TECHNOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT AND VALUE BALANCE: DUAL PATHWAYS IN CHINA’S TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE POLICIES FOR THE AI ERA
Keywords:
Technology governance, Artificial intelligence, Enabling governance, Global digital governanceAbstract
The deep embedding of artificial intelligence (AI) technology is reshaping global governance. The tension between “technological empowerment” and “value balance” has become a common governance challenge for countries worldwide. Based on a dual-pathway framework of “technology-driven modernization of state governance” and “technology-embedded multi-actor social co-governance,” this paper systematically analyzes the internal logic and operational mechanisms of technology governance in China in the AI era. The study finds that China’s technology governance is not a single efficiency-oriented application of technology; rather, through the coordinated operation of dual pathways, it comprehensively achieves four major governance functions: efficiency improvement, equity promotion, security assurance, and institutional reconstruction. In terms of model characteristics, China has developed a distinctive paradigm centered on “enabling governance”-one that takes state capacity as its foundation, institutional flexibility as its safeguard, and plural public values as its goals. This paradigm transcends the single efficiency-oriented governance logic of the West and offers a non-Western pathway with both theoretical inspiration and practical reference for global digital governance. This paper argues that the core of “enabling governance” lies in resolving the tension between technological empowerment and value balance through institutional design, and that the transferability of its experience depends on the conditions of fit in specific institutional contexts.References
[1] Gong T. Value co-creation in public governance: The case of integrity building in Hong Kong. Public Administration and Policy Review, 2023(1): 28-36.
[2] Han X. Why is AI governance in major powers different? A meta-governance explanation based on China, the United States, and Europe. Contemporary Asia-Pacific, 202(3): 62-91.
[3] Mao F, Lin J, Zhang F. Global AI policy orientations and China’s governance path choices. Zhejiang Academic Journal, 2026(5): 181-193.
[4] Zhang N. Technology governance and government governance modernization. Yuelu Public Governance, 2024, 3(3): 1.
[5] Li Y, Fan Y, Nie L. Making governance agile: Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in China’s local governance. Public Policy and Administration, 2025, 40(2): 276-301.
[6] Liu Z, Liu L. On the global governance of artificial intelligence and China’s response. Journal of Xiamen University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2025(6): 79-92.
[7] Wang Z, Zhang T. Organizational learning, identity, and the construction of a new rural governance system: A case study of a village in Henan Province. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2022, 15(3): 242-257.
[8] Tan Y, Wu H. Cooperative co-production and value co-creation: New ideas for the sustainable development of grassroots social governance communities. Journal of the Party School of the Tianjin Municipal Committee of the CPC, 2024(5): 64-73.
[9] Ji F, Sun T, Jin Y. Experience and implications of global AI ethics governance from the perspective of policy instruments: A comparative analysis based on China, the United States, and Europe. Journal of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Social Science Edition), 2026, 28(4): 27-39.
[10] Quan Y. China’s narrative of artificial intelligence governance: Meaning construction, actor anchoring, and global integration. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2025, 33(6): 82-92.