↳ Social Fabric

January 19th, 2019

↳ Social Fabric




A look at China's social credit system

In a recent newsletter, we noted a spate of reporting drawing attention to the authoritarianism of China's growing Social Credit System. This week, we are sharing a paper by YU-JIE CHEN, CHING-FU LIN, AND HAN-WEI LIU that casts light on the details of the program's workings, corrects common misconceptions, proposes some likely and disturbing future scenarios, and offers a useful frame for understanding the significant shift it is bringing about in Chinese governance.

"A new mode of governance is emerging with the rise of China’s 'Social Credit System' (shehui xinyong zhidu) or SCS. The SCS is an unusual, comprehensive governance regime designed to tackle challenges that are commonly seen as a result of China’s 'trustless' society that has featured official corruption, business scandals and other fraudulent activities. The operation of the SCS relies on a number of important and distinctive features—information gathering, information sharing, labeling, and credit sanctions—which together constitute four essential elements of the system.

In our view, the regime of the SCS reflects what we call the 'rule of trust,' which has significant implications for the legal system and social control in China. We define the 'rule of trust' as a governance mode that imposes arbitrary restrictions—loosely defined and broadly interpreted trust-related rules—to condition, shape, and compel the behavior of the governed subjects… The 'rule of trust' is in fact undermining 'rule of law.'

In the context of governance, the unbounded notion of 'trust' and the unrestrained development of technology are a dangerous combination."

Link to the paper.

⤷ Full Article

January 12th, 2019



Another kind of cybersecurity risk: the destruction of common knowledge

In a report for the Berkman Klein center, Henry Farrell and Bruce Schneier identify a gap in current approaches to cybersecurity. National cybersecurity officials still base their thinking on Cold War-type threats, where technologists focus on hackers. Combining both approaches, Farrell and Schneier make a wider argument about collective knowledge in democratic systems—and the dangers of its diminishment.

From the abstract:

"We demonstrate systematic differences between how autocracies and democracies work as information systems, because they rely on different mixes of common and contested political knowledge. Stable autocracies will have common knowledge over who is in charge and their associated ideological or policy goals, but will generate contested knowledge over who the various political actors in society are, and how they might form coalitions and gain public support, so as to make it more difficult for coalitions to displace the regime. Stable democracies will have contested knowledge over who is in charge, but common knowledge over who the political actors are, and how they may form coalitions and gain public support... democracies are vulnerable to measures that 'flood' public debate and disrupt shared decentralized understandings of actors and coalitions, in ways that autocracies are not."

One compelling metaresearch point from the paper is that autocratic governments receive analysis of information trade-offs, while democratic governments do not:

"There is existing research literature on the informational trade-offs or 'dictators' dilemmas' that autocrats face, in seeking to balance between their own need for useful information and economic growth, and the risk that others can use available information to undermine their rule. There is no corresponding literature on the informational trade-offs that democracies face between desiderata like availability and stability."

Full paper available on SSRN here.

  • Farrell summarizes the work on Crooked Timber: "In other words, the same fake news techniques that benefit autocracies by making everyone unsure about political alternatives undermine democracies by making people question the common political systems that bind their society." Many substantive comments follow. Link.
  • Jeremy Wallace, an expert on authoritarianism, weighs in on Twitter: "Insiders, inevitably, have even more information about the contours of these debates. On the other hand, there's a lot that dictators don't know--about their own regimes, the threats that they are facing, etc." Link to Wallace's work on the topic.
  • Related reading recommended by Wallace, from Daniel Little, a 2016 paper on propaganda: "Surprisingly, the government tends to pick a high level of propaganda precisely when it is ineffective." Link.
⤷ Full Article

April 14th, 2018

Inventions that Changed the World



Changes in R & D funding and allocation

In a new report on workforce training and technological competitiveness, a task force led by former Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker describes recent trends in research and development investment. Despite the fact that “total U.S. R&D funding reached an all-time high of nearly $500 billion in 2015, nearly three percent of U.S. gross domestic product,” the balance in funding has shifted dramatically to the private sector: “federal funding for R&D, which goes overwhelmingly to basic scientific research, has declined steadily and is now at the lowest level since the early 1950s.” One section of the report contains this striking chart:

Link to the full report. ht Will

  • A deeper dive into the report's sourcing leads to a fascinating repository of data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the U.S. government's investments in research since the 1950s. Alongside the shift from majority federal to majority private R&D funding, the proportion of investments across different academic disciplines has also changed significantly. One table shows that the share of federal R&D funding for environmental science, engineering, and math/computer science has grown the most, from a combined 43.2% in 1970 to 54.8% in 2017. Meanwhile, funding for social science research has decreased the most. In 1970, the social sciences received 4.3% of the government's R&D funding; but in 2017, that share had fallen to 1.8%. Much more data on public sector R&D investments is available from the AAAS here.
  • A March 2017 article in Science explains some of these shifts.
  • A section of a 1995 report commissioned by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations charts and contextualizes the explosion of federal research and development funding in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.
  • A study from the Brookings Institution finds that federal funding for research and development accounts for up to 2.8 percent of GDP in some of the largest metropolitan areas in America. The authors have fifty ideas for how municipalities can capture more of the economic impact generated by that R&D.
  • Michael comments: "With the diminishing share (4.3% to 1.8% of total government research) of halved expenditures—and business not naturally inclined to conduct this kind of research (except in, as one would expect, instances of direct business application like surge pricing and Uber)—social science research appears to no longer have a natural home."
⤷ Full Article