‘Scale Quantum, not bureaucracy’
Policy logics and geopolitical anxieties in the standardization of quantum technologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59490/jos.2026.8497Keywords:
quantum technologies, standardization, policy logics, global governance, technology governance, geopoliticsAbstract
The emerging ‘quantum era’ is often framed in terms of technological revolution and geopolitical competition. This paper offers a more grounded account of the development of quantum technologies by examining their formal standardization processes. Focusing on two key institutional sites—CEN-CENELEC JTC 22 and IEC/ISO JTC 3—we analyze how actors negotiate and stabilize meanings, priorities, and responsibilities in this early and uncertain technological field. Drawing on the theoretical framework of policy logics, we identify three dynamics that shape quantum standardization: (1) technological uncertainty and the premature timing of standardization complicate institutional coordination and national strategy; (2) conflicting policy logics are fused to ‘infrastructure’ an institutional formation that acquires autonomy over time; and (3) formal standards processes serve as a pressure valve for geopolitical tensions surrounding global technological trajectories. The analysis builds on a year-long ethnography of standardization meetings and plenaries, complemented by 9 elite interviews. By bridging insights from science and technology studies, institutional theory, and international political economy, the paper demonstrates how standardization institutions mediate the governance and global politics of emerging technologies.
References
Agarwal, A., & Mohanta, C. (2023). Development, working and standardization of quantum computing. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B, 104(2), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-023-00868-1
Becker, C., ten Oever, N., & Nanni, R. (2024). Interrogating the standardisation of surveillance in 5G amid US–China competition. Information, Communication & Society, 27(16), 2834–2851. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2302991
Birkinshaw, J., Visnjic, I., & Best, S. (2018). Responding to a potentially disruptive technology: How big pharma embraced biotechnology. California Management Review, 60(4), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618778852
Blind, K. (2025). Standardization and Standards: Safeguards of technological sovereignty?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 210, 123873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123873
Blind, K., Petersen, S. S., & Riillo, C. A. F. (2017). The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets. Research Policy, 46(1), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.003
Blind, K., Kenney, M., Leiponen, A., & Simcoe, T. (2023). Standards and innovation: A review and introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 52(8), 104830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104830
Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for Reality. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8962.001.0001
Candelon, F., Bobier, J.F., Courtaux, M., & Nahas, G. (2022, August). Can Europe catch up with the US (and China) in quantum computing? Boston Consulting Group & BCG Henderson Institute. Boston Consulting Group. https://web-assets.bcg.com/09/16/38b8f0114aada4ce45b6bca9f5c7/bcg-can-europe-catch-up-with-the-us-and-china-in-quantum-computing-sep-2022-r.pdf
Cancela-Outeda, C. (2024). The EU’s AI act: A framework for collaborative governance. Internet of Things, 27, 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101291
CEN-CENELEC. (2025, October 24). CEN-CENELEC/JTC 22 ‘Quantum Technologies’ publishes its first deliverable: Layer model of Quantum Computing. CEN-CENELEC JTC 22. https://www.cencenelec.eu/news-events/news/2025/eninthespotlight/2025-10-23-tr-18202-2025/
Colovic, A., Caloffi, A., Rossi, F., & Russo, M. (2025). Institutionalising the digital transition: The role of digital innovation intermediaries. Research Policy, 54(1), 105146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105146
De Keyser, B., & Vandenbempt, K. (2025). Persisting under pressure: How organizations coordinate their response to disruptive innovation. Research Policy, 54(8), 105275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105275
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 1–26). Sage Publications.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Ballinger Publishing Co.
