In what ways can Nudge Theory serve as a more Humane and Equally

Effective Substitute for China’s Social Credit System?

Gregory Rambo

Kyle Edmondson

The Chinese Communist Party is developing a credit system that rates citizens based on their
trustworthiness in economic and public interactions on a daily basis. With a system that critiques
an individual based on their contribution to society, an alternative that is grounded in the rule of
law is needed. This paper draws on research on China’s human rights violations, nudge theory,
and the Social Credit System. Sources used throughout the paper include academic articles and
official Chinese government documents translated to English. The findings include a long list of
Chinese government violations and the ultimate conclusion in the value of a nudge system as a
humane and just alternative. Research on the Social Credit System was conducted however, with
the lack of a trustworthy translator, reliance upon unofficially translated sources is evident. The
conclusion reached was that the Chinese Communist Party would not implement Ivanković and
Engelen’s Opportunity for Watchfulness as it is based on democratic ideals. However, for a
government that does have democratic ideals with the same needs of the Chinese Communist
Party, the Opportunity for Watchfulness is a more humane system when compared to the Social
Credit System in terms of the rule of law.

12​th​ Grade Humanities

Animas High School

6 April 2020
 Part I: Introduction

You find out that a relative who has stage four cancer had died in the hospital in which

they were receiving care, even though you visited them right before their death. As you drive to

the hospital, you see a pothole in the road and you slow down without feeling any jolt. As you

drive into the hospital, you go around the round-about to enter the parking lot. Upon stepping

into clean air, you answer the average sign-in sheet with some rather personal questions attached.

It turns out that your relative died of heart failure, while being monitored 24/7. As you argue

against the medical staff that they could have saved your relative, the corresponding doctor gives

you a paper titled Do Not Resuscitate, a default within the hospital’s policy concerning advanced

cancer patients. The examples above fall within four categories of which will be discussed within

the following paper: the DNR order is a non-transparent nudge, followed by the fake pothole that

is an ex post nudge. The round-about is an ex ante nudge and the optional questionnaire in the

check in is a “light” example of China’s Social Credit System (SCS).

The main objective is to secure the trustworthiness that the Chinese Communist Party

(CCP) wants out of their population, while giving citizens the freedoms the Constitution

promises and the rule of law. Trustworthiness is defined by the CCP as the violation of laws and

regulation, whereas the freedoms promised includes Article 35: the freedom of assembly,

association, demonstration, press, procession and speech. The rule of law being related to the

rights of the individual within any society, to be able to have: accountability, just laws, open

government, and accessible justice. While the SCS is effective at getting Chinese to conform to

laws and regulations of the CCP at the expense of individual rights and liberties, a more humane

1
policy would follow Ivanković and Engelen’s Opportunity for Watchfulness, the ability to

transform ex post nudges into ex ante ones.

Part II: Historical Context and Background

China’s Social Credit System was first established as a way to combat individuals and

small businesses borrowing money outside of formal banking institutions (Lu) (Chen 8). In 2006,

Credit records were established for every citizen and company within China to have everyone’s

record held by the banks and no other third parties (Guomin Jinji) (Chen 8). The good records

that people held acted as an incentive to “nudge” those who did not have a good credit history to

act better. In 2014, the State Council announced their plan for the Social Credit System, which

prioritized government matters, business, society, and the judiciary (Chen 9). The system left its

economical origin and encompassed: civil virtue, honest mentality, household virtue, individual

morality, professional ethics, sincerity, social morals, and traditional virtues of China. The SCS

is reviewed by citizens and not by artificial intelligence, which online speculation states,

although it is an ability that the CCP wants to integrate (Chen 5). The rating system works by

having the citizens themselves evaluate each other based on their own real-life observations via

an official application on a smartphone or website. Since the SCS is built on trust, there is no

second-glance of reports. An initial “trust-breaking” rate will decrease a citizen’s total rating

even if the citizen fights back on an illegitimate account. The SCS could be related to nudge

theory but a main point of nudging is the ability to have choice without any punishment.

