 |
| Pix credit here |
In early June 2024, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) [国家发展和改革委员会] released its "2024-2025 Social Credit System Construction Action Plan" [《2024—2025年社会信用体系建设行动计划》] (20 May 2024) for implementation.
Notice of the General Office of the National Development and Reform Commission on Issuing the "2024-2025 Social Credit System Construction Action Plan" NDRC Finance [2024] No. 451. The General Offices (Offices) of the member units of the Inter-ministerial Joint Conference on the Construction of a Social Credit System, the Development and Reform Commissions of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government, and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, the Beijing Economic and Information Technology Bureau, the Hebei Provincial Government Service Office, the Jilin Provincial Government Service and Digital Construction Management Bureau, the Heilongjiang Provincial Business Environment Construction Supervision Bureau, the Hainan Provincial Business Environment Construction Department, and the Gansu Provincial Business Environment Construction Bureau: The "Action Plan for the Construction of a Social Credit System from 2024 to 2025" has been reviewed and approved by the Inter-ministerial Joint Conference on the Construction of a Social Credit System and is now issued to you. Please implement it conscientiously.
General Office of the National Development and Reform Commission May 20, 2024 国家发展改革委办公厅关于印发《2024—2025年 社会信用体系建设行动计划》的通知 发改办财金〔2024〕451号. 社会信用体系建设部际联席会议成员单位办公厅（办公室），各省、自治区、直辖市、新疆生产建设兵团发展改革委，北京市经信局，河北省政务服务办，吉林省政务服务和数字化建设管理局，黑龙江省营商环境建设监督局，海南省营商环境建设厅，甘肃省营商环境建设局:《2024—2025年社会信用体系建设行动计划》已经社会信用体系建设部际联席会议审议通过，现印发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。
国家发展改革委办公厅 2024年5月20日 (link here)
The Action Plan follows below in the original Chinese. The Folks over at the China Law Translate Website have prepared an excellent translation that may be accessed HERE.
Jeremy Daum, a Senior Fellow of the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center, based in Beijing, with over a decade of experience working in China on collaborative legal reform projects, has prepared a quite useful and insightful analysis of the Action Plan: Social Credit Action in 2025. Daum treats Chinese social credit as divided into three distinct parts: "I have generally thought of social credit as three largely distinct systems forced under the same conceptual umbrella: (1) The PBOC financial reporting system 征信, (2) The NDRC and regulatory departments’ credit regulation system (信用监管), and (3) Creditworthiness or Integrity (诚信) propaganda campaigns.
Daum notes the narrowing of the application of Social credit notions as applied to individuals. For individuals there appears to be an effort to walk back the broadest interpretation of the 2014 State Council social credit planning outline. Now more deeply embedded within the apparatus and the sensibilities of the People's Bank of China (PBOC) the focus has moved away from more comprehensive measures to a more financial risk based system for individuals. That, in turn, is also deeply embedded in the legislation touching on State secrets, data protection and the like. The notion of credit worthiness, then, has become much more closely connected to financial creditworthiness (or trust worthiness). Daum also reminds us that credit regulations are within the authority of the (PBOC and not the NCRC; as a result of which there is not much focus on those structures and their relation to social credit. Daum, however, notes that the integrity campaigns do leak into the financial credit focus of the PBOC system ("It is likely that information on creditworthiness and compliance would only be available as a discretionary reference in lending (and likely ignored if not useful at predicting loan risk), but I would prefer to keep these areas distinct"). In this later respect, I would tend to see things differently--giving greater emphasis to integrity objectives and the political/guidance role of trust systems (see here, here, here).
On the other hand a more comprehensive social trust based apparatus appears to be encouraged. Daum suggests that that so-called corporate social credit system now "generally means subjecting businesses or other organizations to differing levels of government scrutiny for inspections and government approvals, based on their history of legal compliance. (Social Credit Action in 2025). But again issues of jurisdiction leaves a critical gap. In this case it touches on the judgment defaulter lists ("The courts’ judgment defaulter list is a unique blacklist that includes persons or entities that have a valid legal judgment against them and the capacity to satisfy that judgment, but refuse to do so." (Ibid.). But again NDRC does not have authority over this program.
What appears to continue to have emerged as a critical objective center on the platformatization of social credit features that are encouraged by its institutional "managers." One aspect of this touches on the harvesting and organization of collectable data (identified and lawfully extracted). The Action Plan focuses on this technical but critical issue.
Several online platforms are core components of the social credit system. These include the public-facing Credit China website – the primary hub for credit news and public inquiries into credit information and the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System which displays Public Credit Information such as licenses and administration punishment in the market regulation sector. The plan calls for increasing the use and authoritativeness of these platforms by better consolidation, integrating local and central government information and improving information security. (Social Credit Action in 2025).
