The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Setting International Standards: Technological Rationality or Primacy of Power?
Abstract
Standards have become one of the most important nontariff barriers to trade, especially national product standards that specify design or performance characteristics of manufactured goods. Divergent national standards often inhibit trade, whereas regional and international standards increasingly serve as instruments of trade liberalization. Consequently, the setting of international standards—seemingly technical and apolitical—is rapidly becoming an issue of economic and political salience. But who sets international standards? Who wins, who loses? This article offers a fresh analytical approach to the study of international standards, which the authors call the institutional complementarities approach. It builds on insights from realism and the “Battle of the Sexes” coordination game but emphasizes complementarities of historically conditioned standardization systems at the national level with the institutional structure of standardization at the international level. It posits that, after controlling for other factors that influence involvement in international standardization, differences in institutional complementarities play a critical though largely accidental role in placing firms from different countries or regions in a first- or second-mover position when standardization becomes global. The authors illustrate the insightfulness of this approach through statistical analyses of the first scientific set of data on standards use and standardization, collected by the authors through an international online survey.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Andrews, A. O., Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393344 · Cited by 8,261
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Pierson, P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586011 · Cited by 8,094
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226185941.001.0001 · Cited by 7,617
Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage
Porter, P. K., Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (2003) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/30040740 · Cited by 7,510
Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) · Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x · Cited by 6,796
Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics
Wendt, A. (1992) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300027764 · Cited by 5,885
Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-5387 · Cited by 5,533
Cited by
Globalizing European union environmental policy
Kelemen, R. D. (2010) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501761003662065 · Cited by 165
The Causes and Consequences of Private Food Governance
Fuchs, D., & Kalfagianni, A. (2010) · Business and Politics · doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1319 · Cited by 156
Making Standards Stick: A Theory of Coupled vs. Decoupled Compliance
Sandholtz, K. W. (2012) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840612443623 · Cited by 150
We, the Data: Human Rights in the Digital Age
Wong, W. H. (2023) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/14703.001.0001 · Cited by 31
Hinane El-Kadi, T. (2024) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2024.2317060 · Cited by 21
“The ability to define standards has long been understood as a tool of power, enabling those who set the rules to shape them to their own advantage (Mattli and Büthe 2003; Lee and Oh 2006; Yao, Tan, and Suttmeier 2009).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Mattli, W., & Büthe, T.
- Venue
- World Politics
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-42
- ISSN
- 0043-8871 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3338
- OpenAlex
- W2001125730
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 21.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Setting International Standards: Technological Rationality or Primacy of Power? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/wp.2004.0006
- The paper
- Mattli, W., & Büthe, T. (2003). Setting International Standards: Technological Rationality or Primacy of Power? World Politics. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.