Social Credit Score in the US: Public Administration Impacts

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 central 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 the 'So What'

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 finding from Liu (2022) is that only those who have trust in 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 like crossing streets at crosswalks or paying 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 personal judgment calls about risk or safety, or exercise subjective judgment that the system does not accommodate well (Mac Síthigh & Siems, 2019). Among such critics there is clear concern about privacy rights, whether people truly have the freedom of expression to question government actions, and the potential for misuse of power — concerns that are especially salient in the US context, where distrust of government is already running high (Von Blomberg, 2020).

The significance of this research is 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 attempt to implement policies that may be effective at curtailing unwanted behavior but that also run counter to the free-world values central to American political culture. This research could serve as a guide for policymakers seeking to balance societal benefits with Americans' deeply held commitment 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.

Variables and Levels of Measurement

The independent variable under consideration is the introduction of a social credit score system. If implemented, this system would evaluate and score individuals based on their societal behavior, trustworthiness, and contributions, and could lead to rewards or penalties depending 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 have 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, and can be gauged through several indicators: the level of public trust in 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 the broader implications of such a system on society and individuals can be understood.

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 categories are not known or consistent. In this context, the impacts — such as public trust or freedom of expression — can be ranked from most positive to most negative, or vice versa. However, the exact differences between rankings are not specified. For instance, a decline in public trust might be viewed as more severe than concerns over privacy by some respondents, while others might feel the opposite. The ordinal level accommodates this ranking without specifying the precise magnitude of difference between each impact.

References

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.