Nudge theory proposes positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions as ways to

influence the behavior and decision making of groups or individuals. There are three approaches

2
to nudge theory, ex ante, ex post and non-transparent. Ex ante are nudges where the nudgee sees

the nudge before they are affected by it. For example, driving counter-clockwise around a

roundabout to ensure no accidents. Ex post are nudges where nudgee sees the nudge after they

have been affected by it. For example, a fake pothole to ensure slow speed. Non-transparent

nudges are ones that cannot be seen by the nudgee, of which the nudger only knows-- the DNR

default that only the hospital knows as the patient did not ask. Nudges, as traditionally used, are

essentially a form of manipulation however Ivanković and Engelen’s Opportunity for

Watchfulness (OW) proposes an alternative model of nudging that avoids manipulation. OW is

defined by the four characteristics it was built upon: education, legality, democracy, and society.

First, nudgees require basic education on the impact of heuristics, cognitive biases, choice

architectures and behavioral techniques. Second, governments are required to post a nudge

registry for the citizens so that they are properly informed about active nudges. Third, through

public debate, citizens should be the ones who have the final call of whether or not a nudge

should be put into use. Finally, experts within the field of heuristics and behavioral techniques

should warn society when a government activates unannounced nudges, especially

non-transparent ones. OW is different from traditional nudge theory thanks to the liberties that

the nudgee is given. They are able to call upon the government to issue a nudge of their choice,

debate on nudges that they disagree on, and still individually be able to choose whether or not

they would want to follow a nudge in the first place. OW breaks down the one-sided barrier that

lets nudgers do whatever they want, it provides transparency for the nudgees to see what the

nudger intends to do. Without being side-winded by the nudger, the nudgee is given an education

on what choice architecture does and how to avoid it if desired. With OW, there is no unbalanced

3
ground from which nudger versus nudgee develops since both sides are capable of creating and

following/countering nudges (Ivanković 65-67).

Part III: Research and Analysis

Article 35 in the constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) states that the

citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of

association, of procession and of demonstration (​Constitution​). The freedoms that the PRC

promises are not actually taken into account. In July 2018, there were online discussions from

the parents of children who were receiving faulty vaccines, which gave notice to the police. The

authorities said that if they did not stop talking about the vaccines, the police would charge the

parents with “colluding with foreign media” (“China”). Another example of not adhering to

Article 35 is how the CCP has direct control of the State Administration of Press, Publication,

Radio, Film, and Television (SAPPRFT) which reorganized into the State Administration for

Radio and Television Agency (SARFT) and the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC).

With the two of these combined, the CCP has control over books, film, magazines, news media,

newspapers, radio, television, and the internet (“China”). That being said, no one can build and

share their creation without approval of the government, which is a direct contradiction to their

constitution. On November 14, 2018, the CAC announced that they “cleaned up” more than

9,800 internet accounts and issued a policy that requires internet and media firms to send detailed

logs on every user of their platform (“China”). China is acting this way to ensure that there is

social order, in regards to the trustful society that they want to craft. Trust-breaking is at the core

of Jiang Yefei’s charges of creating political cartoons aimed at the PRC.

4
 On June 26, a Sichuan province court sentenced political cartoonist Jiang Yefei to six

years and six months in prison on charges of “inciting subversion of state power” and

“illegally crossing the border.” Jiang fled to Thailand in 2008 after his cartoons

criticizing the 2008 Sichuan earthquakes and lampooning Chinese government officials

attracted government attention. In 2015 he was forcibly returned to China and then held

incommunicado until his June 2018 trial, which was held in secret (“China”).

The CCP will do anything to get justice in the form of trust, going to the extent to return

Jiang Yefei back to China. Trust in this case means that there should be no criticizing the PRC

for whatever they do. Seeing that Article 1 states that the democratic dictator of the PRC

oversees how China is run, they can easily run the country via the “trust-keeping” way they want

without regard to the constitution. Seeing that political cartoons is sabotage of the socialist

system, no one can express Article 35 at all.

The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic

dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Sabotage of

the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited (Constitution).

The PRC holds up their end of the constitution when it comes to the inner workings of

the government’s relationship with the citizens but not the other way around. Another

contradiction with the constitution is Article 4, which discusses that all nationalities in the PRC

are equal, however a practice within Xinjiang speaks volumes against it (​Constitution)​ .