The limits of jurisdiction and the division of authority, of course, makes coordination more challenging, and with it the construction and operation of coordinating platforms--whether inward or outward facing.
Lastly, Daum correctly notes the emphasis on the finalization of the mch anticipated draft Law on the Establishment of the Social Credit System, "which will become the highest level Social Credit authority if adopted. The draft was criticized, however, for being unfocused and unwieldy, and contributing little to unifying the application of social credit (Ibid.). Daum believes that the "Action Plan calls for accelerating the passage of this law in its first item (1), but, reading between the lines, it doesn’t seem like the NDRC anticipates that happening too quickly." (Ibid.). The NDRC, then, appears to be seeking to fuill in while the draft Law continues to be developed. That presents both an opportunity for NDRC and a risk should it misjudge the final form of the Social Credit Law.
All of this brings one back to two essential takeaways.
1. The tensions between jurisdictional silos and comprehensive coordination. This has been a recurring issue within the Chinese administrative apparatus. And it sometimes takes a toll on the ability of that apparatus to effectively realize the policy directives of the political vanguard. The PBOC has been particularly aggressive--no not unusually so--in the protection and extension of its reach. This has been especially e case since the Jack Ma scandal of several years ago triggered by his Shanghai Bund Speech but that was only a trigger masking an important jurisdictional as well as ideological fight over the role of regulation and its sources. But the issue also touches on the judiciary. That also has substantial operational controls over aspects of social credit nudging modalities. These are fissures that are nlilely to be "fixed" anytime soon and it will produce a multiplicity of social credit (effectively) even as social credit becomes officially more narrowly defined--ad controlled. It is in this sense that the Social Credit Law may be quite interesting.
2. The focus on corporate social credit in the Acton Plan and its necessary connection with the critical policy of high or new quality development (“新质生产力”). High Quality development has been increasingly understood as a critical element of an important aspects of the application of New Era theory in the context of the management and deployment of productive forces (New Quality Development Theory: Snippets From Speeches and Writings of the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party: 习近平：开创我国高质量发展新局面 (Xi Jinping: Create a new situation for high-quality development in China)). That, in turn, suggests both the increased focus on social credit within enterprises, but also, potentially a broader reach. That broadening may be a function of the extension of the notion of productive forces to include social and cultural, as well as political forces, perhaps