Original
Contested Rule Formation Under Institutional Mismatch: A Framework for Early‐Phase Governance of Disruptive Innovations
Abstract
ABSTRACT Disruptive innovations often diffuse faster than inherited policy institutions can classify, assign jurisdiction, and govern them. In these early phases, the central struggle is often not yet about the stringency of substantive standards, but about prior questions of what the innovation is (its legal and administrative classification), who is competent to decide (allocation of jurisdiction and decision authority), and where authoritative decisions should be made (designation of legitimate governance venues). This article develops Contested Rule Formation (CRF), a meso‐level, four‐stage framework for analyzing early‐phase governance under institutional mismatch in institutionally dense settings. CRF reconceptualizes institutional voids as localized misfit along five co‐evolving dimensions: recognition, authority, enforcement capacity, venue clarity, and interpretive frames. It then specifies a staged mechanism (incipient recognition, exploratory tactics, rule crystallization, and consolidation/backlash) in which classification and jurisdictional settlements function as rate‐limiting gates for durable rulemaking and for procedural learning, understood as a contingent trajectory rather than an automatic result of contestation. A proof‐of‐concept comparison of ride‐hailing governance in California and Austin/Texas shows how different category‐and‐venue pathways shaped early outcomes. The article closes with a diagnostic and comparative research agenda for studying upstream governance across AI, fintech, energy, and other domains of disruptive innovation and socio‐technical change.
中文
制度错配下的争议性规则形成：颠覆性创新早期阶段治理的一个框架
摘要
颠覆性创新往往比继承而来的政策制度能够对其进行分类、分配管辖权并加以治理的速度扩散得更快。在这些早期阶段，核心斗争通常尚不关乎实质性标准的严格程度，而关乎一些在先问题：该创新是什么（其法律与行政分类），谁有权作出决定（管辖权与决策权的配置），以及权威性决定应在何处作出（合法治理场域的指定）。本文提出“争议性规则形成”（Contested Rule Formation, CRF），这是一个中观层面、包含四个阶段的分析框架，用于分析制度密集环境中制度错配条件下的早期治理。CRF将制度真空重新概念化为沿五个共同演化维度出现的局部错配：承认、权威、执行能力、场域清晰度与解释框架。随后，它界定了一个阶段性机制（初现承认、探索性策略、规则结晶以及巩固/反弹），其中分类与管辖权安排构成持久规则制定与程序性学习的限速门槛，而程序性学习应被理解为一种偶然轨迹，而非争辩与竞争的自动结果。对加利福尼亚州与得克萨斯州奥斯汀市网约车治理的概念验证性比较，展示了不同的类别—场域路径如何塑造早期结果。文章最后提出一项诊断性与比较性研究议程，用于研究人工智能、金融科技、能源以及其他颠覆性创新与社会技术变迁领域中的上游治理。
关键词
制度错配、颠覆性创新、早期治理、争议性规则形成、监管分类、管辖权、治理场域、网约车治理