Reconceptualizing Technological Leadership: A Relational and Dynamic Framework

This article challenges conventional economic‐based understandings of technological leadership, which often conflate technological leadership with innovation capability or leading status in the technology sector. Instead, it develops a relational and dynamic framework for understanding technological leadership from an IR perspective. It introduces a novel typology differentiating leadership from leading, and followership from imitation and purchase. Technological leadership is defined as the relational and dynamic process through which a state establishes and sustains influence by setting and enforcing rules, standards, and frameworks that guide innovation and collaboration within a technological ecosystem. The formation of technological leadership is a complex and dynamic process, involving interaction between leaders, followers, and the technological environment, shaped by leadership behaviors, followers’ choices, and technological context. This article applies the proposed framework to examine the US–China rivalry for global leadership in artificial intelligence. Through a systematic analysis of AI‐related policy documents from both nations spanning the period from 2016 to 2025, the study elucidates how these two major powers have formulated their respective AI leadership strategies and influenced the evolution of global AI governance. The analysis reveals that US leadership in AI is characterized by a dual‐focused approach that integrates technological advancement with value‐oriented governance, manifesting through three key dimensions: ethical governance frameworks, international collaborative initiatives, and strategic competitive measures. China’s leadership behavior, adhering to the principle of mutual benefit, manifests primarily through infrastructure development and standard‐setting, adopting a development‐centric approach. However, the formation of technological leadership is not solely determined by US and Chinese strategies but is equally influenced by the strategic choices of follower states. Consequently, the ultimate trajectory of the US–China rivalry in AI leadership will predominantly depend on both nations’ capacity to attract and maintain follower support.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Politics and Governance
Published
2025-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.10243
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Educational Leadership and Innovation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.93

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reconceptualizing Technological Leadership: A Relational and Dynamic Framework

Yuanyuan Fang, Shenghao Zhang
1 citations
Politics and Governance
Educational Leadership and Innovation
8.93
article

Reconceptualizing Technological Leadership: A Relational and Dynamic Framework

Yuanyuan Fang, Shenghao Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This article challenges conventional economic‐based understandings of technological leadership, which often conflate technological leadership with innovation capability or leading status in the technology sector. Instead, it develops a relational and dynamic framework for understanding technological leadership from an IR perspective. It introduces a novel typology differentiating leadership from leading, and followership from imitation and purchase. Technological leadership is defined as the relational and dynamic process through which a state establishes and sustains influence by setting and enforcing rules, standards, and frameworks that guide innovation and collaboration within a technological ecosystem. The formation of technological leadership is a complex and dynamic process, involving interaction between leaders, followers, and the technological environment, shaped by leadership behaviors, followers’ choices, and technological context. This article applies the proposed framework to examine the US–China rivalry for global leadership in artificial intelligence. Through a systematic analysis of AI‐related policy documents from both nations spanning the period from 2016 to 2025, the study elucidates how these two major powers have formulated their respective AI leadership strategies and influenced the evolution of global AI governance. The analysis reveals that US leadership in AI is characterized by a dual‐focused approach that integrates technological advancement with value‐oriented governance, manifesting through three key dimensions: ethical governance frameworks, international collaborative initiatives, and strategic competitive measures. China’s leadership behavior, adhering to the principle of mutual benefit, manifests primarily through infrastructure development and standard‐setting, adopting a development‐centric approach. However, the formation of technological leadership is not solely determined by US and Chinese strategies but is equally influenced by the strategic choices of follower states. Consequently, the ultimate trajectory of the US–China rivalry in AI leadership will predominantly depend on both nations’ capacity to attract and maintain follower support.

Politics and GovernanceVol. 13
Beijing Language and Culture University (CN), University of International Relations (CN), Beijing International Studies University (CN), Tsinghua University (CN)
Beijing Language and Culture University, National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Educational Leadership and Innovation
8.93
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.