IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v17y2026i1p36-46.html

Public Trust in Global AI Governance Across Geopolitical Rivals

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaojun Li

Abstract

The global governance of artificial intelligence (AI) depends on coordination among national governments, international organizations, and non‐state actors. While existing research has mapped the institutional complexity of the emerging AI regime, public trust in the stakeholders involved remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap using parallel surveys in the United States and China, two leading AI powers locked in strategic rivalry. Results show that respondents in both countries express the highest levels of trust in their own government and the lowest in their geopolitical rival, with other actors such as the European Union, tech firms, and research institutes falling in between. These patterns reflect how geopolitical competition and intergroup dynamics shape public trust, posing challenges for inclusive and cooperative governance in contested global domains such as AI. At the same time, individuals who view AI as socially beneficial and who support international cooperation report higher trust across a broad set of actors, including rivals. These findings illuminate systematic patterns in public opinions that condition the political viability of global AI governance and suggest that narratives emphasizing shared benefits and collaboration may help bridge trust gaps.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaojun Li, 2026. "Public Trust in Global AI Governance Across Geopolitical Rivals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 17(1), pages 36-46, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:17:y:2026:i:1:p:36-46
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.70105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.70105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.70105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Edwards, 2009. "Public support for the international economic organizations: Evidence from developing countries," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 185-209, June.
    2. Weeks, Jessica L., 2008. "Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 35-64, January.
    3. Wratil, Christopher & Wäckerle, Jens & Proksch, Sven-Oliver, 2023. "Government Rhetoric and the Representation of Public Opinion in International Negotiations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 1105-1122, August.
    4. Nicholson, Stephen P. & Huang, Haifeng, 2023. "Making the List: Reevaluating Political Trust and Social Desirability in China," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 1158-1165, August.
    5. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    6. Weiss, Jessica Chen, 2013. "Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and Nationalist Protest in China," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 1-35, January.
    7. Padmashree Gehl Sampath, 2021. "Governing Artificial Intelligence in an Age of Inequality," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S6), pages 21-31, July.
    8. Martin S. Edwards, 2009. "Public support for the international economic organizations: Evidence from developing countries," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 185-209, June.
    9. Peter Cihon & Matthijs M. Maas & Luke Kemp, 2020. "Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 545-556, November.
    10. Clara Weinhardt, 2015. "Relational trust in international cooperation: The case of North-South trade negotiations," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 27-54, April.
    11. Tomz, Michael, 2007. "Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 821-840, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    2. Michal Smetana, 2025. "Microfoundations of domestic audience costs in nondemocratic regimes: Experimental evidence from Putin’s Russia," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(2), pages 278-294, March.
    3. Eryan Ramadhani, 2019. "Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 30-54, April.
    4. Douglas M Gibler & Steven V Miller, 2024. "The Militarized Interstate Events (MIE) dataset, 1816–2014," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(4), pages 463-481, July.
    5. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    6. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Gregory J. Moore & Christopher B. Primiano, 2020. "Audience Costs and China’s South China Sea Policy," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(3), pages 325-348, December.
    8. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Jiahua Yue, 2025. "External coercion and public support: The case of the US–China trade war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(2), pages 344-358, March.
    10. Seiki Tanaka, 2016. "The microfoundations of territorial disputes: Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 516-538, November.
    11. Rana, Arslan Tariq & Kebewar, Mazen, 2014. "The Political Economy of FDI flows into Developing Countries: Does the depth of International Trade Agreements Matter?," EconStor Preprints 91501, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    12. Andrew J. Keith, 2024. "Governance of artificial intelligence in Southeast Asia," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(5), pages 937-954, November.
    13. Matthew Wilson & Carla Martinez Machain, 2018. "Militarism and Dual-Conflict Capacity," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 156-172, January.
    14. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    15. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    16. David R. Andersen-Rodgers, 2015. "No table necessary? Foreign policy crisis management techniques in non-state actor-triggered crises," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(2), pages 200-221, April.
    17. Seung-Whan Choi, 2010. "Legislative Constraints: A Path to Peace?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 438-470, June.
    18. Sekeris, Petros G., 2025. "Propaganda and conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-585.
    19. Jesse C. Johnson, 2016. "Alliance treaty obligations and war intervention," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 451-468, November.
    20. Sasha de Vogel & Jessica S Sun, 2024. "Crisis bargaining, domestic politics and Russia's invasion of Ukraine," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 534-555, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:17:y:2026:i:1:p:36-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.