including the Chinese Communist Party itself--and its disciplinary apparatus (The Party as a State Asset and “新质生产力” (New Quality Productivity):《中国共产党纪律处分条例》 ["Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China"]). And it extends internationally as well (CPE Working Group on Empire: Part 1--Observations on Xi Jinping, Speech Delivered at the G20 Leaders' Summit on the World Economic Situation and Trade Issues--"Work Together to Create a High Quality World Economy" [习近平在二十国集团领导人峰会上关于世界经济形势和贸易问题的讲话（全文）携手共进，合力打造高质量世界经济]).
The original text of the Action Plan follows. The English translation may be accessed HERE.
2024—2025 年社会信用体系建设行动计划
为深入贯彻落实党中央、国务院关于推进社会信用体系建设决
策 部 署 ， 进 一 步 推 动 社 会 信 用 体 系 建 设 高 质 量 发 展 ， 现 就
2024—2025 年重点工作制定以下行动计划。
一、提升信用建设法治化规范化水平
（一）建立健全信用法规制度。加快推动出台《社会信用建设
法》。推动省级信用立法全覆盖。定期更新全国公共信用信息基础
目录和失信惩戒措施基础清单。推动已有设立依据的领域出台严重
失信主体名单管理办法，强化名单信息共享，提高名单的权威性和
威慑力。规范信用信息查询使用的权限和程序，依法保护信用主体
合法权益。
（二）强化社会信用体系统筹规划。坚持问题导向，出台《关
于健全中国特色社会信用体系的意见》，进一步明确社会信用体系
的内涵、目标、任务和制度框架。
（三）完善统一社会信用代码机制。推动解决重复赋码、一码
多赋等重错码问题。进一步明确各类主体的赋码权责，完善赋码部
门与国家代码中心的数据共享与校核机制。推动统一社会信用代码
作为唯一标识在各领域的广泛应用。将统一社会信用代码信息纳入
全国信用信息共享平台，实现动态更新代码库。
二、统筹推进信用基础设施建设
（四）优化信用信息平台功能。强化全国信用信息共享平台信
用信息归集共享“总枢纽”功能，形成覆盖全部信用主体、所有信
用信息类别、全国所有区域的信用信息网络。加快全国信用信息共
享平台三期建设，进一步优化信用数据治理和数据管理体系，全面
提升信用信息质量，形成高质量信用数据资源库。持续升级“信用
中国”网站功能，发挥集中公示各类信用信息的“主渠道”作用，
提升信用报告查询使用体验。
（五）加快地方融资信用服务平台整合。原则上一个省份只保
留一个省级平台，市级、县级设立的平台不超过一个，整合后的平
台应当具有唯一名称、唯一运营主体。将地方平台全部纳入全国一
体化平台网络实行清单式管理。完善全国一体化平台网络标准体系
和管理规范。
（六）发挥国家企业信用信息公示系统在市场监管领域作用。
深化市场监管领域信用信息共享应用，健全信用信息目录和标准体
系，完善市场监管领域事前信用核查和信用承诺、事中信用评价和
分级分类、事后信用奖惩和信用修复的全链条信用管理体系。
（七）加强信息安全保障。树牢信息安全的责任意识和底线意
识，明确信息共享安全责任边界。做好网络安全等级保护备案及定
期测评工作。全面加强数据安全保护工作，健全网络和数据安全保
护体系，提升纵深防护与综合防御能力。加强数据要素可信流通安
全保障，加强对违法违规收集、篡改及泄露公共信用信息行为的监
控，加强个人隐私、商业秘密的保护。
三、强化信用信息共享应用
（八）着力提升信用信息共享质效。围绕企业登记、司法、税
务、海关、金融、知识产权等重要领域，健全落地数据共享机制，
建立标准统一、权威准确的信用记录。完善加强信用信息共享应用
促进中小微企业融资工作协调机制，确保高效高质完成信用信息归
集共享清单任务，适时对清单进行更新，拓展归集共享范围。加强
数据质量协同治理，开展信用信息共享质效评估。
（九）深化信用信息开发应用。推动融资信用服务平台与金融
机构建立信用信息归集加工联合实验室，开展数据挖掘和联合建
模，进一步提升中小微企业融资服务效能。开展“信易贷”专项产
品试点。制定信用信息共享平台授权运营管理办法。
（十）推动信用便民惠企。鼓励地方探索依托“信用分”拓展
守信激励场景应用，推动在医疗、托育、养老、家政、旅游、购物、
出行等重点领域实施“信用+”工程。全面推广信用报告代替无违
法违规证明。组织开展“诚信兴商宣传月”活动，全力营造良好营
商和消费环境。
四、提升信用监管效能
（十一）强化信用分级分类监管。构建以公共信用综合评价为
基础、以行业信用评价为重点的企业信用状况综合评价体系，加快
制定评价国家标准和制度规范，推动评价信息有序共享和高效利
用，为完善以信用为基础的监管机制提供支撑。相关部门建立健全
本领域的信用分级分类监管机制。
（十二）提升信用承诺水平。分领域进一步推广信用承诺制，
加强承诺履行情况跟踪核查，完善信用承诺归集标准，将履约践诺
情况纳入相关主体的信用记录。
（十三）建立健全统一规范、协同共享、科学高效的信用修复
机制。研究规范信用信息公示和修复渠道，统筹优化失信信息分类
标准和修复规则。加快推动“信用中国”网站与各行业部门系统协
同联动，加强对第三方信用服务机构的监督和指导。
五、加快推进重点领域信用建设
（十四）全面推进政务诚信建设。完善政府诚信履约机制，畅
通政府违约失信投诉渠道，全面健全政务信用记录，探索建立政务
诚信监测评估机制。发挥信用助力清理拖欠企业账款的积极作用，
依法依规将失信惩戒落到实处。
（十五）完善合同履约监管机制。推动地方在能源中长期合同、
公共资源交易、招标投标等领域开展合同履约信用监管试点，完善
国家“诚信履约保障平台”建设，推动实现“地方-国家”合同履
约信息共享和监测，提高合同履约的透明度和监管效率。
（十六）探索重点人群信用体系建设。围绕公务员、律师、家
政从业人员、金融从业人员等重点职业人群，探索建立和完善个人
信用记录形成机制，及时归集有关人员在相关活动中形成的信用信
息。依托全国信用信息共享平台，逐步建立跨区域、跨部门、跨行
业重点职业人群公共信用信息的互联、互通、互查机制。
（十七）加强城市信用建设。持续开展城市信用状况监测，完
善监测指标体系，拓展监测覆盖范围。加强对社会信用体系示范区
的指导督促，研究制定示范区后评价指标体系，建立后评价机制，
对示范区名单进行动态调整。
No comments:
Post a Comment