Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment

Wiegmann, Paul Moritz; Eggers, Felix; Vries, Henk de; Blind, Knut

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104427

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over time, however, the constant evolving membership of committees (Wiegmann et al. 2022), and SSOs as mere process facilitators, may create an institutional deficit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardising policy in a nonstandard way: a public/private standardisation process in Norway

Heyerdahl

2023

J. Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standards developed by standard-setting organisations (SSOs) – sometimes labelled private rulemaking – are part of larger practices of governance in most societies yet are underinvestigated from a policy process perspective. Utilising and developing the multiple streams approach (MSA), this article investigates a policy process moving between government and the SSO Standards Norway (SN). The study finds standardisation by SSOs to be an ambiguous institutional arrangement. Strong institutional barriers in theory did not work as such in the case investigated. This article argues that the differentiation between responsibility for process (SN) and content (committee) makes the standardisation process vulnerable. The concept of “institutional deficit” is introduced to describe a potential mismatch between SSOs producing policy in a government-like institution, but where the SSOs are not capable of taking responsibility for policies in a government-like way. This article finds the adjusted MSA useful in this potentially least likely case.

show abstract

“…Over time, however, the constant evolving membership of committees (Wiegmann et al. 2022), and SSOs as mere process facilitators, may create an institutional deficit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardising policy in a nonstandard way: a public/private standardisation process in Norway

Heyerdahl

2023

J. Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within this context, standards are a kind of public good and are necessary for fostering a climate of innovation (Mazé, 2017; Swann, 2010). Standard‐setting organizations establish goal‐directed networks for innovators to jointly shape technology and markets through standards (Wiegmann et al., 2022), and their membership helps mitigate an enterprise's riskiness when it faces technological uncertainty (Deng et al., 2022). Signal theory posits that standards influence quality, safety, and trade signals, thereby promoting the competitiveness of enterprises or countries that meet strict standards (Ballina et al., 2020; Hudson & Jones, 2003).…”

Section: Theory Of the Economics Of Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics of standards: A literature review

Lijuan

2023

Journal of Economic Surveys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economics of standards pertains to the investigation of economic problems related to standards. It was established as a field of research between 2000 and 2010 and has developed rapidly since. Focusing on the relevant theories, methods, and issues, this article systematically summarizes and evaluates the extant literature on the economics of standards. The theory section concentrates on the classification, supply–demand, and economic effects of standards. The method section expands on these theoretical and empirical dimensions, while the final issue section focuses on standards alongside economic growth, trade, and innovation. The study's findings have implications for promoting teaching and research on the economics of standards and improving the practice of standardization.

show abstract

“…Empirical studies about firms' active participation in standardization committees have been performed mainly since the new century and were always based on rather limited samples of companies, e.g. by Blind (2006), and Blind and Thumm (2004) followed by Blind and Mangelsdorf (2013) and recently by Zhang et al (2020a) and Wiegmann et al (2022). Only Wakke et al (2015) connected the Dutch Community Innovation Survey with data about the involvement of the national standardization body.…”

Section: Standards Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%