全球数字化转型形成新的监管挑战，基于数据监管的第三波监管浪潮兴起，但 世界各国进行了差异化的监管回应。跨境数据流动成为全球经济活动的基础，但也 成为最具争议的数据监管议题。本研究以跨境数据流动为现实场域，探讨如下研究 问题:在数据监管中，世界各国为何实施了差异化的监管?市场制度供给是否以及 如何影响数据监管? 本研究采取混合研究方法。本研究选取中国为代表性案例，采取理论构建型过 程追踪法寻求理论解释。研究发现，在法治建设和制度型开放的制度供给背景下， 中国跨境数据流动监管是市场逻辑和安全逻辑逐渐兼容促使监管干预逐渐降低的 动态演进过程。基于中国跨境数据流动监管过程的单案例分析，本研究建构了基于 “市场-安全”逻辑的制度供给影响监管的理论框架。 本研究构建了多维度的全球跨境数据流动监管测度体系。研究发现:第一，跨 境数据流动监管既显现监管规则形式趋同，又显现监管机制设计趋异。第二，政府 监管与市场自我监管相互补充。第三，数据监管机构独立性以及透明性存在差异。 在实证分析中，本研究采用法治质量和营商环境质量衡量市场制度供给质量，通过 事件史分析等方法进行定量检验。结果显示:第一，国家的市场制度供给质量对其 监管规则出台、监管机构成立具有显著正向作用;第二，国家的市场制度供给质量 对监管机构独立性没有显著影响;第三，国家的市场制度供给质量对数据监管机构 公开透明具有显著正向作用;第四，国家的市场制度供给质量与跨境数据流动监管 干预强度存在倒 U 型关系，随着市场制度供给质量提高，跨境数据流动监管由政 府监管为主转变为市场自我监管为主;第五，国家安全显著调节市场制度供给质量 与跨境数据流动监管干预强度的倒 U 型关系，与国家安全使得跨境数据流动监管 干预相对增强的事实相吻合。 本研究的学术贡献主要包括三个方面。第一，本研究回应了监管理论的有关争 论，拓展了制度主义监管理论研究，丰富了数据监管的实证研究。第二，本研究构 建了全球跨境数据流动监管测度体系，从监管规则、监管机构、监管机制等维度丰 富了监管的测度，并为全球数据监管提供了广泛的事实评估。第三，本研究为未来 的数据监管工作提供了政策启示。

The global digital transformation has created new regulatory challenges, and the third wave of regulation based on data regulation has emerged, but countries worldwide have responded differently. Cross-border data flows have become the foundation of global economic activities and the most controversial data regulatory issue. This study aims to discuss the following research questions: Why do countries worldwide implement different regulatory actions in data regulation? Whether and how do market institutional supplies affect data regulatory actions? This study constructed a multi-dimensional global cross-border data flow regulatory measurement system. The study‘s findings are significant: First, cross-border data flow regulation demonstrates a mix of convergence in regulatory rules and divergence in regulatory mechanisms. Second, government regulation and market self-regulation complement each other. Third, there are discernible variations in the independence and transparency of data regulatory authorities. This study employs a mixed research method. Initially, China was chosen as a representative case, and the theoretical construction process-tracing method was adopted to seek theoretical explanations. The study reveals that China‘s cross-border data flow regulation is a dynamic evolutionary process, where market logic and security logic gradually align, leading to a reduction in regulatory intervention. Based on the exploratory analysis of China‘s cross-border data flow regulatory process, this study constructs a theoretical framework for the impact of institutional supply on regulation based on market and security logic. In the empirical test, this study uses the quality of the rule of law and the quality of the business environment to measure the quality of market institutional supply and then conducts quantitative tests through event history analysis and other methods. The results show that: first, the quality of a country‘s market institutional supply has a significant positive effect on the introduction of its regulatory rules and the establishment of regulatory authorities; second, the quality of a country‘s market institutional supply has no significant impact on the independence of data regulatory authorities; third, the quality of a country‘s market institutional supply has a significant positive effect on the transparency of data regulatory authorities; fourth, as the quality of a country‘s market institutional supply improves, regulatory intervention in cross-border data flows will undergo a regulatory transformation process from state-based regulation to market self-regulation; fifth, national security significantly moderates the inverted U-shaped relationship between the quality of market institutional supply and the intensity of cross-border data flow regulatory intervention, which is consistent with the fact that national security makes cross-border data flow regulatory intervention relatively stronger. The contributions of this study are threefold. First, this study engages with ongoing debates in regulatory theory, expands the scope of institutional regulatory theory, and enhances empirical research on data regulation. Second, this study devises a comprehensive global cross-border data flow regulatory measurement system, broadening the measurement of regulation across the dimensions of regulatory rules, regulatory agencies, and regulatory mechanisms, and providing a wealth of factual assessments for global data regulation. Third, this study offers valuable policy insights for future international data regulatory cooperation and national data regulatory efforts.