Eberle, J., & Daniel, J. (2022). Anxiety geopolitics: Hybrid warfare, civilisational geopolitics, and the Janus-faced politics of anxiety. Political Geography, 92, 102502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102502
Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004003
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2290
Guzzini, S. (2016). Foreign Policy Identity Crises and Uses of ‘the West’. In G. Hellmann & B. Herborth (Eds), Uses of ‘the West’ (1st ed., pp. 13–36). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316717448.002
G7. (2025, June 17). Kananaskis Common Vision for the Future of Quantum Technologies. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/06/17/kananaskis-common-vision-future-quantum
Hennessy, O., & Mügge, D. (2025). Command and control: How the EU navigates the delegation paradox in AI standardisation. Proceedings EURAS 2025: Empowering Standardisation Through Education (pp. 147–167).
Henrich-Franke, C. (2008). Cookies for ITU: The role of social networks in standardization processes. In J. Schueler, A. Fickers, & A. Hommels (Eds.), Bargaining Norms – Arguing Standards (pp. 86–97). STT Netherlands Study Centre for Technology Trends.
Hibberts, M., Johnson, R. B., & Hudson, K. (2012). Common Survey Sampling Techniques. In L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 53–74). Springer New York.
Hong, Y. (2017). Networking China: The digital transformation of the Chinese economy. University of Illinois Press.
International Organization for Standardization & International Electrotechnical Commission [ISO/IEC]. (2024). ISO/IEC 4879:2024: Information technology — Quantum computing — Vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/standard/80432.html
Isaak, J. (2006). The Role of individuals and social capital in POSIX standardization. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (IJITSR), 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/jitsr.2006010101
Jakobs, K. (2000). Users and Standardisation. In K. Jakobs (Ed.), Standardisation Processes in IT: Impact, Problems and Benefits of User Participation (pp. 101–167). Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-86847-3_5
Jenet, A. (2020). Standards4Quantum: Making Quantum Technology Ready for Industry. Putting Science into Standards (JRC Conference and Workshop Report 2020). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/882029
Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Anthony, C. (2013). The immateriality of material practices in institutional logics. In Institutional Logics in Action, Vol. 39, Part A (pp. 51–75). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039AB006
Lambach, D., & Monsees, L. (2025). Beyond sovereignty as authority: The multiplicity of European approaches to digital sovereignty. Global Political Economy, 4(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1332/26352257Y2024D000000007
Lang, A. (2024). ‘Global Disordering’: Practices of reflexivity in global economic governance. European Journal of International Law, 35(1), 93–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chae011
Lee, M., Yun, J. J., Pyka, A., Won, D., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., Park, H., Jeon, J., Park, K., Jung, K., Yan, M.-R., Lee, S., & Zhao, X. (2018). How to Respond to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Second Information Technology Revolution? Dynamic New Combinations between Technology, Market, and Society through Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030021
Lee, J., Zhang, E., & Creemers, R. (2022). China’s standardisation system: Trends, implications and case studies in emerging technologies. Leiden Asia Centre. https://leidenasiacentre.nl/chinas-standardisation-system-trends-implications-and-case-studies-in-emerging-technologies/
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159610
Marcovitch, I., & Wilner, A. (2024). Tackling the geopolitics of standardization: Lessons from Canada’s strategic foresight-to-standards pilot project. International Journal, 79(4), 577–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020241298264
Mattli, W., & Büthe, T. (2003). Setting International Standards: Technological Rationality or Primacy of Power?. World Politics, 56(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0006
Maxigas, & ten Oever, N. (2023). Geopolitics in the infrastructural ideology of 5G. Global Media and China, 8(3), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364231193950
McKeil, A. (2021). On the concept of international disorder. International Relations, 35(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820922289
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Mitzen, J. (2006). Anchoring Europe’s civilizing identity: Habits, capabilities and ontological security. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500451709
Musiani, F. (2015). Practice, plurality, performativity, and plumbing: Internet governance research meets science and technology studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(2), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914553803
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative Research in Business & Management. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nanni, R. (2021). The ‘China’ question in mobile Internet standard-making: Insights from expert interviews. Telecommunications Policy, Norm Entrepreneurship in Internet Governance, 45(6), 102151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102151
Nanni, R. (2022). Digital sovereignty and Internet standards: Normative implications of public-private relations among Chinese stakeholders in the Internet Engineering Task Force. Information, Communication & Society, 25(16), 2342–2362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2129270
Nielsen, K., Hausner, J., & Jessop, B. (1995). Institutional change in post-socialism. In J. Hausner, B. Jessop, & K. Nielsen (Eds), Strategic choice and path dependency in post-socialism (pp. 3–44). Edward Elgar Publishing.
