CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIRegulation and Compliance Studies

AI regulation in the European Union: examining non-state actor preferences

Open access
Tallberg, Jonas, Lundgren, Magnus, Geith, Johannes·2024·Business and Politics
DOI 10.1017/bap.2023.36
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow, policymakers are increasingly grappling with the question of how to regulate this technology. The most far-reaching international initiative is the European Union (EU) AI Act, which aims to establish the first comprehensive, binding framework for regulating AI. In this article, we offer the first systematic analysis of non-state actor preferences toward international regulation of AI, focusing on the case of the EU AI Act. Theoretically, we develop an argument about the regulatory preferences of business actors and other non-state actors under varying conditions of AI sector competitiveness. Empirically, we test these expectations using data from public consultations on European AI regulation. Our findings are threefold. First, all types of non-state actors express concerns about AI and support regulation in some form. Second, there are nonetheless significant differences across actor types, with business actors being less concerned about the downsides of AI and more in favor of lax regulation than other non-state actors. Third, these differences are more pronounced in countries with stronger commercial AI sectors. Our findings shed new light on non-state actor preferences toward AI regulation and point to challenges for policymakers balancing competing interests in society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/bap.2023.36

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • En consultas públicas sobre la regulación europea, los actores empresariales expresaron preocupaciones sobre la IA, apoyaron la regulación y mostraron menos preocupación por las desventajas de la IA que otros actores no estatales; estas diferencias son más pronunciadas en países con sectores comerciales de IA más fuertes.

    “De acuerdo con Tallberg et al. (2024), se realizaron consultas públicas sobre esta regulación europea, en las que los actores empresariales expresaron preocupaciones sobre la IA, apoyando la regulación y mostrando menos preocupación por las desventajas de la IA que otros actores no estatales.Los resultados mostraron que estas diferencias son más pronunciadas en países con sectores comerciales de”

