Podcast Summary: "Daniela Stockmann and Ting Luo, 'Governing Digital China'" (New Books Network, Feb 11, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this episode of the New Books Network, host Peter Lorenson (Associate Professor of Economics, University of San Francisco) interviews Daniela Stockmann (Director, Center for Digital Governance, Hertie School, Berlin) and Ting Luo (Associate Professor in Government and AI, University of Birmingham) about their co-authored book, Governing Digital China (Cambridge UP, 2025). The book investigates the evolving relationship between China's state, its powerful digital platforms (like Tencent and Alibaba), and everyday internet users—demystifying popular beliefs about digital authoritarianism and explaining how China balances economic innovation with political stability. Key insights are drawn from China’s first nationally representative face-to-face survey on internet use, expert interviews, and industry analysis.

Main Themes & Purpose

• Exploring the "Digital Dilemma": How does China sustain the growth of its digital economy while maintaining political stability?
• Popular Corporatism: The book introduces "popular corporatism" as a framework for understanding the complex, interdependent relationship between state, tech firms, and citizens.
• Debunking Myths: The authors challenge western perceptions of China as a "Black Mirror" dystopia, emphasizing the nuanced and fragmented realities of digital governance.
• Original Empirical Data: Grounded in survey data, interviews with industry experts, and extensive fieldwork, the book reveals how bottom-up and top-down pressures shape digital China.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Digital Dilemma in China ([01:21]–[05:24])

• Term Defined: The “digital dilemma” describes the tension between promoting economic growth through digital technologies and ensuring political order.

• Stockmann: “In the very beginning… digital technology was always associated with democracy, with liberalization… But now the discussion has shifted: hate speech, distrust, polarization, false information… The book is really about China’s answer to this question: how do you sustain the growth of the digital economy and political stability.” [01:40]

• The Chinese “answer” is highly state-driven, diverging from Western norms which often view open debate as stabilizing, whereas in China, suppressing some topics is believed essential to stability.

2. Beyond “Command and Control”: Introducing Popular Corporatism ([05:24]–[10:35])

• Western Stereotype Challenged: Western observers often see China’s internet as purely controlled by the state, but the reality is more complicated.

• Ting Luo: “Outside of China, they see China as Black Mirror… everyone have some sort of chips in their brain… But… the state will have to rely on the company to build those technology… So we’re seeing the company as some sort of in between the state and the citizen.” [06:17]

• Ensuring participation is essential: Users’ voluntary data contribution fuels both commercial and state goals.

• Stockmann on popular corporatism: “[The] party is of course kind of like more like a CEO in their relationship with the companies. But then it's also popular because you need citizen participation in order for making this entire system work.” [08:03]

3. The Social Credit System: Reality vs. Myth ([10:35]–[22:00])

• Two Aspects:

  • Political: Local government credit systems; enforcement mainly for documented financial/legal disputes.
  • Commercial: Credit scores (like Sesame Credit, Tencent Credit)—similar to the US FICO score—intended for financial behaviors, not political control per se.

• Luo: “At the moment… political control or surveillance system… but we also have the commercial aspect… more like credit scoring.” [11:37]

• Stockmann: “The fear has always been...that those data would be linked…But according to the empirical evidence… we couldn’t find any evidence for such links.” [14:09]

• There is no unified, centrally-administered social credit system where one political party “score” affects all aspects of life. Integration is technically and politically limited; major tech companies are competitors, not partners in surveillance.

• Companies can—and do—push back against government overreach, since their user base and commercial interests also matter.

4. Competitive Dynamics and Fragmentation ([21:22]–[32:00])

• Despite strong state involvement, companies like Tencent and Alibaba have competitive incentives not to share data or comply too strictly with government requests, as business interests and user migration pressures counterbalance state demands.

• Stockmann: “It’s not the individual user that has any impact here… what really matters are these kind of almost like mass movements, so collective action where large numbers of users are suddenly migrating.” [21:46]

• The government pursues “limited competition” to maintain innovation and user engagement, while avoiding a pure monopoly.

• "United Agency" Solution: In response to state demands for data integration, a “United Credit Score Agency” is created—nominally controlled by the state with company shareholders—to mediate data-sharing and maintain balance between state oversight and company autonomy. It remains technically and politically hamstrung:

  • Luo: “At the moment, we do know there is this Credit United agency, but I don't know whether they're functioning well… there were rumors about all these commercial companies decline to share data, so they do not really have the kind of data that allowed them to fulfill their vision.” [30:56]

5. Changes Over Time: Crackdowns, User Preferences & Resilience ([33:11]–[43:45])

• Evidence suggests users do care about privacy and freedom ("more space to voice criticism"), challenging stereotypes about Chinese indifference to digital rights.

