Introduction
China’s Social Credit System (SCS) and Information Control Regime use advanced technology of data collection and surveillance in monitoring citizens and building behavioral support for social harmony and economic goals. However, these omnipresent digital systems are having an eroding effect on individual privacy and autonomy. The SCS quantifies and punishes minor social and economic behaviours to instill compliance and trust. At the same time, stricter information controls limit access to the Internet to censor dissent. Thus, while the SCS may assert social benefits, it paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into daily life with serious implications for freedom and democracy in China’s digital public sphere.
Required Reading 1
The first required reading, “China’s Long Game in Techno-Nationalism” by Ahmed S. & Weber S. (2018), published in First Monday, reveals how the Chinese government uses legislation under the excuse of national security to block foreign technology companies from entering Chinese markets. This is thus meant to boost China’s home-grown IT sector and move China’s position from being just one of the players in the global IT market to following a nationally-aligned economic strategy for tech, termed “Techno-Nationalism.” The reading, while giving the strategic coherence behind China’s policy behaviours and its long-term goals, fails to address the profound impact of those practices on personal rights and freedoms, especially in light of social and digital rights.
The reading is composed of a clear articulation of the strategic agenda behind China’s policies on technology and economic development, hence highlighting the motivations propelling these actions. Secondly, it makes quite important observations with regard to the long-term planning behind China’s techno-nationalist approach, demonstrating how these policies fall under a broader strategy to achieve domestic technology objectives and global IT supremacy.
One key area for improvement is the limited analysis of the ways in which the promotion of Chinese techno-nationalist policies is affecting personal rights and freedoms, mainly social and digital rights. Although the reading gives excellent illustrations of the strategic coherence behind China’s actions to further domestic IT development and enhance international competitiveness (Ahmed & Weber, 2018), it tends to fall short of giving a sufficient analysis of the potential consequences of increased domestic control and monitoring on individual liberties. With this incompetent analysis of technology, the old issue of the correlation between technological advancement and liberty has raised its ugly head again. This time, some things have been left out of the debate. For example, O’Rourke (2018) explicitly states the incredibly wide implications of China’s Social Credit System (SCS) that significantly redefines societal values and behaviours through infiltrating surveillance and the Internet of Things.
Further, the reading needs to provide a comprehensive view of wider societal implications concerning techno-nationalism. The reading’s economic and political dimension of China’s strategic manoeuvres, as well as the paper written by Ahmed and Weber (2018), provides an instructive perspective, but the article lacks an analysis of how these policies affect other domains within society, such as cultural values and norms. For example, the article by Ding & Zhong (2020) touches on this societal facet of China’s Social Credit System (SCS), where surveillance and behaviour modification techniques are used to reshape social behaviours and interactions. Analyzing such analyses would not only add to an already high level of insight but also provide a more comprehensive understanding of the repercussions of techno-nationalism on society, relevant in the context of economic rivalry. This would give a more holistic view of the social and cultural dynamics below, encompassing a broader understanding of the overall societal implications of China’s strategic policies.
Required Reading 2
Lam carefully dissects the transformation of the Social Credit System (SCS) into a pervasive digital surveillance apparatus designed to regulate and direct society towards state-sanctioned objectives in his analysis of the SCS in “The People’s Algorithms: Social Credits and the Rise of China’s Big (Br) Other”. As a strength, Lam points out that it is through the progression from conventional surveillance techniques to wide-ranging datafication, algorithmic processing, and feedback mechanisms that the SCS gets integrated with the capacity to establish mass conformity and high productivity. This is a detailed analysis of the social engineering mission of the SCS, where the mission goes beyond mere data aggregation to reveal the complex mechanisms through which people are motivated to get acquainted with socialist values and neoliberal principles.
Additionally, Lam brilliantly inserts the SCS within the broader political economy of China, deeming it a mechanism of strict social control and, furthermore, a technology of authoritarian neoliberal governance. This, therefore, allows for a deeper understanding of the role played by the SCS in advancing and buttressing the ideological and economic agenda of the Chinese Communist Party. This critical approach places the SCS within China’s broader political economy, highlighting its repercussions on governance and norms within society.
Lam’s analysis is indeed quite extensive, but it needs to be added with regard to the implementation of scoring systems at the localities of China’s Social Credit System (SCS) (Cheung & Chen, 2022). That absence of specificity does not contribute to an understanding of how the SCS operates on the local level and how, even in its non-local level operation, its effects are varied across different regions. For example, Cheung and Chen (2022) draw China’s SCS into the picture as a “data state” because of its all-encompassing monitoring and evaluating mechanisms. The way Lam managed to elaborate on some local aspects of the SCS would have helped readers to understand more vividly and in detail the various ways in which the SCS affects people and communities. This would have furthermore paid attention to contextualizing the analysis, which should include specific areas where the social credit policies are implemented in China.
Secondly, while Lam provides very useful insights into the Social Credit System (SCS), he seems to need to be more aware of how this system is linked with China’s long-standing dossier system that tracks moral conduct. Knight (2023) argues that the SCS emphasizes financial objectives and not the socially oriented form of policing, presenting a strategic form of governance that emphasizes economic credibility and court enforcement. This view promotes the idea that the massive application of the SCS implies that some questions about surveillance still need to be answered and forms the fundament for more studies, whatever strategy the Chinese will choose in long-term economic planning. What Knight ascertained is likely going to fit well with Lam’s assumptions when you consider these factors of historical background and their inescapable impact on the political and social spheres.
Third, Lam offers very helpful insights into the Social Credit System (SCS) and yet seems to ignore the continuity between the SCS and China’s long-standing dossier system, which is characterized by tracking moral conduct. Knight (2023) posits that SCS has the tendency to focus on jumping the banks more than the social improvement of the community, meaning that the form of governance seeks economic recognition and enforcement in a court. This method embodies the fact that the SCS has been more than just physical factors; it also extends to surveillance and control over people’s behaviour, ultimately, how it is designed to align with the real interests of the Chinese economy.
Conclusion
Overall, the expansion and additional development of the Social Credit System (SCS) and the Information Control Regime in China requires us to look at more privacy, freedom and democratic principles. The main purpose of the central banks is to gain public confidence and control economic processes by the governments; however, some issues like privacy and the competency of the government arise. This dilemma represents the contradiction which emanates between sovereignty and the person in modern times.
References
Ahmed, S., & Weber, S. (2018). “China’s long game in techno-nationalism.” First Monday, 23(5). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8085/7209
Cheung, A. S. Y., & Chen, Y. (2022). From Datafication to Data State: Making Sense of China’s Social Credit System and Its Implications. Law & Social Inquiry, 00(00), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2021.56
Ding, X., & Zhong, D. Y. (2020). Rethinking China’s Social Credit System: A Long Road to Establishing Trust in Chinese Society. Journal of Contemporary China, 30(130), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2020.1852738
Knight, A. (2023). Basket Case: Reform and China’s Social Credit Law. China Law and Society Review, 6(2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1163/25427466-06020003
Lam, T. (2022). The People’s Algorithms: Social Credits and the Rise of China’s Big (Br) Other. The New Politics of Numbers, 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78201-6_3
O’Rourke, R. (2018). Maritime territorial and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) disputes involving China: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 24.
Smith, M., & Miller, S. (2021). The Future of Biometrics and Liberal Democracy. Biometric Identification, Law and Ethics, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90256-8_5
write