During [2018] the government significantly intensified its campaign of mass detention of

members of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region

5
 (Xinjiang). Authorities were reported to have arbitrarily detained 800,000 to possibly

more than two million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslims in internment camps

designed to erase religious and ethnic identities. Government officials claimed the camps

were needed to combat terrorism, separatism, and extremism. International media, human

rights organizations, and former detainees reported security officials in the camps abused,

tortured, and killed some detainees (“China”).

Not only does the CCP overstep Article 4, they go full trust and state that Muslims are

not trustworthy simply because of the terrorists on their extreme side. The CCP shown by

previous examples has no regard for the constitution, which goes to show when bypassing

Article 5.

The state upholds the uniformity and dignity of the socialist legal system. No law or

administrative or local rules and regulations shall contravene the constitution. All state

organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises

and undertakings must abide by the Constitution and the law. All acts in violation of the

Constitution and the law must be investigated. No organization or individual may enjoy

the privilege of being above the Constitution and the law (Constitution).

It seems that the CCP is an organization that enjoys the privilege of being above the

constitution. Since the CCP does not operate within the bounds of the constitution, what restricts

them from overstepping the rule of law? Nothing, the government reports approximately six

million petitions every year and restricts the rights to assemble and raise grievances (“China”). If

the CCP does not care for the rights of the individual then what do they want in the people they

6
are leading? To put it into their terms, a “trust-keeping” society, that disrespects the rule of law

and the freedoms of the PRC. As they state that the SCS is an important part of a socialist

government.

A social credit system is an important component part of the Socialist market economy

system and the social governance system. It is founded on laws, regulations, standards

and charters, it is based on a complete network covering the credit records of members of

society and credit infrastructure, it is supported by the lawful application of credit

information and a credit services system, its inherent requirements are establishing the

idea of an sincerity culture, and carrying forward sincerity and traditional values, its uses

encouragement to keep trust and constraints against breaking trust as an incentive

mechanisms, and its objective is raising the honest mentality and credit levels of the

entire society (“Planning”).

The SCS has grown much more than the initial financial system that the government had

first revealed on June 14, 2014. The government hosts their own credit review services such as

Baihang Credit Scoring, National Credit Information Sharing Platform, and Credit China, which

puts all users on separate lists based on their “trust-keeping” and “trust-breaking” actions with

rewards and punishments respectively, the ability to travel within and outside China (Chen 11).

The private sector has the ability to create their own system, such as Sesame Credit of Ant

Financial Services Group to review each user of their platform, in this case, via a numerical

value between 350 and 950 (Chen 23). The idea of trust is different depending on what

organization you ask and what counts as the breaking of trust. In the Henan Province, rejecting

7
university admission after passing the national exam is a “trust-breaking” act (Chengxin) (Chen

14). In Rongcheng, Shandong, people who care for elderly parents will receive a good rating in

the government’s local database (Ohlberg) (Chen 15). There is no solid definition to trust, as

ruled within each credit review system, leaving something such as spreading rumors on the

internet as “trust-breaking” (“Guanyu Yinfa”) (Chen 14).

The list of all trust-related acts goes on indefinitely, since the SCS is just a guideline from

the government, which leaves individual provinces, cities, and even companies to create their

own lists. The SCS also makes sure that entities that did not originate from China are looked into

for the consideration of implementing trust-keeping policy. Take a foreign company like Airbnb,

who is required to handover information on foreign guests, their passport numbers and days of

stay, to the authorities (​Airbnb​) (Chen 28). There are various lists that citizens are placed onto by

the rating system, including the Blacklist, Defaulters’ List, and Redlist. The blacklist is for those

who are “trust-breaking” which results in joint sanctions on said individual for: Behavior that

seriously damages people health, lives and security, Behavior that seriously damages the market

order of fair competition and normal order in society, Refusal to fulfill legal obligations, thereby

seriously affecting the credibility of judicial and administrative organs, and Refusal to fulfill

national defense obligations (“Guanyu Jianli”) (Chen 15). Except, that is for “serious

trust-breaking behavior,” as for any of the above mentioned “trust-breaking” behavior can easily

put a citizen onto the blacklist. The redlist, is the opposite, which gives those who do

“trust-keeping” actions will receive resident status in cities, unlike the blacklist where families

who are on it are unable to send their children to private schools (Sheehan) (“Guanyu dui”)

(Chen 19). The Defaulters' List, is not the middle ground, as it is reinforcement for those who do

8
not comply with a court’s judgement, issued by the People’s Supreme Court (SPC) (“Guanyu

Gonbu”) (Chen 16).

