A Tale of Two Types of Standard Setting: Evidence From Artificial Intelligence in China
Abstract
This study explores how technologically sophisticated firms respond to different types of standard setting in an emerging economy. Considering the heterogeneous institutional logics that are embedded in a hybrid-mode standard-setting system, we distinguish between market- and government-led standard setting. Using data of 8,519 artificial intelligence–active firms engaging in Chinese artificial intelligence standard setting from 2010 to 2020, we demonstrate that firms with superior technological capability are more likely to engage in market-led versus government-led standard setting. This is due to divergent goals and norms in different types of standard setting. We also find that subfield technological diversity intensifies market competition, thereby improving the incentive of firms with superior technological capability to engage in market-led standard setting with the aim of shaping future technological trajectories. Additionally, government ownership relieves goal misalignment and mitigates firms’ concerns about technology expropriation, thus promoting firms’ engagement in government-led standard setting.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Potential conflicts of interest are inherent to for-profit organizations.
“However, it is crucial to remain vigilant about potential conflicts of interest inherent to for-profit organizations43.”
From Advancing healthcare AI governance through a comprehensive maturity model based on systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
Cites
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0072 · Cited by 2,755 · see citing works
Jones, S. L., Leiponen, A., & Vasudeva, G. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3244 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advancing healthcare AI governance through a comprehensive maturity model based on systematic review
Hussein, R., Zink, A., Ramadan, B., Howard, F. M., Hightower, M., Shah, S., & Beaulieu-Jones, B. K. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02418-7 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, J., Li, X., & Tong, T.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Northwest University
- University of Colorado
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-01-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1393-1423
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W4313523890
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 4.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Shanghai Pujiang Program (22PJC019)
- Social Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, China (2022R018)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- standard setting, artificial intelligence standards, institutional logics, technological capabilities, technological diversity, market competition, state ownership, goal misalignment, emerging markets, China
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