Comparative analysis of European and certain Asian approaches to governance often degenerates into simplistic dichotomies based on universal human rights assumptions. This chapter rejects such dualities, ill-informed by theory and historical reflection. The emerging argument is founded on a historical realist approach to theorising difference. Assisted by Polanyi’s double movement, the detailed substantive comparison is preceded by considerations of how recent trends in governing AI have uniformly adopted a countermovement against the dis-embedding of data and technology from the social leading to a risk/responsibility paradigm. From here, a more nuanced reflection of AI governance approaches in the EU and Singapore is offered, wherein frontier technologies are preferred for economic growth and governance is tempered by subtly different understandings of risk qualified by a common desire for achieving economic and social betterment. Rather than expressing a preference for either approach, the chapter concludes that a more convincing comparative analysis requires focusing on structural, organisational and interactive/situational perspectives when directed to a complex dynamic such as AI deployed in particular community settings.