Social Credit Score in the US: Implications and Research

Introduction and Research Question

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

Empirical Background and Significance

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. Liu (2022) found that only those who trust public administration are likely to support social credit score policies. Those who do not trust government, by contrast, are likely to view a social credit score system as emblematic of government overreach and 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 to promote trustworthiness and good behavior among citizens, and also to prevent and deter untrustworthy or bad behavior through extensive public monitoring of people's actions — such as whether they adhere to laws, cross streets at crosswalks, or pay their bills on time. However, critics argue that such systems can infringe on individual rights and freedoms by restricting a person's ability to commit minor infractions, make judgment calls about personal risk or safety, or exercise subjective judgments that the system does not accommodate well (Mac Síthigh & Siems, 2019). Critics also raise concerns about privacy rights, whether citizens truly retain freedom of expression to question government actions, and the potential for misuse of power — all significant issues in the US context, where public distrust of government is already elevated (Von Blomberg, 2020).

The significance of this research is therefore clear: understanding the potential implications of a social credit score in the US can help public administrators better understand how to approach their roles as other countries implement policies that may curtail unwanted behavior but run counter to free-world values. This research could serve as a guide for policymakers seeking to balance societal benefits with American commitments to individual rights. It could also shed light on whether such a system would be compatible with American values and highlight what safeguards might be necessary to prevent it from causing more harm than good.

Variable Identification and Measurement

The independent variable under consideration is the introduction of a social credit score system. If implemented, such a system would evaluate and score individuals based on their societal behavior, trustworthiness, and contributions, potentially leading to rewards or penalties based on those 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 carry no inherent order, making the nominal level the most appropriate form of measurement.

The dependent variable 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, gauged through several indicators: 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 indicator provides a lens through which to understand the broader implications of such a system on society and its members.

The level of measurement for the dependent variable is ordinal. An ordinal level of measurement involves categories with a meaningful order, but the distances between categories are not precisely known. In this context, impacts such as changes in public trust or freedom of expression can be ranked from most positive to most negative. However, the exact magnitude of difference between rankings is neither specified nor consistent. For instance, a decline in public trust might be viewed as more severe than privacy concerns by some participants, while others might feel the opposite. The ordinal level allows for this ranking without requiring specification of the exact difference between each impact.

Literature Review

Liu (2019) examines the multiple social credit systems operating in China and notes 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 six years. Liu (2019) found that portrayals of the SCS vary significantly between Chinese and Western media. Chinese media predominantly lauds the system, often refraining from critical analysis. Western media, by contrast, typically represents the Chinese SCS as a monolithic surveillance tool wielded by big government, emphasizing the integration of commercial systems with governmental databases to facilitate automated detection and punitive actions. Ultimately, Liu (2019) challenges the prevailing notion of a singular, cohesive SCS in China, arguing instead that multiple SCSs coexist in reality, operating at varied levels and across different sectors without necessarily converging. Furthermore, these SCSs are not static; they undergo continuous evolution, with modifications in design and execution across different regions.

Liu (2019) categorizes China's SCSs into four primary types. The first is the nationwide governmental financial credit system, spearheaded by the People's Bank of China (PBOC), which focuses on economic and financial activities. The second encompasses commercial credit rating and score systems — private corporations such as Ant Financial that introduced scores like the Sesame score based on personal information, relational data from social networks, and consumption patterns. The third type is the nationwide governmental blacklist/redlist systems, which unite the "discredited subject blacklist" with the "credited redlist"; a multitude of such lists exist, each tailored to the jurisdiction of different central governmental agencies. Finally, municipal governmental systems exist at the local governance level, where authorities implement national policies through data collection and uploading, classification of individuals, and subsequent punitive actions — with some cities even introducing proprietary municipal SCSs. Overall, Liu (2019) advocates for a nuanced understanding of Chinese SCSs, perceiving them as symbolic constructs endowed with performative power rather than mere instruments of political repression, suggesting a more layered and multifaceted role in the societal fabric.

Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) advocate for a broader perspective on the SCS. Rather than viewing it as an isolated system unique to China, they suggest it should be understood as a specific instance within the expansive realm of rating systems. They analyze these systems in terms of the entities that draft them, 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 trace the lineage of credit scoring in Western nations, ultimately suggesting that the Chinese SCS might offer insights into the potential trajectory of reputation-based quantitative tools in the West. Mac Síthigh and Siems (2019) conclude that, even though the system has its critics, it offers a unique lens for understanding the interplay between governance, technology, and societal norms.

Liu (2022) makes a valuable contribution to the literature on surveillance in modern society — particularly in the context of authoritarian regimes — by focusing on its sociological dimensions and the importance of public opinion. This study paints a more intricate picture of the social credit system in China that goes beyond ethics to address the need for understanding diverse perspectives within society. This work can be productively read alongside Von Blomberg (2020), which demonstrates that the SCS does not necessarily need to operate within any existing rule of law framework, as it straddles a number of gray zones that future legislators will likely need to address in finer detail. Because so many of these gray zones remain unresolved, Von Blomberg (2020) suggests there is room for policymakers and public administrators to test SCS frameworks and theories and observe how they are received by the public. If such frameworks prove workable in practice, there is greater likelihood of their eventual acceptance within the rule of law.

The broader picture that emerges from this literature is that depictions of the SCS as it exists in China are not necessarily accurate reflections of reality, and they vary depending on the country producing the account and the individuals being consulted. What remains clear is that in practice, an SCS must be justified as a working solution to social problems rather than forcibly applied as a purely theoretical one.

References

DiCicco–Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.

Liu, C. (2019). Multiple social credit systems in China. Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter, 21(1), 22–32.

Liu, C. (2022). Who supports expanding surveillance? Exploring public opinion of Chinese social credit systems. International Sociology, 37(3), 391–412.

Mac Síthigh, D., & Siems, M. (2019). The Chinese social credit system: A model for other countries? The Modern Law Review, 82(6), 1034–1071.

Von Blomberg, M. (2020). The social credit system and China's rule of law. Social Credit Rating: Reputation und Vertrauen beurteilen, 111–137.