Will a Social Credit Score Work in the US

Social Credit Score in the US? Final Report

Research Topic and Question

The topic for this research would be the potential implications of introducing a social credit score system in the US. The research question would be: What are the potential impacts for society and for public administration of introducing a social credit score system in the US?

Empirical Research

The concept of a social credit score, which evaluates citizens based on their behavior, trustworthiness, and societal contributions, has been implemented in countries like China. One thing that Liu (2022) found was that only those who have trust in the public administration are likely to support social credit score policies. Those, on the other hand, who do not have trust in government are likely to see a social credit score system as emblematic of government overreach and of totalitarianism. The ramifications of these perceptions could have very serious political and administrative effects.

According to Liu (2019), the purpose of the social credit scoring system is that it aims to promote trustworthiness and good behavior among citizens, and that it also aims to prevent and deter untrustworthy or bad behavior by using what might be called excessive public monitoring of people’s actions and behaviors (like whether they adhere to all laws such as crossing a street at crosswalks or paying their bills on time or things like that). However, critics argue that such systems can infringe on individual rights and freedoms by restricting a person’s ability to commit minor infractions or make judgement calls about one’s personal risk or safety or to use subjective judgements that the system does not take into consideration very well (Mac Síthigh & Siems, 2019). Among such critics there is evidently concern about privacy rights as well, plus whether truly has the freedom of expression to question government actions, as well as the potential for misuse of power with respect to the rule of law established in the US, where distrust is already running high (Von Blomberg, 2020).

Thus, the "so what" aspect of this research is clear: understanding the potential implications of a social credit score in the US is important. It can help public administrators better understand how to approach their roles, as other countries try to implement policies and practices that may be effective at curtailing unwanted behavior but that also go against the grain of free-world thinking in the US. This research could be a guide for policymakers in making decisions that balance societal benefits with the American love of individual rights. The research could also be useful in shedding light on whether such a system would be compatible with American values as well as highlighting what potential safeguards might be necessary to prevent it from causing more harm than good.

Independent Variable and Level of Measurement

The independent variable under consideration is the introduction of a social credit score system. This system, if implemented, would evaluate and score individuals based on their societal behavior, trustworthiness, and contributions. Such a system could lead to rewards or penalties for individuals based on their scores. The level of measurement for this variable is nominal. A nominal level of measurement is used for variables that have categories without a natural order or ranking. In this case, the categories are binary: the social credit score system is either 'introduced' or 'not introduced'. These categories do not have an inherent order, making the nominal level the most appropriate form of measurement.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this research is the societal and individual impacts that might arise from the introduction of a social credit score system. These impacts can be vast and varied. They can be gauged through several indicators, such as the level of public trust in the government, the perceived freedom of expression among citizens, concerns over individual and collective privacy, and the overall sense of societal cohesion. Each of these indicators provides a lens through which we can understand the broader implications of such a system on society and its individuals.

Level of Measurement for Dependent Variable

For the dependent variable, the level of measurement is ordinal. An ordinal level of measurement involves categories with a meaningful order, but the distances between the categories are not known. In the context of this research, the impacts (like public trust or freedom of expression) can be ranked from most positive to most negative or vice versa. However, the exact differences between these rankings aren't specified or consistent. For instance, a decline in public trust might be viewed as more severe than concerns over privacy by some, while others might feel the opposite. The ordinal level allows for this ranking without specifying the exact magnitude of difference between each impact.

Conceptualization

Independent Variable - Introduction of a Social Credit Score System

The concept of a social credit score system, as defined by Liu (2019) as a mechanism for evaluating people within a society. At its core, this system monitors and assesses people’s social behavior and assigns scores to people based on criteria such as societal behavior, their perceived trustworthiness, and their overall contributions to the community. The implications of these scores can be significant, as in China that can be the difference between being able to travel and being forced to stay in place. In other words, there are rewards for those who score as positively contributing members of society and penalties for those who are not. This system is meant to deter aberrant and criminal behavior, but it also raises questions about personal rights and abuse of power. The very nature of this system intertwines societal values with individual behaviors, and is collectivist in essence, which makes it a significant point of study for a country like the US, which has traditionally promoted personal independence at the core of its ethos.

Dependent Variable - Administrative and Socail Impacts

The potential administrative and social impacts of introducing a social credit score system are vast and multifaceted. According to Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) and Von Bloomberg (2020), these impacts can be understood through a series of indicators. One such indicator is the level of public trust in the government. A social credit system might support this trust, if people feel that everyone is held to a standard of behavior, or it might erode it, if people’s perceptions are that the government is engaging in totalitarian overreach and is misusing its power to restrict people’s rights. Another important indicator is the perception of people’s freedom of expression. With a system in place that monitors and potentially penalizes certain behaviors (like anti-government sentiment or expressions on social media), people might feel less free to express dissenting opinions or engage in actions (like organizing or protesting) if they will negatively affect their score. Privacy concerns are also an issue. The data collection required for such a system could lead to apprehensions about how personal information is used and who has access to it. Lastly, societal cohesion, or the sense of unity and mutual trust among members of a society, could be influenced. While the system might promote certain societal norms, it could also lead to divisions or stigmatization based on scores. Each of these indicators provides a comprehensive lens to understand the broader implications of such a system on both the individual and the collective.

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.

Thus, the big picture of how the SCS might work within the existing literature shows that depictions of the system as it is in China are not necessarily the reality, depending on which country is doing the rendering and who is being asked about it. The fact remains that in practice, SCS needs to be justified as a working solution to social problems and not just forcibly applied as a theoretical solution.

Research Methodology and Data Collection

To explore the potential implications of introducing a social credit score system in the US, a qualitative research approach will be employed, focusing specifically on structured interviews.

Method of Data Collection

Structured interviews will be the primary tool. These interviews will involve a set of predetermined questions related to the topic, ensuring consistency across all participants while allowing for in-depth exploration of individual perceptions and concerns.

Structured interviews are particularly useful when the researcher aims to collect focused and specific data from all participants. They allow for comparability across responses while still capturing the depth and nuances of individual opinions (DiCicco?Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Given the sensitive and multifaceted nature of the topic, structured interviews will ensure that all pertinent areas are covered with each participant.

Sampling Technique and Research Plan

Purposive sampling will be employed. This technique involves selecting individuals who possess specific characteristics or experiences that would provide insight into the research question.