• Stockmann: “The vast majority of Chinese Internet users actually does take action... to protect their privacy online, and... there’s also a preference or priority for less censorship.” [34:25]

• State dependence on a few tech firms is now checked by periodic campaigns (antitrust, post-Covid crackdowns)—but underlying relationships revert to the same balancing act over time.

• Stockmann: “The popular corporatists’ partnership and relationship... was [not] fundamentally changed even during the antitrust campaign.” [39:50]

• The dynamics are mirrored in emerging sectors like AI: the state drives development but must rely on private innovation and user participation.

• Luo: "Popular corporatism can actually explain what's going on in AI... you still have to balance the bottom influence of citizen." [41:58]

6. Social Media as Arena for Contestation ([43:45]–[48:27])

• Platforms’ commercial interests and user engagement shape the degree and nature of censorship. If a platform (e.g., Weibo) tightens censorship too much, users migrate, reducing both business value and the state's ability to monitor or guide public discourse.

• Stockmann: “If you have that kind of insider relationship with the state, you actually have more leeway as a platform to not censor as much...you can make sure your users are a bit happier because they can talk a little bit more freely.” [46:43]

7. Current and Future Research ([48:29]–[55:10])

• Ting Luo: Investigating how AI systems may reflect or develop political values and ideology, considering both training data and reinforcement phases.

  • "[My project is] to look into how this AI system... might interpret value differently...The project's title is something about the political ideology of AI systems." [49:53]

• Daniela Stockmann: Studying Europe’s strengthening regulatory approach (Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act) and how both US and Chinese tech companies respond to stringent compliance demands.

  • "In Europe...now there has been a real shift...how both American and Chinese tech companies are reacting to these new regulations." [51:32]

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On the foundational dilemma:

  • Stockmann: “How do you sustain the growth of the digital economy and political stability.” [01:40]

• On Myths vs. Reality:

  • Luo: “Outside of China, they see China as Black Mirror… But… the state will have to rely on the company to build those technology…” [06:17]

• On user agency:

  • Stockmann: “It’s not the individual user that has any impact here…what really matters are these almost like mass movements, so collective action…” [21:46]

• On social credit fears:

  • Stockmann: “We couldn’t find any evidence for such links [between user financial and political data].” [14:09]

• On privacy attitudes:

  • Stockmann: “The vast majority of Chinese Internet users actually does take action…to protect their privacy online…” [34:25]

• On corporate-state bargain:

  • Stockmann: “If you have that kind of insider relationship with the state, you actually have more leeway as a platform to not censor as much…” [46:43]

Key Moments by Timestamp

• [01:21] – Definition and significance of the digital dilemma
• [06:17] – The reality of corporate-state-user relations, challenging dystopian stereotypes
• [11:37] – Structure and function of the social credit system: political vs. commercial aspects
• [14:09] – Empirical evidence: No all-encompassing social control system
• [21:46] – Power of collective user migration and company resistance
• [30:56] – Government efforts to integrate platforms and company pushback
• [34:25] – Survey data: Chinese users value privacy and online “space”
• [41:58] – The model’s application to AI governance
• [46:43] – Insider status and greater platform leeway
• [49:53] – Luo’s new research on AI systems and political ideology
• [51:32] – Stockmann’s ongoing research on EU tech regulation

Memorable Moments

• Comparison between Chinese and Western tech governance: the “Black Mirror” analogy and why it doesn’t hold.
• Real-world consequences when platforms push censorship too far (e.g., user exodus from Weibo).
• The unusual power and flexibility digital platforms have acquired—even under an authoritarian regime.

Conclusion

Governing Digital China moves beyond simplistic "surveillance state" narratives, showing how China’s digital governance is a product of negotiated, dynamic, and sometimes even competitive interactions among state actors, tech firms, and millions of ordinary users. The “digital dilemma” is not uniquely Chinese, but the country’s hybrid of strong state guidance, platform competition, and responsive user engagement is unique in its balance. The system is less monolithic—and more fragile and contingent—than commonly perceived. The episode underscores the importance of nuanced, data-driven approaches to understanding digital governance in China and globally.

“If you don’t understand China’s digital economy, you don’t understand anything.” – Peter Lorenson, [55:10]