OECD. (2025). A quantum technologies policy primer. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 371. https://doi.org/10.1787/fd1153c3-en
O’Reilly, C., & Binns, A. J. M. (2019). The three stages of disruptive innovation: Idea generation, incubation, and scaling. California Management Review, 61(3), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841878
Paris, B. (2021). The internet of futures past: Values trajectories of networking protocol projects. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(5), 1021–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920974083
Peña, A. M. (2015). Governing differentiation: On standardisation as political steering. European Journal of International Relations, 21(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114523657
Pitwon, R. C. A., & Lee, B. H. L. (2021). Harmonising international standards to promote commercial adoption of quantum technologies. In K. Bongs, M. J. Padgett, A. Fedrizzi, & A. Politi (Eds), Quantum Technology: Driving Commercialisation of an Enabling Science II (p. 16). SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2602888
Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015589981
Rumelili, B. (2020). Integrating anxiety into international relations theory: Hobbes, existentialism, and ontological security. International Theory, 12(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000093
Sovacool, B. K., Lovell, K., & Ting, M. B. (2018). Reconfiguration, Contestation, and Decline: Conceptualizing Mature Large Technical Systems. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(6), 1066–1097. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918768074
Suzuki, K. (2017). Policy Logics and Institutions of European Space Collaboration (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246581
Teleanu, S. (2021). The geopolitics of digital standards: China’s role in standard-setting organisations. DiPLO. https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/report-the-geopolitics-of-digital-standards-chinas-role-in-standard-setting-organisations/
Ten Oever, N., & Milan, S. (2022). The making of international communication standards: Towards a theory of power in standardization. Journal of Standardisation, 1. https://doi.org/10.18757/jos.2022.6205
The Guardian. (2017, December 29). The Guardian view on quantum computing: The new space race. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/29/the-guardian-view-on-quantum-computing-the-new-space-race
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012a). The Emergence and Evolution of Field-Level Logics. In P. H. Thornton, W. Ocasio, & M. Lounsbury (Eds), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process (pp. 148-169). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.003.0007
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012b). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
UK National Quantum Technologies Programme. (2015). National strategy for quantum technologies: A new era for the UK. https://uknqt.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/National-Quantum-Technologies-Strategy.pdf
Van Deventer, O., Spethmann, N., Loeffler, M., Amoretti, M., Van Den Brink, R., Bruno, N., Comi, P., Farrugia, N., Gramegna, M., Jenet, A., Kassenberg, B., Kozlowski, W., Länger, T., Lindstrom, T., Martin, V., Neumann, N., Papadopoulos, H., Pascazio, S., Peev, M., … Wilhelm-Mauch, F. K. (2022). Towards European standards for quantum technologies. EPJ Quantum Technology, 9(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00150-1
Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act—Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
Yang, H., Wang, J., & Sun, X. (2023). Research on Quantum Computing Standard System Architecture and Roadmap. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2433(1), 012035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2433/1/012035
Yates, J., & Murphy, C. N. (2021). Engineering rules: Global standard setting since 1880. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.66187
Zi, A., & Blind, K. (2015). Researchers’ participation in standardisation: A case study from a public research institute in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9370-y
Zúñiga, N., Burton, S. D., Blancato, F., & Carr, M. (2024). The geopolitics of technology standards: Historical context for US, EU and Chinese approaches. International Affairs, 100(4), 1635–1652. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae124
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Petros Terzis, Niels ten Oever, Joris van Hoboken
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