    From Hacia una normativa sobre la inteligencia artificial (IA): consideraciones clave y regulaciones internacionales (2024) · cites this paper as Tallberg et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Ahlquist, John S. 2017. "Labor Unions, Political Representation, and Economic Inequality." Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 409-432.
  2. Arras, S., and Beyers, J. 2019. "Access to European Union Agencies: Usual Suspects or Balanced Interest Representation in Open and Closed Consultations?" Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(4), 836-855.
  3. Arrow, K. J. 1952. "The Determination of Many-Commodity Preferences Scales by Two-Commodity Comparisons." Metroeconomica, 4(3), 105-115.
  4. Auld, G., Casovan, A., Clarke, A., & Faveri, B. 2022. "Governing AI through ethical standards: learning from the experiences of other private governance initiatives." Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1822-1844.
  5. Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M., and Sell, S. K. (Eds.). 2010. Who Governs the Globe? (Vol. 114). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Beyers, J. 2008. "Policy Issues, Organisational Format and the Political Strategies of Interest Organisations." West European Politics, 31(6), 1188-1211.
  7. Binderkrantz, A. S., Blom-Hansen, J., & Senninger, R. 2020. "Countering Bias? The EU Commission's Consultation with Interest Groups." Journal of European Public Policy, 28(4), 469-488.
  8. Binderkrantz, A. S., Blom-Hansen, J., Baekgaard, M., and Serritzlew, S. 2022. "Stakeholder Consultations in the EU Commission: Instruments of Involvement or Legitimacy?" Journal of European Public Policy. Online First. Internet: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2058066. Last accessed: February 23, 2023. · DOI
  9. Bloodgood, E. A. 2011. "The Interest Group Analogy: International Non- Governmental Advocacy Organisations in International Politics." Review of International Studies, 37(1), 93-120.
  10. Bullock, J. B. and others (eds). 2022. The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance. Internet: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.001.0001 · DOI
  11. Bunea, A. 2013. "Issues, Preferences and Ties: Determinants of Interest Groups' Preference Attainment in the EU Environmental Policy." Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 552-570.
  12. Bunea, A. 2017. "Designing Stakeholder Consultations: Reinforcing or Alleviating Bias in the European Union System of Governance?" European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 46-69.
  13. Butcher, J., and Beridze, I. 2019. "What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally?" The RUSI Journal, 164(5-6), 88-96.
  14. Büthe, T., Djeffal, C., Lütge, C., Maasen, S., & Ingersleben-Seip, N. V. 2022. "Governing AI-attempting to herd cats? Introduction to the special issue on the Governance of Artificial Intelligence." Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1721-1752.
  15. Cihon, P., Maas, M. M., and Kemp, L. 2020. "Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance." Global Policy, 11(5), 545-56.
  16. Djeffal, C., Siewert, M. B., & Wurster, S. 2022. "Role of the state and responsibility in governing artificial intelligence: A comparative analysis of AI strategies." Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1799-1821.
  17. Dür, A., Marshall, D., and Bernhagen, P. 2019. The Political Influence of Business in the European Union. University of Michigan Press.
  18. Ehret, S. 2022. "Public Preferences for Governing AI Technology: Comparative Evidence." Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1779-1798.
  19. Fraussen, B., Albareda, A., and Braun, C. 2020. "Conceptualizing Consultation Approaches: Identifying Combinations of Consultation Tools and Analyzing their Implications for Stakeholder Diversity." Policy Sciences, 53(3), 473- 493.
  20. Frieden, J. A. 1999. "Actors and Preferences in International Relations." In: Lake, D, and Powell, R (Eds.) Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  21. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Haas, P. 1992. "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination." International Organization, 46(1), 1-35.
  23. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., and Wilson, C. J. 2002. "Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration?" Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965-989.
  24. Josselin, D., and Wallace, W. 2001. Non-state actors in world politics: a framework. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1-20
  25. Klüver, H. 2011. "The Contextual Nature of Lobbying: Explaining Lobbying Success in the European Union." European Union Politics, 12(4), 483-506.
  26. Klüver H. 2013. Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
  27. König, P. D., Wurster, S., & Siewert, M. B. 2023. "Sustainability challenges of artificial intelligence and Citizens' regulatory preferences." Government Information Quarterly.
  28. Lehner, T., and Wasserfallen, F. 2019. "Political Conflict in the Reform of the Eurozone." European Union Politics, 20(1), 45-64.
  29. Lundgren, M., Bailer, S., Dellmuth, L.M., Tallberg, J. and Târlea, S. 2019. "Bargaining Success in the Reform of the Eurozone." European Union Politics, 20(1), 65-88.
  30. Mahoney, Christine. 2008. Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  31. McKay, A., & Yackee, S. W. 2007. "Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules." American Politics Research, 35(3), 336-357.
  32. Mitchell, G. E., and Schmitz, H. P. 2014. "Principled Instrumentalism: A Theory of Transnational NGO Behaviour." Review of International Studies, 40(3), 487-504.
  33. Nitzberg, M., & Zysman, J. 2022. "Algorithms, data, and platforms: the diverse challenges of governing AI." Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1753-1778.
  34. Radu, R. 2021. "Steering the Governance of Artificial Intelligence: National Strategies in Perspective." Policy and Society, 40 (2), 178-93.
  35. Rasmussen, A., and Carroll, B. J. 2014. "Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Union Online Consultations." British Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 445-459.
  36. Røed, M., and Wøien Hansen, V. 2018. "Explaining Participation Bias in the European Commission's Online Consultations: The Struggle for Policy Gain Without Too Much Pain." Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(6), 1446- 1461.
  37. Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Hine, E., Morley, J., Wang, V., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. 2023. "Governing artificial intelligence in China and the European Union: Comparing aims and promoting ethical outcomes." The Information Society, 39(2), 79-97.
  38. Schmitt, L. 2022. "Mapping global AI governance: a nascent regime in a fragmented landscape." AI and Ethics, 2(2), 303-314.
  39. Sell, S.K. and Prakash, A. 2004. "Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights." International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 143-175.
  40. Stix, C. 2021. "Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: three pathways." Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1), 15.
  41. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., and Jönsson, C. 2013. The Opening Up of International Organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Tallberg, J., Dellmuth, L., Agné, H., and Duit. A. 2018. "NGO Influence in International Organizations: Information, Access and Exchange." British Journal of Political Science, 48, 213-248.
  43. Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M, Geith, J., Klamberg, M., and Lundgren, M. 2023. "The Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Next Steps for Empirical and Normative Research." International Studies Review, 25(3), viad040.
  44. Zhang, B. 2022. "Public Opinion toward Artificial Intelligence", in The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance, edited by J. B. Bullock and others. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013. · DOI
  45. Zhang, B., & Dafoe, A. 2019. "Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends." Available at SSRN 3312874.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tallberg, J., Lundgren, M., & Geith, J.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Lundgren, Magnus
ORCID
Venue
Business and Politics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2024-02-15
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
218-239
ISSN
  • 1369-5258 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3569
DOI
10.1017/bap.2023.36
OpenAlex
W4391837525
Cited by
42
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 6
FWCI
108.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Business and Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond (MMW 2020.0044)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
Keywords
AI regulation, EU AI Act, non-state actors, business actors, public consultation, international regulation of AI, stakeholder preferences, European Union

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review