Diffusion of Practice: The Curious Case of the Sino-German Technical Standardization Partnership

Fuchs, Daniel; Eaton, Sarah

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3723303

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This argument builds on a case study analysis of the Sino-German cooperation on technical standards for Industrie 4.0 -Germany's catchphrase for the digital transformation of industrial manufacturing. As we describe in more detail elsewhere, 35 this partnership was established in 2015 as part of broader, multi-actor cooperation between China and Germany in the domain of smart manufacturing. The collaborative work, aimed at jointly developing standard proposals, is carried out in the Sub-Working Group Industrie 4.0/Intelligent Manufacturing of the Sino-German Standardization Cooperation Committee.…”

Section: Learning To Leadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice diffusion in China’s two-pronged engagement in global technical standardization

Fuchs,

Eaton

2024

China Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of intensifying geopolitical rivalry, China’s transition from rule-taker to rule-maker in technical standard-setting has generated deep contention with established stakeholders in the Global North. This article analyses how China, as a latecomer to global technical standardization, has navigated this increasingly contested arena of global economic governance. Building on the ‘practice turn’ literature in International Relations and a conceptualization of standard-setting processes as shaped by ‘communities of practice’, this article argues that ‘practice diffusion’ is of crucial significance for China’s rising standards power. Just as it sees mastery of global standardization practice as a key dimension of increasing its influence in established standards developing organizations, China has also begun to diffuse its standardization practice abroad in the effort to lay the foundations of a China-centric standardization regime. The article develops this argument by identifying four specific mechanisms of practice diffusion – learning the basics, learning to lead, learning within the region, learning to build – and by illustrating the role that each has played in Chinese stakeholders’ evolving engagement in global technical standard-setting.

show abstract

Section: Learning To Leadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice diffusion in China’s two-pronged engagement in global technical standardization

Fuchs,

Eaton

2024

China Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their lack of technological expertise in and knowledge of the existing standards canon, in addition to their unfamiliarity with the rules of the game, excluded them from communities of practice. 23 Providing a unique peek behind the curtains that conceal the informal practices as much as the formal procedures of standards development, Daniel Fuchs and Sarah Eaton demonstrate how Chinese standards experts confronted these barriers through active learning. By learning the basics through engaging experts from traditional standards-setting powers such as the United States and Germany and learning to lead by proposing standards and taking up leadership positions, Chinese experts gained a considerable foothold in international SDOs.…”

Section: Deng To XImentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese standards from the ground up

Driessen,

Zhu

2024

China Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China’s transformation from a standards-taker to a standards-maker has sent a shock wave through the global economy. While Chinese standardization is conventionally perceived and analysed as a top–down process, led by the central government and the Standardization Administration of China, this article demonstrates the merits of studying standards from the ground up. Sustained engagement with those who make, adopt, reject, and recalibrate standards reveals, first, the human face of standardization. Standards depend on people to be their advocates. The effectiveness of their implementation and the scope of their acceptance rely on practitioners who imbue standards with value and promote them within and across national borders. Furthermore, a bottom–up approach sheds light on the hierarchical nature of standards, the processes of inclusion and exclusion, and the dynamics of elevation and marginalization that hierarchies generate. Finally, it prompts us to look beyond de jure standards. As a producer of cheap commodities for developing countries, China has long been a maker of informal, or de facto, standards that grow out of repeat transactions and mutual agreements among actors along these value chains. Only by considering the human, hierarchical, and informal dimensions of standardization can we fully understand China’s rise as a global standards power.

show abstract

“…Chinese standards have been formulated following an internationally harmonizing approach (Yan, 2020) and have been complementary to dominant B&R standards, which have been much more receptive to B&R governments and enterprises. The practical logic is that cooperation and harmonization between China and B&R countries in the field of international standardization can strengthen their economic trade ties (Fuchs & Eaton, 2021).…”

Section: Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Catalyst or barrier? Heterogeneous effects of standards on agricultural trade between China and the Belt and Road countries

Yang

2022

International Studies of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an ongoing debate about whether standards act as trade catalysts or barriers. This article uses a gravity model to analyze the effects of national standards on the trade of agricultural products between China and the 64 Belt and Road (B&R) countries from 1990 to 2019. Mandatory countryspecific standards have positive and significant effects on total trade, exports, and imports. Mandatory international harmonization standards have positive and significant effects on total trade and exports. Voluntary country-specific standards positively (and significantly) affect exports, while voluntary internationally harmonized standards positively (and significantly) affect total trade, exports, and imports. The magnitude of coefficients of mandatory countryspecific standards is the highest, followed by mandatory internationally harmonized standards and voluntary internationally harmonized standards. It is beneficial for China and the B&R countries to strengthen standards cooperation, actively adopt international standards, and evaluate the implementation effect of standards over time.

show abstract

Diffusion of Practice: The Curious Case of the Sino-German Technical Standardization Partnership

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Practice diffusion in China’s two-pronged engagement in global technical standardization

Practice diffusion in China’s two-pronged engagement in global technical standardization

Chinese standards from the ground up

Catalyst or barrier? Heterogeneous effects of standards on agricultural trade between China and the Belt and Road countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About