Scoring Systems as a Way to Assess the Social Well-Being of Citizens

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.

1. Avdeev D. A. “Social scoring” as a factor of violation of the right to privacy // International Scientific Research Journal [Mezhdunarodnyj nauchno-issledovatel’skij zhurnal]. 2023. N 6 (132). P. 1–4. DOI 10.23670/IRJ.2023.132.126. EDN MZQKFG (In Russ.).

2. Bochanov M. A. Prospects for the application of the social rating system in modern Russian politics // Power [Vlast’]. 2024. N 3. P. 91–93. DOI 10.24412/2071-5358-2024-3-91-93. EDN STSDJJ (In Russ.).

3. Lazarov A. A. Social crediting (scoring): ethical and legal issues // Law and Practice [Pravo i praktika]. 2023. N 4. P. 93–96. DOI 10.24412/2411-2275-2023-4-93-96. EDN JQIJPE (In Russ.).

4. Naumenko T. V., Sekretareva K. N. The Chinese social credit system: dystopia or a factor of social well-being? // Journal of Social Policy Research [Zhurnal issledovanij social’noj politiki]. 2022. N 3. P. 419–432. DOI 10.17323/727-0634-2022-20-3-419-432. EDN PJHEDM (In Russ.).

5. Pashkovskaya I. V., Valentseva N. I. Development of the reputational scoring system on the example of China and Russia // Bulletin of Eurasian Science [Vestnik Evrazijskoj nauki]. 2019. Vol. 11, N 2. P. 1–11. EDN ZZDCIX (In Russ.).

6. Pivneva S. V., Nikitenko D. V. Social scoring as an innovative tool for managing organizational systems in the context of digitalization // International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2025. N 5. P. 87–98. EDN WRTMGL (In Russ.).

7. Ruvinsky R. Z., Ruvinskaya E. A., Komarova T. D. Public perception of digital profiling and social rating practices: the situation in Russia and China // Sociodynamics [Sociodinamika]. 2021. N 12. P. 56–76. DOI 10.25136/2409-7144.2021.12.36824. EDN GGVZLL (In Russ.).

8. Frolov A. A. The importance of social ratings for states // Russia in a polycentric world order: challenges and new development paradigms : Proceedings of the X All-Russian Congress of Political Scientists with International Participation, Moscow, December 05–07, 2024. Moscow: Aspect Press Publishing House, 2024. P. 663. (In Russ.).

9. Yudina T. N., Sulemonova H. S. Introduction of the social rating system in China in the context of digitalization // Theoretical economics [Teoreticheskaya ekonomika]. 2021. N 1 (74). Р. 66–71. EDN MUJMAL (In Russ.).

10. Sokolov A. V., Babajanyan P. A., Golovin Yu. A. Digital rating systems of corporations and their perception by the audience // Seminar “Communication strategies in the digital Society 2024” (ComSDS), St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2024. P. 123–128.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Pellandini- i L. Algorithmic classifications in credit marketing: How marketing shapes inequalities // Marketing Theory. 2024. Vol. 24, Iss. 2. P. 211–232.

15. 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

16. 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

17. How platforms govern: Social regulation in digital capitalism // Big Data & Society. 2023. Vol. 10, Iss. 1.

18. Van Toorn G., Henman P., 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

19. 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