In May, Talkstandards.com hosted an open forum on the use of standardization as a political tool to face an increasingly global economy. Contributors were asked to discuss a number of issues including: the role that governments should play in international standards initiative, and the consequences of this involvement such as non-tariff barriers to trade.
Keith Maskus argued that “The interjection of nationalist politics into standards setting … is of considerable concern”. In technical areas where goods, such as wireless technology, have considerable network effects attached, there is a temptation for governments to structure standards so as to favour domestic producers/suppliers. While possible to remedy through diplomatic exchanges and commercial relationships, vigilance and coordination between national authorities is of upmost importance.
While acknowledging that areas such as eHealh and safety call for government direction, Ken Krechmer argued that growing government involvement in the standardization process will not produce better standards. He contrasted standards development which looks to maximize efficiency (termed Newtonian) with an evolutionary process, where “each standard just serves a purpose for a span of time to be superseded by other technologies and associated standards” regardless of legislative backing.
In an article that initiated considerable discussion, Andy Updegrove on the one hand warned that national/international standards often intersect to the benefit of protectionist elements, and on the other argued that global issues requiring international standardization such as climate change (SmartGrid, emissions caps, green technology, etc.) are best addressed by governments. He concluded by proposing that perhaps the best alternative is the establishment of a new, treaty-based, infra-national organisation to “drive such ambitious projects on a global, rather than a national basis”.
Helen Disney highlighted a growing tension between governments serving the interests of individual citizens/consumers versus the collective good, and that standards and the standardization process are increasingly becoming areas of political interest. She argued that instead of “demonizing certain types of standards” while favouring others – closed/open, national/global, etc. – policymakers should see them instead as tools to “facilitate good policy outcomes”, e.g. in dealing with issues such as climate change.
Inspired by an Economist article which suggested that Asia, particularly China, is turning the business world “up-side down”, Ajit Jaokar described what he saw as a growing dichotomy between national standards vs global standards and emphasised the role which the “timeless motivation of companies to solve specific problems” will play in driving increased international standardization.
As governments so often lack the required knowledge base to critically assess different technologies within a standard, the result is that, as Jay Kesan explained, policy makers are increasingly looking towards large private companies for guidance. This can potentially create conflict of interest due to differences between public and private motivations. Kesan argued that governments must be vigilant, lest the standardization process become a protectionist mechanism.
Typically, governments are most likely to intervene in highly dynamic industries. From this perspective, Stacy Baird warned of the dangers of government involvement in the burgeoning area of Cloud computing. He argued that “governments should let the IT experts, the CIOs and CTOs pick their own technology” and proposed a simple “public interest” based test, against which governments need assess any ICT market intervention.
