Distinguishing Standards and Regulation for Innovation Research

Abstract

Certain influential innovation impact studies do not sharply distinguish standards from regulation. Is differentiation needed? In what way do they differ in how they work and work out? This article applies and extends a framework of regulatory modalities to open up the black box of direct innovation effects. It includes standards as a separate regulatory modality following careful consideration of alternatives, i.e., accommodating them as a special instance or as a hybrid of law, norm, market and architecture. The authors capture the essential differences between standards and law. They reconcile Lessig's emphasis on constraints with findings of enabling and constraining effects in innovation research by differentiating direct inherently constraining effects of regulatory modalities and modality-specific direct generic effects - as opposed to indirect effects. They conclude that standards and law merit separate treatment in innovation research, and recommend complementary frameworks to uncover unaddressed issues.