Are social scoring systems a threat to democracies?

What would happen if you gave everyone points for good behaviour? SWI swissinfo.ch

China’s social scoring system has sparked fears of similar developments elsewhere. A Swiss team is currently trying to find out how democracies can prevent social scoring.

A society where you are rewarded for parking properly or living healthily may sound like a dream to some, and a nightmare to others. Even a bonus system that only rewards without punishing could push people with low scores to the edge.

Pilot projects in China and dystopian films have raised awareness of this issue, which goes by many names. Government critics call it state-led nudging while others use more benign terms such as social scoring, bonus schemes or social credit systems.

“China must not become our benchmark for what we want in Western European societies,” says Swiss scientist Johan Rochel. He is part of a team researching social scoring on behalf of the Swiss Foundation for Technology Assessment TA-Swiss which examines the opportunities and risks of new technologies. The results of the study will be published in 2026.

German bonus system

Back in 2020, a future study commissioned by the German Ministry of Research, Technology and SpaceExternal link created a scenario in which such a bonus system might take hold in Germany in the 2030s.

A bonus system could also boost Germany’s quality of life through a “data-driven optimisation of public services,” the study points out. The points system could serve policymakers as “a forecasting and steering tool to optimise the economy and implement targets”. 

According to the study, social scoring in Germany’s representative democracy would need to be combined with direct democratic instruments like those used in Switzerland.

The study’s scenario outlines that a new “digital liquid democracy” would define the rules of such a system.

Supported by digital assistants, the German population would continuously adjust their behaviour to whatever is rewarded – be it decency, an eco-friendly lifestyle or abstaining from alcohol. Everyone should have a say in shaping the system that governs and rewards them.

>>Read more about how artificial intelligence (AI) will change democracy.

The study outlines six scenarios for 2030 and highlights some drawbacks. The bonus system could potentially spark new conflicts as those who fall behind in points might struggle to catch up and become part of the group of people who are “permanently left behind”.

EU bans AI for social scoring

Since the study was published in 2020, the likelihood of such scenarios becoming reality has shrunk. In 2024, the European Union (EU) banned AI algorithms used for social scoring, however, there is no such ban in Switzerland yet.

Sinologist Adam Knight of Leiden University in the Netherlands welcomes the EU ban. For him it is a clear statement that social scoring is not compatible with European values.

SWI swissinfo.ch

From the EU’s perspective, social scoring jeopardises privacy, equality and due process as it reduces people to algorithmic profiles. Knight warns that the true danger lies not just in surveillance, but also in “automated discrimination”.

More than 50 laws for social credit system in China

In China, the social credit system has now been implemented nationwide. “In the last few years, China’s social credit system has quietly evolved from local experiments and sensation-seeking pilot projects to legal standardisation and bureaucratic implementation,” Knight explains.

The China expert believes that 2022 marked a turning point in the development. “Since then, the authorities have focussed on embedding social credit mechanisms into national regulations, and now there are 50 laws that contain provisions related to social credits.”

Blacklists still exist, Knight says, but recent reforms have made it possible to “repair credit” and shift the focus more on rewards and rehabilitation. Pilot projects such as tracking alcohol consumption and training programmes have quietly been phased out. The system is now less about “moral disciplining” and more about economic development.

Instead of single scores, China now has an “enforcement infrastructure”. Based on data on “violations”, a “broad network of red flags” can now block access to loans, contracts, jobs or public services.

According to Adam Knight, China now has an “enforcement infrastructure” that rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour. Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

“What remains is a powerful data-based instrument to govern through visibility. If you break the rules, you will leave a trace,” explains Knight.

How does Switzerland’s debt register fit in?

But Knight points out that “algorithmic profiling“ already exists in the EU which makes the ban raise questions about how such practices should be dealt with. The “logic to reward trust and punish risks” can also be found in many western countries,” he says.

Knight mentions platforms like Airbnb, Uber and Yelp as examples of credit bureaus where ratings and scores can have significant consequences. Yet, he says, similar systems also exist on the government side. “Take the Swiss debt register, for example. It publicly lists those who have not paid their fines or bills.” Since being listed can stop someone from finding a flat or even a job, the register is not so different from a blacklist in a social credit system.

In Switzerland, the debt enforcement register provides information on whether debt claims have been enforced against someone. Keystone / Christian Beutler

For Knight, the key question is not whether the Swiss debt register is similar to the Chinese system, but rather how “data and behaviour patterns increasingly influence access to services worldwide, and which safeguards are in place to protect individual rights.”

How to spot social scoring?

Scientist Rochel says: “The challenge lies in recognising social scoring for what it truly is.” The TA-Swiss research project aims to tackle exactly that, namely how society should define social scoring and how to recognise it as such.

“Under EU guidelines on AI, social scoring is a banned application,” says Rochel. “However, we still need a clear definition of what it entails.” Rochel, who is also a lawyer and a philosopher, believes that upcoming legal cases will shed light on what falls under the EU ban.

But Rochel expects that oftentimes government bodies and private companies will not realise “whether they are using a social scoring system or something else.” He fears a lack of public debates and an “introduction [of the system] driven by a pilot project logic.”

>>Do we need a new human right for the online world? Read more how the right to “digital integrity” has become established in two cantons:

Areas affecting the public’s wellbeing are especially delicate, Rochel says, citing a software that made headlines in Switzerland a few years ago. It allowed teachers to flag their students as potential terror treats. The website for this service has since been taken offlineExternal link.

Risk areas transport, environment, health

Beyond public security, Rochel sees transport, the environment and health as high-risk areas. He points at a proposal by Germany’s current chancellor Friedrich MerzExternal link, who once suggested offering a 10% health insurance discount to anyone willing to share their health data. At first glance, such proposals seem harmless, especially because they are voluntary. But Rochel warns that unlike a mandate or a ban, the term “voluntary” quickly loses its meaning when the social or financial cost of opting out becomes too high.

Merz’s proposal sparked debate and sharp criticism in early 2025, and to Rochel’s relief, the issue has already been discussed in the Swiss parliament. Public debates, he says, act as protection mechanism against the quiet introduction of such systems.

In 2020, parliamentarian Thomas Burgherr of the Swiss People’s Party submitted an inquiry asking how the Federal Council viewed “behavioural drivers and other “little” psychological tricks of behavioural economicsExternal link”, and how they aligned with democracy and rule of law. The Federal Council’s response suggested that the government sees nudges as an alternative to bans noting that “behavioural economic insights and methods (…) may play a role in certain areas.

The authors of Germany’s 2020 future study are now more sceptical about the effects of democratic mechanisms. Michael Astor says the idea behind combining the bonus system with direct democracy was to protect the system against misuse, mitigate the risk of social division and ensure the system could adapt to “changing societal needs”.

Astor appears to be more critical about the study’s scenario than when it was first published. “Given that many democracies are shifting towards the right, scepticism is growing towards ethnic, racist or otherwise motivated social control that such systems could enable.”

The anticipated “positive effect of participation” seems increasingly out of reach.

>>Read our article about people who don’t use smartphones as a matter of principle:

Edited by David Eugster/Adapted from German by Billi Bierling/ds