Case Study: China’s Social Credit Scoring
In 2014, China had issued a plan for Social Credit System to classify citizens behavior. It is expected to become the first digital nationwide scoring system to rate the behaviors of citizens. Citizens with good behavior can result in material rewards and gain reputation but bad behavior can exclude material resources and affect reputation negatively. China government had claimed that SCS allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step. But where is the baseline of good and bad behavior? Can we trust the transparency of SCS of defining the good and bad behavior?
SCS is implemented because of the lack off honesty and trust in Chinese society. Issues such as food poisoning, chemical spills, financial and telecommunication fraud, academic dishonesty had made Chinese enterprise suffer major loss. Moral decline was regarded as the most serious issue in China in 2017. Secondly is to boost domestic economy of citizen which SCS can have record a citizen financial history access to credit and investment communities in domestic market. So, citizens can apply loan based on the scores without proving financial creditworthiness.
There are 2 sides of this plan. SCS surely can help to differentiate the Relist and Blacklist record based on a person criminal record or financial situation. In the same time, a fully integrated SCS with transparency would likely to become a market transaction. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation suggests that introducing an external reward to a norm-guided behaviour turns this behavior into a commodity that can be bought. If one reliable receives monetary compensation for being honest, being honest will no linger be evaluated as a moral behavior for both actor and recipient. Individuals will likely to stop attributing a genuine moral character to individuals with high score in SCS. Eventually, the purpose of the SCS is not achieved or can even create totally different communities living under the pressure of SCS.
The credit that SCS provide supposedly can’t be measured by money but the attitude and moral of an individual which allow social resources to be allocated rationally and effectively. The evaluation shall be redesigned especially the measurement of defining bad and good behavior. Restoration of dishonesty and the incentive of trustworthy should be carried simultaneously. Compensation standard of trustworthy incentives should be further refined and clarified. In the process of constructing SCS, the trust between citizens and government is important. Social and community division should be avoided to prevent huge gap difference of life qualities.
References
David Engelmann SK, Chen M, Fischer F, Kao CY & Grossklags J 2019, Clear Sanctions, Vague Rewards: How China’s Social CreditSystem Currently Defines “Good” and “Bad” Behavior, Research Gate.
Zhao Y, Zhou L, Liu B, Jiang Z & Li Z 2020, The Current Situation and Recommendations of the Construction of Youth Credit System, 3rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Intelligent Robotics (ICMIR-2019), Procedia Computer Science 166, p.g. 287-291
Kobie N 2019, The complicated truth about China's social credit system, Wired 2020, viewed on 14 June 2020, <https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained>














