A Multidimensional Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Policy Tools in China, the United States, and the European Union: An Analysis Based on Large Language Models

This study introduces an LLMs-enabled policy computing method to quantitatively compare AI policy instruments across China, the US, and the EU based on a supply–environment–demand taxonomy. It identifies three distinct paradigms. China follows a supply-driven model focused on state-led capacity building. The US adopts a balanced strategy linking technological leadership with regulatory influence. The EU pursues a regulation-centric pathway prioritizing legal frameworks. Each paradigm is shaped by deeper political-economic structures shaping responses to generative AI. Global AI governance is following three diverging, coexisting trajectories. While their responses to generative AI were synchronized in timing, they diverged in direction and content, reinforcing rather than narrowing the distinctions among the three governance paradigms.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2026.2749564
Primary Topic
Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Multidimensional Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Policy Tools in China, the United States, and the European Union: An Analysis Based on Large Language Models

Guangjian Li, Zhixin Zhang, Xuan Wu
4 links
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice
Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
article

A Multidimensional Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Policy Tools in China, the United States, and the European Union: An Analysis Based on Large Language Models

Guangjian Li, Zhixin Zhang, Xuan Wu
article en

Abstract

This study introduces an LLMs-enabled policy computing method to quantitatively compare AI policy instruments across China, the US, and the EU based on a supply–environment–demand taxonomy. It identifies three distinct paradigms. China follows a supply-driven model focused on state-led capacity building. The US adopts a balanced strategy linking technological leadership with regulatory influence. The EU pursues a regulation-centric pathway prioritizing legal frameworks. Each paradigm is shaped by deeper political-economic structures shaping responses to generative AI. Global AI governance is following three diverging, coexisting trajectories. While their responses to generative AI were synchronized in timing, they diverged in direction and content, reinforcing rather than narrowing the distinctions among the three governance paradigms.

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice
Peking University (CN), Tsinghua University (CN)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
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.

Laika access coming soon