The SCS guides citizens on incentives to create a trustful society while heavily punishing

those who do not. The rule of law, nor individualism exists in the environment that the CCP has

made, for the people who live under it have to obey to the day to day objectives to obtain the

redlist, to be “trust-keeping.” Of course the SCS was made in the first place to stop the

corruption within the financial sector and proceeded to envelope society to make sure the “bad

traits” will not continue. Thus, if the CCP were to introduce nudge theory, the citizens of China

would have more autonomy and freedom, both of which the Chinese democratic dictator has

clearly ignored. However, an even stronger system that would best uphold the rule of law would

be Ivanković and Engelen’s Opportunity for Watchfulness (OW).

To broadly shape a thick atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious

and breaking trust is disgraceful, and ensure that sincerity and trustworthiness become conscious

norms of action among all the people (“Planning”). Making sure that everyone goes to college is

an example of nudge, yet, it is covered with the shadow of manipulation. OW however, is built

with the educational, democratic, legal and societal conditions that are needed to be fulfilled for

ex post​ transparent and non-transparent nudges to be used safely (Ivanković 72). The idea of

making a law move into the subconscious state to become natural is unnerving when it is

compared to living day to day life by another’s guidelines. However, the ability to have public

education, a public nudge registry, public debates, and various behavioral experts will make sure

9
that the government does not overstep nudges (Ivanković 65-67). OW is taking the parameters of

nudge theory and making it work with the rule of law.

A main goal of nudging that OW retains is to ease off of the limited cognitive bandwidth

that people operate with, by making daily decisions oblivious, freeing up mental space to focus

on other tasks (Mullainathan) (Ivanković 64). For example, increasing the ability to deal with

stress whenever it kicks in, while not having to completely derail whatever activities that caused

said stress. Having an open mind when it comes to daily worries would be beneficial when it is

accompanied with stress on an assignment in college, which creates procrastination. “Nudges are

promising, exactly because they can promote autonomy, by reducing cognitive costs and thus

enabling citizens to focus on choices that matter” (Ivanković 64). The freedom of choice, which

is heavily restricted by the SCS, is mandatory for a system to follow the rule of law. Nudges will

be revised by the population and publicized for individuals to be able to steer clear of nudges

they do not want. Examples of nudges include presenting healthy foodstuff in front of ones that

are not, the default size of food portions and drinks, and car alarms for seat belts (Cheung)

(Ivanković 58, 54). The examples above are things that are already in effect, but are not called

nudges as they are thought of “rule of thumb,” buckle-up your seat belt, an apple a day keeps the

doctor away, and the default is generally the best. OW respects the rule of law and the autonomy

that individuals everywhere must have while still being a productive society.

Part IV: Conclusion

With the CCP oblivious to their country’s constitution and no regard for the rule of law, a

nudge system would not work. This claim is supported by Article 51 of the Chinese Constitution,

10
which states, “The exercise by citizens of the People’s Republic of China of their freedoms and

rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the

lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.” The constitution protects the interests of the

government with this article, overruling the rest of the articles that were mentioned in this paper.

With Article 51, the CCP can do whatever they want, however, if they wanted to improve the

system to fit in with the PRC constitution, OW would be the best choice. The CCP would issue

their nudges with public consent upon their nudge registry while having the rule of law in place.

After seeing how the PRC is set up with the CCP, the citizens of China do not have the freedoms

that were promised within their constitution. With a dictator who ruled his own term indefinitely,

the Chinese do not have a foreseeable future with the rights that every human deserves. The rule

of law, as defined by the World Justice Project, consists of nine core parts: constraints on

government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and

security, regulatory reinforcement, civil justice, criminal justice, and informal justice.

