Behind and beyond the standard(ization) trap: diversifying power sources by differentiating centralization and standardization

ABSTRACT

Standardization, often seen as a means to increase power through uniform working methods, has both benefits and drawbacks. Scholars and practitioners highlight the risk of a ‘standard(ization) trap’, where initial benefits lead to unforeseen costs. This study reviews literature and practices in standardization, identifying confusion between two power sources: substance power, concerning WHETHER to standardize, and decision-making power, dealing with WHO standardizes. It introduces a matrix differentiating these sources, offering insights into standardization methods. This matrix proposes four archetypes of standardization: centralized standardization, centralized de-standardization, decentralized standardization, and decentralized de-standardization. These archetypes offer theoretical and practical insights for addressing standardization challenges.

KEYWORDS:

• Standards
• standardization
• destandardization
• centralization
• decentralization

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges that this research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea; and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2924956).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the National Research Foundation, Republic of Korea [NRF-2016S1A3A2924956].

Notes on contributors

Junesoo Lee

Junesoo Lee is an associate professor at the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, in charge of the Dynamic Sustainability Laboratory (DS Lab). He received his PhD in Public Administration and Policy from the State University of New York at Albany. His teaching portfolio includes: public organizations and management; policy process analysis; sustainability modeling and simulation; and policy lab practicum. His research focuses on paradox management through dynamic sustainability, where systems can be sustained by beneficial failure (i.e., failure management) and also challenged by harmful success (i.e., success management).