This paper revisits the multi-level perspective (MLP) of socio-technical transition theory from the point of view of one of its early foundations, Giddens’ theory of structuration. To date, the merits of structuration theory in the MLP framework have been both praised and criticised. The paper shows that some of the core elements of structuration have become increasingly relaxed in the MLP framework over time. We introduce the concept of structuration logics to point out diverging interpretations of structuration in transition studies as well as in adjacent fields of research that transition scholars draw inspiration from. In so doing, we demonstrate that the two elements of structuration – rules and resources – that are important for understanding actors’ activities have so far received imbalanced treatment with regards to defining the continuum of structuration in MLP. Further, the paper findings show that structuration, as presently conceived in MLP, are strong with respect to highlighting the enabling and constraining influence of various types of rules that actors draw upon, yet they fall short with respect to providing a more explicit understanding of another structural element – resources – that is equally important for understanding the dynamics of change and stability of socio-technical systems. Accordingly, the paper highlights potential avenues for broadening the prevalent understanding of structuration logics in MLP by providing a more nuanced account of resources.