Social Credit Systems and the Rule of Law

Social Credit Score in the US?

Introduction

The concept of a social credit score system has garnered significant attention due to its implementation in countries like China. This system evaluates citizens based on their behavior, trustworthiness, and societal contributions. The research topic at hand delves into the potential implications of introducing such a system in the US, specifically asking: What are the potential impacts for society and for public administration of introducing a social credit score system in the US? The findings of researchers suggests that trust in public administration plays a pivotal role in the acceptance of a social credit score system (Liu, 2019; 2022). Those with trust in the government are more likely to support such policies, while skeptics view it as a manifestation of governmental overreach and a step towards totalitarianism. These perceptions could have profound political and administrative repercussions. The significance of this research is evident. Understanding the potential ramifications of a social credit score in the US can guide public administrators in their roles. As other nations attempt to implement policies that may effectively curb unwanted behavior, it is important that public administrators in the US consider the values of rights of Americans. Thus, the independent variable in this study is the introduction of a social credit score system, measured nominally. The dependent variable encompasses the societal and individual impacts that might emerge from this system\\\\\\\'s introduction. These impacts, measured ordinally, can be assessed through indicators like public trust in the government, perceived freedom of expression, privacy concerns, and societal cohesion. Ultimately, the introduction of a social credit score system intertwines societal values with individual behaviors. It is a collectivist approach to governance that could clash with the US\\\\\\\'s traditional emphasis on personal independence. The potential administrative and social impacts are investigated in this literature review. As outlined by Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) and Von Bloomberg (2020) as well Liu (2019) and Liu (2022), those impacts range from trust in government to concerns over privacy.

Literature Review

Liu (2019) looks at the multiple social credit systems in China and shows that in 2014, China\\\\\\\'s State Council unveiled the “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014–2020)”, a blueprint designed to establish a national social credit system (SCS) within a span of six years. Liu (2019) found that the portrayal of the SCS varies significantly between Chinese and Western media. The former predominantly lauds the system, often refraining from critical analysis. In contrast, Western media represents the Chinese SCS as a monolithic tool of surveillance wielded by big government and typically emphasizes the integration of commercial systems with governmental databases, facilitating automated detection and punitive actions. Ultimately Liu (2019) challenges the prevailing notion of a singular, cohesive SCS in China, and instead argues that, in reality, multiple SCSs coexist, operating at varied levels and sectors, and these systems often do not converge. Furthermore, these SCSs are not static; they undergo continuous evolution, with modifications in their design and execution across different regions.

Liu (2019) categorizes the SCSs in China into four primary types: First is the Nationwide governmental financial credit system, spearheaded by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). It is a system that focuses on economic and financial activities. Second, are the commercial credit rating and score systems: these are private corporations, like Ant Financial, that introduced the Sesame score based on various data points, including personal information, relational data from social networks, and consumption patterns. Third is the nationwide governmental blacklist/redlist systems, which unite the \\\\\\\"discredited subject blacklist\\\\\\\" with the \\\\\\\"credited redlist\\\\\\\". A multitude of such blacklists exist, each tailored to the jurisdiction of different central governmental agencies (Liu, 2019). Finally, there is the municipal governmental systems, which exists on the local governance front, wherein authorities implement national policies. This involves data collection and uploading, classification of individuals, and subsequent punitive actions. Some cities have even gone so far as to introduce their proprietary municipal SCSs, with a few generating credit reports (Liu, 2019). Overall, advocates for a nuanced understanding of Chinese SCSs. He perceives them as symbolic constructs endowed with performative power. This perspective challenges the reductionist view of these systems as mere instruments of political repression, suggesting a more layered and multifaceted role in the societal fabric, and thus this work is very relevant to this research.

Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) advocate for a broader perspective on the SCS. Instead of viewing it as an isolated system unique to China, they suggest that it should be perceived as a specific instance within the expansive realm of rating systems. They view these systems in terms of parameters, including the entities drafting these systems, their overarching objectives, the intricacies of their scoring mechanisms, their real-world applications, the role of algorithms, and the enforcement mechanisms in place. They also look at the lineage of credit scoring in Western nations. They finally suggest that the Chinese SCS might offer insights into the potential trajectory of reputation-based quantitative tools in the West. Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) thus conclude that even though the system has its critics, it also offers a unique lens to understand the interplay between governance, technology, and societal norms.

Likewise, Liu (2022) gives a valuable contribution to the literature on surveillance in modern society, particularly in the context of authoritarian regimes, by focusing on its sociological aspects and the importance of public opinion. Thus, this study is also relevant to the research, as it paints a more intricate picture of the social credit system in China that goes beyond ethics and touches on the need to understand the diverse perspectives within society. This study could be used with Von Blomberg (2022), which shows that the SCS does not necessarily need to exist within any current rule of law framework, as it straddles a number of gray zones that future legislators will likely have to address in finer detail when the time comes. However, because of the existence of so many gray zones, as Von Blomberg (2022) shows, there is room for policy makers in public administration to try out SCS frameworks and theories to see how they are received by the public. If they work in practice, there is more likelihood of their acceptance with the rule of law framework.