Artificial intelligence governance and social policy divergence
A comparative political economy perspective on global AI regulation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11194490 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Deepak Kumar (0000-0003-0234-3165, La Trobe University, corresponding author), Chinmaya Kumar Sahu (0000-0002-4510-8600, CMS Business School, Jain (Deemed-to-be University) Faculty of Management Studies) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-25 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-26 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-333X • E-ISSN: 1758-6720 |
| Publisher | Emerald (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1108/ijssp-02-2026-0129 |
| OpenAlex | W7140137215 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 27 |
Purpose To explain why artificial intelligence (AI) governance produces systematically divergent social policy outcomes across regions despite widespread convergence around ethical standards for AI. The study examines how political–economic institutions shape the allocation of social risks, regulatory authority, labour integration and ethics institutionalisation in AI governance, thereby driving these differences. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a comparative qualitative policy analysis based on 24 key AI policy documents published between 2018 and 2025 across the European Union, United States, China, and Indo-Pacific economies. Guided by theory, the documents are systematically coded across four institutional dimensions and converted into simple indices to compare governance approaches across the regions. Findings The findings show clear and systematic differences in how regions govern AI. Five distinct governance models emerge: rights-based (EU), market-driven (US), state-centric (China), hybrid (Australia–Japan–Singapore) and developmental (India). Although many regions use similar ethical language, substantial differences persist in risk allocation, regulatory enforcement, welfare integration and social protection. These differences reflect the historically embedded political–economic institutions shaping each regime. Originality/value The paper reframes AI governance as a form of social policy shaped by political and economic institutions. It develops a new, evidence-based typology of AI governance models and shows that differences across countries are driven by institutional structures and not by ethical principles alone
Bureaucracy · Corporate governance · Institutionalisation · Multi-level governance · Perspective (graphical · Politics · Public policy · Social policy · Typology · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Digital Economy and Work Transformation · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges
Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
A Layered Model for AI Governance
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society
Varieties of Capitalism
Governance of artificial intelligence in Southeast Asia
The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand
Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Study of Policy Processes
Policy Learning in Comparative Policy Analysis
Shaping AI’s Future? China in Global AI Governance
The Rise of Algorithmic Management and Implications for Work and Organisations
Trends, risks and potential cooperations in the AI development market
Hard and Soft Law in International Governance
What is platform governance
Artificial intelligence and the future of work - lessons from the sociology of expectations
The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism
How platforms govern
Rethinking Comparative Political Economy
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |