IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i5p781-810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition and cooperation in artificial intelligence standard setting: Explaining emergent patterns

Author

Listed:
  • Nora von Ingersleben‐Seip

Abstract

Efforts to set standards for artificial intelligence (AI) reveal striking patterns: technical experts hailing from geopolitical rivals, such as the United States and China, readily collaborate on technical AI standards within transnational standard‐setting organizations, whereas governments are much less willing to collaborate on global ethical AI standards within international organizations. Whether competition or cooperation prevails can be explained by three variables: the actors that make up the membership of the standard‐setting organization, the issues on which the organization's standard‐setting efforts focus, and the “games” actors play when trying to set standards within a particular type of organization. A preliminary empirical analysis provides support for the contention that actors, issues, and games affect the prospects for cooperation on global AI standards. It matters because shared standards are vital for achieving truly global frameworks for the governance of AI. Such global frameworks, in turn, lower transaction costs and the probability that the world will witness the emergence of AI systems that threaten human rights and fundamental freedoms. Los esfuerzos para establecer estándares para la inteligencia artificial (IA) revelan patrones sorprendentes: los expertos técnicos provenientes de rivales geopolíticos, como Estados Unidos y China, colaboran fácilmente en los estándares técnicos de IA dentro de las organizaciones transnacionales de establecimiento de estándares, mientras que los gobiernos están mucho menos dispuestos a colaborar. sobre estándares éticos globales de IA dentro de organizaciones internacionales. Que prevalezca la competencia o la cooperación puede explicarse por tres variables: los actores que componen la membresía de la organización de establecimiento de normas; las cuestiones en las que se centran los esfuerzos de establecimiento de normas de la organización; y los “juegos” que juegan los actores cuando intentan establecer estándares dentro de un tipo particular de organización. Un análisis empírico preliminar respalda la afirmación de que los actores, los problemas y los juegos afectan las perspectivas de cooperación en los estándares globales de IA. Importa porque los estándares compartidos son vitales para lograr marcos verdaderamente globales para la gobernanza de la IA. Dichos marcos globales, a su vez, reducen los costos de transacción y la probabilidad de que el mundo sea testigo del surgimiento de sistemas de IA que amenazan los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales. 为人工智能(AI)制定标准一事所作的努力揭示了惊人的模式:来自美国和中国等地缘政治对手的技术专家很乐意在跨国标准制定组织内就技术AI标准进行合作,而政府则不太愿意在国际组织内就全球AI伦理标准进行协作。竞争占优势还是合作占优势,这可以用三个变量来解释:标准制定组织成员的参与者;组织的标准制定工作所关注的问题;以及当试图在特定类型的组织中设定标准时,行动者所进行的“博弈”。初步的实证分析为一个论点提供支持,即行动者、问题和博弈会影响全球AI标准合作的前景。这很重要,因为共享标准对于实现真正的全球AI治理框架是关键的。这样的全球框架反过来会降低交易成本,并减少世界见证威胁人权和基本自由的AI系统出现的可能性。

Suggested Citation

  • Nora von Ingersleben‐Seip, 2023. "Competition and cooperation in artificial intelligence standard setting: Explaining emergent patterns," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(5), pages 781-810, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:5:p:781-810
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12538
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12538?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:kyklos:v:36:y:1983:i:3:p:377-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    3. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    4. Jain, Sanjay, 2012. "Pragmatic agency in technology standards setting: The case of Ethernet," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1643-1654.
    5. Raja Kali & Javier Reyes, 2010. "Financial Contagion On The International Trade Network," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(4), pages 1072-1101, October.
    6. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    7. Snidal, Duncan, 1985. "Coordination versus Prisoners' Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 923-942, December.
    8. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    9. Tim Büthe & Walter Mattli, 2011. "The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9470.
    10. Charles P. Kindleberger, 1983. "Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 377-396, August.
    11. Araz Taeihagh & M Ramesh & Michael Howlett, 2021. "Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1009-1019, October.
    12. Jeffrey Ding & Allan Dafoe, 2020. "The Logic of Strategic Assets: From Oil to Artificial Intelligence," Papers 2001.03246, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    13. Powell, Robert, 1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1303-1320, December.
    14. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raven, Michael & Blind, Knut, 2017. "The characteristics and impacts of scientific publications in biotechnology research referenced in standards," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-179.
    2. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    3. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    4. Markard, Jochen & Erlinghagen, Sabine, 2017. "Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-235.
    5. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Lichtensteiger, Bill & Markard, Jochen, 2015. "Smart meter communication standards in Europe – a comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1249-1262.
    6. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    7. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    9. Johansson, Magnus & Kärreman, Matts & Foukaki, Amalia, 2019. "Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    12. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    13. Tim Legrand & Diane Stone, 2021. "Governing global policy: what IPE can learn from public policy? [Review article: What is policy convergence and what causes it?]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(4), pages 484-501.
    14. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin & Kwak, Jooyoung, 2017. "Standards as a driving force that influences emerging technological trajectories in the converging world of the Internet and things: An investigation of the M2M/IoT patent network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1234-1254.
    15. Wen, Jinyan & Li, Jian & Zhou, Qing & Zeng, Deming & Harms, Rainer, 2023. "How firms support formal standardization: The role of alliance portfolio and internal technological diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & Eggers, Felix & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    17. Takahashi, Takuma & Namiki, Fujio, 2003. "Three attempts at "de-Wintelization": Japan's TRON project, the US government's suits against Wintel, and the entry of Java and Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1589-1606, October.
    18. Lucia Quaglia & Aneta Spendzharova, 2017. "Post‐crisis reforms in banking: Regulators at the interface between domestic and international governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 422-437, December.
    19. Deng, Xin & Li, Qian Cher & Mateut, Simona, 2022. "Participation in setting technology standards and the implied cost of equity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    20. Puay Khoon Toh & Eugene Pyun, 2024. "Risky business: How standardization as coordination tool in ecosystems impacts firm‐level uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 649-679, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:5:p:781-810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.