Scoring Systems as a Way to Assess the Social Well-Being of Citizens
Keywords:
scoring systems, citizen assessment, social rating, social well-being, data security, ethics, and policyAbstract
Relevance. In the context of a rapidly changing society and the improvement of digital tools for data collection, processing and storage, many states are actively introducing scoring systems to evaluate citizens according to various parameters - from financial viability to social behavior. These systems, originally created to minimize risks in the financial sector, are now being transformed into comprehensive social management tools that affect citizens' access to a wide range of goods and services. But despite the obvious advantages of using scoring systems for commercial structures, the issues of risks and challenges that these systems pose to society remain relevant.The purpose of this study is to identify features in approaches to assessing the economic and social trustworthiness of citizens with further interpretation of threats and opportunities from the use of scoring systems.Methods. To achieve this goal, a comparative analysis of the scoring systems of Russia, the USA, China, Germany, Japan, India, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Canada was carried out. Also, the comparative analysis of scoring systems was supplemented by the results of interviews with 32 experts who gave their own assessments regarding the specifics of using large-scale assessment and rating systems for citizens. The article will also examine the key assessment parameters used in various national models. Special attention is paid to generalizing potential social, ethical, and political threats to the use of scoring systems in a large-scale assessment of citizens' trustworthiness.Results. The study revealed the specifics of approaches to assessing the economic and social trustworthiness of citizens, as well as interpreted the threats and opportunities of using scoring systems. The analysis showed that scoring systems reflect the values and priorities of the society and the state that implement them.Conclusions. Scoring systems, originally created to assess credit risks, have been transformed into social management tools that reflect the values and priorities of each society. Their widespread use carries risks such as the illusion of algorithm objectivity, the threat to data privacy, and the possibility of being used as a tool for control and punishment. To ensure a just society, strict regulation of these systems is necessary, including transparency, protection of citizens' rights, and public dialogue, so that they remain instruments of social well-being rather than comprehensive control.Agencies
Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда № 24-28- 00728 «Политические последствия социального рейтингования граждан», https://rscf.ru/ project/24-28-00728.Downloads
References
Авдеев Д. А. «Социальный скоринг» как фактор нарушения права на неприкосновенность частной жизни // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. 2023. № 6 (132). С. 1–4. DOI 10.23670/IRJ.2023.132.126. EDN MZQKFG
Бочанов М. А. Перспективы применения системы социального рейтинга в современной российской политике // Власть. 2024. № 3. С. 91–93. DOI 10.24412/2071-5358-2024-3-91-93. EDN STSDJJ
Лазаров А. А. Социальное кредитование (скоринг): этико-правовые вопросы // Право и практика. 2023. № 4. С. 93–96. DOI 10.24412/2411-2275-2023-4-93-96. EDN JQIJPE
Науменко Т. В., Секретарева К. Н. Китайская система социального кредита: антиутопия или фактор общественного благополучия? // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2022. № 3. С. 419–432. DOI 10.17323/727-0634-2022-20-3-419-432. EDN PJHEDM
Пашковская И. В., Валенцева Н. И. Развитие системы репутационного скоринга на примере Китая и России // Вестник Евразийской науки. 2019. Т. 11, № 2. С. 1–11. EDN ZZDCIX
Пивнева С. В., Никитенко Д. В. Социальный скоринг как инновационный инструмент управления организационными системами в условиях цифровизации // International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2025. № 5. С. 87–98. EDN WRTMGL
Рувинский Р. З., Рувинская Е. А., Комарова Т. Д. Общественное восприятие практик цифрового профилирования и социального рейтингования: ситуация в России и Китае // Социодинамика. 2021. № 12. С. 56–76. DOI 10.25136/2409-7144.2021.12.36824. EDN GGVZLL
Фролов А. А. Значимость социальных рейтингов для государств // Россия в полицентричном мировом порядке: вызовы и новые парадигмы развития : Материалы Х Всероссийского конгресса политологов РАПН с международным участием, Москва, 05–07 декабря 2024 года. Москва : Аспект Пресс, 2024. С. 663.
Юдина Т. Н., Сулемонова Х. С. Внедрение системы социального рейтинга в КНР в условиях цифровизации // Теоретическая экономика. 2021. № 1 (74). С. 66–71. EDN MUJMAL
Sokolov A. V., Babajanyan P. A., Golovin Yu. A. Corporations’ Digital Rating Systems and their Perception by Audience // 2024 Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar (ComSDS), Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2024. С. 123–128.
Ginsburg T. Administrative law and the judicial control of agents in authoritarian regimes // Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes / ed. by T. Ginsburg, T. Moustafa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. P. 58–72.
Hjelholt M. F. The absorbent digital welfare state: Silencing dissent, steering progress // Journal of Sociology. 2024. Vol. 60, Iss. 3. DOI 10.1177/14407833241253632. EDN CQYYYP
Kaun A., Liminga A. Welfare service centers: Maintenance, repair, and care at the analog interfaces of the digital welfare state // New Media & Society. 2025. Vol. 27, Iss. 5. P. 3039–3054.
Pellandini-Simany L. Algorithmic classifications in credit marketing: How marketing shapes inequalities // Marketing Theory. 2024. Vol. 24, Iss. 2. P. 211–232.
Sharma C., Singh A., Yadav R. Impact of Competition in Credit Rating Industry: Evidence from India // SAGE Open. 2023. Vol. 13, Iss. 1. DOI 10.1177/21582440221135107. EDN RGUWPO
Szwajnoch E. Regulatory capture of the Chinese social credit system: Bureaucratic selfinterests in project implementation // China Information. 2024. Vol. 38, Iss. 3. P. 309–330. DOI 10.1177/0920203x241259431. EDN VFYSVW
Tornberg P. How platforms govern: Social regulation in digital capitalism // Big Data & Society. 2023. Vol. 10, Iss. 1.
Van Toorn G., Henman P., Soldati K. Introduction to the digital welfare state: Contestations, considerations and entanglements // Journal of Sociology. 2024. Vol. 60, Iss. 3. P. 507–522. DOI 10.1177/14407833241260890. EDN FQVSNN
Zakharova I., Jarke J., Kaun A. Tensions in digital welfare states: Three perspectives on care and control // Journal of Sociology. 2024. Vol. 60, Iss. 3. P. 540–559. DOI 10.1177/14407833241238312. EDN BNPJPP
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sokolov A.V., Grebenko E.D.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN ZLNNMW
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)