Chinaʼs interest in developing and implementing a national standards strategy continues to attract widespread international attention. The strategy has been incorporated into the web of policies in support of Chinaʼs ambitious 15 year Medium to Long-term Plan (MLP) for scientific and technological development intended to make China an “innovative society” by the year 2020. As such, the standard strategy can be viewed as an instrument of industrial policy, now widely referred to as Chinaʼs “indigenous innovation” program, the implementation of which is perceived by the companies and governments of the OECD world as a threat to international norms of standardization.
Reactions to the indigenous innovation policies prompt questions as to their efficacy as well as their international implications. Among these, the following stand out:
1. Is Chinaʼs standards strategy effectively linked with its aspirations for technological innovation? The relationship between standardization and innovation is a complex one in any society, and it is not clear that the Chinese have quite got the relationship right. The indigenous innovation policies offer attractive incentives for the development of standards which incorporate Chinese developed intellectual property. But, there is a widespread belief among foreign observers that Chinese firms and research institutes active in standardization have sought to capture industrial policy benefits from the state by making small incremental changes to foreign technology which are then repackaged as a Chinese standard, incorporating Chinese IP, under the “re-innovation” rubric of the indigenous innovation program.
2. What is the state of play among Chinese stakeholders in standardization? Foreign observers often carry images of a unified “China Inc.,” having a coordinated technology policy and approach to standards. But, there is also evidence of a differences of opinion among Chinese firms, among Chinese government entities, and between industry and government. These differences reflect varied interests in standards, and also the varying influences of market forces, as opposed to state directives on standardization.
3. How should we understand the relative importance of domestic factors in Chinese thinking about standards as opposed to international considerations? Clearly, domestic conditions play an important role. With its large size, huge population, and increasingly demanding domestic market, much of Chinese thinking is based on the belief, to the chagrin of international observers, that these conditions warrant the development of distinctive Chinese standards. Alternatively, the promotion of Chinese standards internationally is seen as a promising way to secure Chinese leadership in global high-technology markets.
4. What is the relative importance of national security considerations in Chinese approaches to standardization, especially in IT? China is devoting considerable effort to the development of information security standards while resisting the adoption of established international standards. Are these measures driven by genuine national security concerns, or by commercial considerations? To what extent do Chinese approaches to information security standards, and arguably to IT standards more generally, reflect the influence of a distinctive “information culture” which puts it at odds with the norms of the information society internationally?