For the Chinese to have the benefits of OW, it would only be applicable when the CCP

changes its view on how to rule China. Otherwise there is no way for foreigners to help the

citizens of China, which goes across the board when looking at other incidents that the PRC has

been through. The solution for which the CCP keeps their current ruling is OW, since other

changes in leadership would lead to a completely different government. As with other conflicts

such as the Hong Kong protests and Free Tibet, interjecting between the arguments would only

bring more chaos with the PRC taking the opposite side. However, a change in policy might be

the only thing that can be done when dealing with China’s leadership. Having the dictator

11
himself appeal to OW would mean the citizens of China would have their constitutional rights

back with the approval of the CCP.

For the ways that nudge theory could create a more humane and equally effective

substitute, there is only one, OW. The game of nudge theory is to make people follow your

instructions without them knowing, thus it is not humane in regard to the rule of law. Throughout

the studies into the world of nudge, the same argument against its field of origin was always

brought up, libertarian paternalism. Arguing how the paternalism part should go or the libertarian

aspect of it, since it gives freedom yet structure to prevent choice. Of course, this is in relation to

ex post and non-transparent nudges since ex ante was not really a nudge if the nudgee knew what

was going to happen. The one-sided feel of nudge theory is why manipulation breeds from the

very thought of introducing it into a government's hands, no control from the nudgee to say they

would want to stop or leave. Yet again, this is in complaint against nudges where the nudgee

cannot choose a way out which is not in the heart of the rule of law. Ivanković and Engelen’s

Opportunity for Watchfulness was the only example of a dual-sided nudge based in the rule of

law that was found. Ivanković and Engelen created their own theory based on the framework of

nudge, only to build a completely different body around it. The ability to convert ex post nudges

into ex ante ones is an amazing trick when there is only talk about the one-sided nature of ex

post. When tying up the abilities of the three main nudges with the rule of law, there is only a

bare prototype left in its place, a good one at that. However, it has only been written on paper,

and no trials or attempts to create such a system has not been publicly acknowledged. OW may

not even work with setting up public debates on which nudges to implement with the amount of

12
people that are in one whole nation. Yet it is intriguing to think that OW might be the system that

the people of China have been asking for.

13
 Works Cited

Cheung, Tracy T. L., et al. “Cueing Healthier Alternatives for Take-Away: A Field Experiment
on the Effects of (Disclosing) Three Nudges on Food Choices.” ​BMC Public Health,​ vol.
19, no. 1, July 2019, p. N.PAG. ​EBSCOhost,​ doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7323-y.

“China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau) - China - United States Department of State.”
U.S. Department of State,​ U.S. Department of State,
www.state.gov/reports/2018-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/china-includes-ti
bet-hong-kong-and-macau-china/.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,​

en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html.

Ivanković, Viktor, and Bart Engelen. “Nudging, Transparency, and Watchfulness.” ​Social
Theory & Practice,​ vol. 45, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 43–73. ​EBSCOhost​,
doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20191751.

“Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020).” ​China Copyright
and Media​, 25 Apr. 2015,
chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/planning-outline-for-the-constructio
n-of-a-social-credit-system-2014-2020/.

YU-JIE CHEN, et al. “‘Rule of Trust’: The Power and Perils of China’s Social Credit
Megaproject.” ​Columbia Journal of Asian Law,​ vol. 32, no. 1, Fall 2018, pp. 1–36.
EBSCOhost​,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=137882908&site=ehost-live.

14
Sources below were included within the citations that were annotated, not in MLA format

[Chengxin Jianshe Wanli Xing] Henan Chuzhao: Fang Gaoxiao “Gezi” de Shixin Kaosheng Jiang Shou Chengjie
([​诚信建设万里行​] ​河南出招:放高校​“​鸽子​”​的失信考生将受惩戒​) [[Integrity Construction Miles] Henan's Move:
​ INA​,
the Untrustworthy Applicants Who Put Colleges and Universities Up Will be Disciplined], C​REDIT ​CH
http://www.creditchina.gov.cn/zhuanxiangzhili/difangzhuanxiangzhilijingyan/201807/t20180716_120584.html (last
visited Aug. 4, 2018).

