Global AI research has coalesced around two poles centered on the US and China, with the UK and Germany tied chiefly to the US while many European countries bridge both; the fact that developing countries tend to integrate mainly with China underscores Beijing’s expanding influence and complicates efforts to build unified international AI governance.

Main Finding

The global AI research system has been polarizing into two poles centered on the United States and China. Since the 2000s the US and China have diverged in both cross‑country collaborations and citation‑based knowledge flows; many countries align predominantly with one pole, while a subset of mainly European and other advanced economies act as bridges by integrating with both. This polarization has implications for innovation diffusion, regulatory coordination, and countries’ strategic positions in the global AI economy.

Key Points

• Data scope: 1990–2023 publication record built from OpenAlex. The AI corpus comprises ~1.99M papers labeled “Artificial Intelligence” plus ~1.24M additional papers that cite them.
• Network construction:
  • Yearly country-level collaboration networks (undirected, weighted by co‑authorship counts).
  • Yearly country‑level citation networks (directed, weighted by citation counts between countries).
• Significance measurement:
  • For each yearly snapshot, observed link weights were compared to expectations from a maximum‑entropy null model that preserves node strength properties; link z‑scores quantify whether bilateral links are stronger or weaker than expected.
  • Significant collaboration network (2017–2021 average): US has significant ties with ~46 countries across continents; China has significant ties with ~17, mostly geographically/historically proximate.
• Temporal patterns and clustering:
  • Individual country‑pair z‑score trajectories (2000–2021) were clustered using k‑means with Dynamic Time Warping similarity into four archetypes:
  • Scientific Convergence (SC): rising significance in both collaboration and knowledge exchange.
  • Scientific Divergence (SD): falling significance in both.
  • Knowledge Integration (KI): rising citation significance, declining collaborations.
  • Knowledge Divergence (KD): falling citation significance, stable collaborations.
  • Most high‑output AI producers are in SD — diverging from one another — while many productive EU members diverge from each other but converge with less productive neighboring EU states (hub‑and‑spoke pattern).
• Country-level alignments:
  • UK and Germany: increasingly integrated with the US and diverging from China.
  • France, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Israel: integrate with both US and China — acting as bridges.
  • A wide group (including several developing and developed countries such as Australia, Brazil, Russia, Spain) shows convergence toward China; some (India, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) diverge from the US while converging with China — evidence of active polarization.
  • India is highlighted as an emergent pole given its changing relationship with the US and rapid growth in collaborations/citations.
• Robustness: Findings are robust to alternative null models (variance‑corrected maximum‑entropy and Local Rewiring Algorithm).

Data & Methods

• Source: OpenAlex bibliographic database; paper classification via Scopus ASJC subfield “Artificial Intelligence” and citation expansion to include citing papers through 2023.
• Sample sizes: ~1,992,760 AI‑labeled papers + ~1,239,696 citing papers; filtered to records with geographic affiliation information.
• Network definitions:
  • Collaborations: undirected country–country edges weighted by co‑authored paper counts per year.
  • Citations: directed country–country edges weighted by counts of citations from papers affiliated in country i to papers affiliated in country j.
• Null model: maximum‑entropy ensemble that conditions on node strengths (total collaborations/citations) to compute expected link weights and associated variances; z‑scores computed as (observed − expected) / stddev. Significant links defined (for visualization/analysis) at e.g., z > 2.
• Temporal analysis: yearly trajectories (2000–2021) of z‑scores for each bilateral pair were clustered with k‑means using Dynamic Time Warping distance to extract recurrent trend archetypes.
• Sensitivity checks: variance‑corrected max‑entropy and local rewiring null models produced consistent patterns.

Implications for AI Economics

• Innovation diffusion and returns to collaboration:
  • Polarization can reduce cross‑border spillovers and the social returns to international collaboration; integrated networks typically yield higher‑impact science, so fragmentation may slow global AI progress.
• Comparative advantage and specialization:
  • Countries aligning with a pole may experience increased dependence on that pole’s knowledge base, tools, standards, and supply chains—shaping comparative advantages in AI goods and services.
  • Bridge countries can capture strategic rents by accessing multiple knowledge ecosystems and by facilitating cross‑bloc knowledge transfer.
• Costs of decoupling and market effects:
  • Policy‑driven decoupling (restrictions on mobility, data, talent, or research collaborations) imposes explicit and implicit costs: duplicated R&D, reduced market size for AI products, fragmented standards, and higher compliance costs for multinational firms.
  • Firms and investors will price in geopolitical alignment risks; capital allocation may shift toward countries that offer more stable, open collaboration channels or toward poles offering preferential market access.
• Standards, governance, and market structure:
  • Divergent regulatory regimes raise coordination costs and can fragment product markets (non‑interoperable safety standards, benchmark incompatibilities). Whichever pole establishes dominant de facto standards may shape global market rules and firm strategies.
• Development and dependency risks:
  • Developing countries converging primarily with China risk lock‑in to Chinese ecosystems (platforms, standards, suppliers), with implications for bargaining power, technology transfer terms, and local capability building.
  • Conversely, exclusive alignment with the US pole has its own dependence risks; diversified (bridge) positioning can mitigate these but may be politically and economically costly.
• Policy trade‑offs:
  • National strategies must balance security concerns against the economic benefits of openness. Policies that preserve "pre‑competitive" research spaces, interoperable standards, and open benchmarks can help maintain productive international links while addressing security risks.
• Research and policy priorities:
  • Quantify the economic losses from reduced international collaboration in AI (productivity, welfare, innovation rates).
  • Model optimal tradeoffs between research openness and national security constraints (e.g., carve‑outs, screening mechanisms).
  • Monitor how standard‑setting and regulatory choices affect market structure, entry barriers, and global welfare.

Limitations and caveats - Observational analysis — trajectories describe association not causation. - Reliance on affiliation metadata and AI classification in OpenAlex may miss or misclassify some contributions; citation delays and cross‑field citing behavior can affect measures. - Significance thresholds and null model choices influence which links are labeled “significant,” though key qualitative findings are robust to tested alternatives.

Suggested follow‑ups for AI economics research - Combine publication networks with patenting, funding, and firm‑level collaboration data to trace commercialization pathways and capture economic outcomes. - Estimate the causal impact of bilateral research restrictions on domestic and foreign innovation outputs and market performance. - Model welfare implications of standard fragmentation and the economic value of bridge countries for global AI public goods.