research findings revealed seven core categories: governance dispersion and the policy-implementation gap, institutional and operational uncertainty, the paradox of trade networks in relationship-building, power asymmetry in the value chain, learning and technological capability-building bottlenecks, the dominance of the transactional logic over the capability-building logic, and the necessity of transition to effective institutional facilitation. Accordingly, the core issue is not technical inability, but rather the dominance of tonnage-oriented transactional logic and the isolation of relations between the petrochemical industries of Iran and China, which prevents the conversion of petrochemical revenues into dynamic capabilities for product diversification. The conceptual contribution of the research lies in providing a process-oriented framework to explain the relationship between state exchange structures and product diversification capacity. Achieving sustainable diversification of Iran’s petrochemical products requires rearranging the state’s role from bureaucratic intervention to institutional facilitation, standard diplomacy, and support for product development risks.