Mareike Ohlberg, Shazeda Ahmed and Bertram Lang, ​Central Planning, Local Experiments: The Complex
Implementation of China’s Social Credit System, ​M​ERCATOR ​I​NST​. ​FOR ​C​HINESE ​S​TUD​. (Dec. 12, 2017),
https://www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/171212_China_Monitor_43_Social_Credit_System_Implementat
ion.pdf., at 3.

Guanyu Yinfa Shehui Xinyong Tixi Jianshe Guihua Gangyao (2014—2020 Nian) de Tongzhi (​关于印发社 会信用
体系建设规划纲要(​2014—2020 ​年)的通知​) [Notice on Issuing the Outline of Plan for Building the Social Credit
System (2014–2020) ] (promulgated by the State Council, June 14, 2016), ​available at
http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2014-06/27/content_8913.htm [hereinafter ​2014 SCS Plan]​ . An unofficial
translation is available at https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/planning-outline-for-the-
construction-of-a-social-credit-system-2014-2020/ (last visited July 28, 2018).

Airbnb to Give Chinese Authorities Guest Information,​ BBC N​EWS ​(Mar. 29, 2018),
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43578948.

Guanyu Jianli Wanshan Shouxin Lianhe Jili he Shixin Lianhe Chengjie Zhidu Jiakuai Tuijin Shehui Chengxin
Jianshe de Zhidao Yijian (​关于建立完善守信联合激励和失信联合惩戒制度加快推进社会诚信建 设的指导意
见​) [Guiding Opinions concerning Establishing and Perfecting Incentives for Promise-keeping and Joint Sanction
Systems for Trust-Breaking and Accelerating the Construction of Social Credit] (promulgated by St. Council, May
30, 2016). An unofficial translation is available at
https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/state-council-guiding-opinions-concerning-
establishing-and-perfecting-incentives-for-promise-keeping-and-joint-punishment-systems-for-trust-breaking-
and-accelerating-the-construction-of-social-sincer/.

Spencer Sheehan, ​China's Hukou Reforms and the Urbanization Challenge​, T​HE ​D​IPLOMAT ​(Feb. 22, 2017),
https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/chinas-hukou-reforms-and-the-urbanization-challenge/.

Guanyu dui Shixin Beizhixingren Shishi Lianhe Chengjie de Hezuo Beiwanglu (​关于对失信被执行人实 施联合惩
戒的合作备忘录​) [Memorandum of Cooperation Concerning Imposing Joint Sanctions on Trust-Breaking
Judgement Defaulters] (signed by the National Development and Reform Commission and the Supreme People's
Court etc., effective Jan. 20, 2016), art. 3(23), ​available at
https://www.creditchina.gov.cn/zhengcefagui/zhengcefagui/201709/t20170916_43853.html.

Guanyu Gongbu Shixin Beizhixingren Mingdan Xinxi de Ruogan Guiding (​关于公布失信被执行人名单 信息的若
干规定​) [Provisions on Publishing the Judgment Defaulter List], (promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court, Feb.
28, 2017, effective May 1, 2017), ​available at ​http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing- 37172.html. [hereinafter
SPC Defaulters Rule​]. The Defaulters’ Lists are readily available via the platform launched through Supreme
People’s Court website. ​See ​Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Wang Kaitong Gongbu yu Chaxun Pingtai Shixin Bei Zhixing
Renmingdan Xinxi Suishi Kecha (​最高人民法院网开通公布与查询平台 失信被执行人名单信息随时可查​)

15
[Defaulters’ Lists Publicly Available Through Supreme People’s Court’s Website], C​HINACOURT​.​ORG ​(Oct. 24,
2013), https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/10/id/1112516.shtml.

Rachael Lu, ​Why There are No Credit Scores in China, ​F​OREIGN ​P​OLICY ​(May 8, 2014),
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/08/why-there-are-no-credit-scores-in-china/.

Guomin Jinji he Shehui Di Shiyi ge Wunian Guihua Gangyao (​国民经济和社会发展第十一个五年规划 纲要​)

[Outline of the 11th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development] (Mar. 16, 2006), ​available at
www.gov.cn/ztzl/2006-03/16/content_228841.htm.

Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir, ​Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much (​ New York: Times Books, Henry Holt
and Company, 2013).

16