Research On The Institutional Principles Of Social Credit Repai

With the gradual advancement of the construction of the social credit system,the importance of the social credit repair system has gradually come to the fore,especially its irreplaceable role in cracking the legitimacy crisis brought about by the joint disciplinary system for breach of trust.However,at present,China does not have a perfect social credit repair system,and the provisions on credit repair are scattered in normative documents at all levels,making it difficult to fully play the role of social credit repair and achieve the purpose of encouraging subjects who have lost trust to take the initiative to rehabilitate themselves.This paper aims to deconstruct the current social credit repair system from a theoretical perspective,and to propose an optimisation path based on a correct understanding of the system.The first chapter of this paper is divided into two parts,starting from the role of the social credit repair system in compensating for the shortcomings of the joint disciplinary system for breach of trust once and permanently,and in providing a path for subjects who have lost trust to take the initiative to rehabilitate themselves.The development and operation logic of the joint disciplinary system for breach of trust is used to explain that the reason why the joint disciplinary system for breach of trust is able to curb the proliferation of opportunism lies in the establishment of a system to collect and summarise the behavioural information of credit subjects and to punish them for breach of trust,in order to avoid being subject to such punishment,the credit subjects restrain their own behaviour to avoid being evaluated as breach of trust and suffering a series of unfavourable treatment,while the subjects who have already lost trust once The joint disciplinary system focuses on punishment and ignores the needs of the defaulting subject to reshape social credit,which is not conducive to the construction of overall integrity.The social credit repair system,on the other hand,provides a conditional exit mechanism for defaulting subjects,so that they are not denied the opportunity to start all over again because of a single credit blemish.The social credit repair system allows a defaulting subject to withdraw from disciplinary action through certain actions or wait for the passage of time to delete the defaulted record and withdraw from disciplinary action,which precisely means that the joint disciplinary system has boundaries,and the social credit repair system,as a downstream system of the defaulted disciplinary system,has the process of penetration,structural relevance and functional complementarity with the joint disciplinary system,which also inhibits the disorderly expansion of the joint disciplinary system.The joint disciplinary system is a downstream system.Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive understanding of the social credit repair system from its essence and attempts to answer the question of what is actually repaired by social credit repair.On a macro level,the function of the social credit repair system is correctly understood,as it is itself an incentive for credit subjects to take the initiative to rehabilitate themselves,while at the same time it assumes the institutional value of being the softener of the joint disciplinary system for breach of trust and the gatekeeper of the social credit system.Microscopically from the yard,from the relationship between social credit and reputation,social credit and reputation have both unity and specificity.The unity lies in the fact that social credit is derived from reputation and its mechanism of action is the same as that of reputation,in that it is through the disclosure of information that a certain range of subjects can be informed of the behaviour and thus influence the decisions of others in a particular circle.The social credit repair system is also unique in that the information it publishes is selected by human criteria and is one-sided.The involvement of human factors in social credit makes social credit repair more open to manipulation than reputation repair.However,in terms of the social function that reputation plays in the reputation mechanism,the purpose of a particular individual in maintaining a good reputation is not the pursuit of a good reputation,but the acquisition of certain benefits through a good reputation.In this sense,reputation,and similarly social credit,can be seen as a mediator between individuals and communities,between the past and the future,and as a basis for decision-making by other individuals in a given community.While reputation is irreparable,the benefits that a particular individual intends to gain from a good reputation are compensable,and the loss of social credit is more clearly visible than the loss of reputation.The incentive for creditors to repair social credit is to get rid of the disadvantages arising from a breach of trust,while the mechanism for social credit reduction is mainly through the addition of information about a breach of trust,which can influence the decisions of others.Social credit repair is therefore the process of correcting this information in order to free a particular subject from the disadvantages suffered as a result of a breach of trust.Social credit repair is therefore also the restoration of credit information in such a way that it no longer acts as a negative factor in decision-making,which is what social credit repair should be.The third chapter is based on the analysis in the second chapter and provides a comprehensive understanding of social credit repair.The second way of repair is to delete the information,which is a way to weaken the impact of the information by deleting the records and pursuing the "forgetting" of the information.The third way is by adding information to compensate for the one-sidedness of the information published and to weaken the impact of negative information through the irrationality of social perceptions,rather than resorting to "forgetting".Social credit repair is also a conditional exit mechanism that sets prerequisites for the prevention of moral hazard,excludes the entry of certain serious breaches of trust and sets a minimum public notice period as a disciplinary measure and,since the disadvantageous treatment suffered as a result of a breach of trust comes mainly from the public authorities,the subject of repair can only be the public authorities and no other subject can be given the function of repair.The core of this is what kind of remedial behaviour is required from the subject of the breach of trust,and the motivation to take the initiative to repair the credit by using the breach of trust to motivate the subject of the breach of trust to take the initiative,which is mainly divided into three categories: one is the act of performance to supplement judicial enforcement,the second is the act of rectification to maintain the authority of public authority,and the third is the act of social welfare.Finally,after the repair of social credit,subjects who are trustworthy,subjects who are not trustworthy but are repaired,and subjects who are not repaired are treated differently in order to take into account the incentives for trustworthy subjects at the same time,and to avoid the social credit repair system dissipating the incentives for trustworthy subjects.Based on Chapter 2 and 3,the current practice of social credit repair has a bias towards information repair rather than behavioural repair and provides insufficient results orientation.The lack of outcome orientation is mainly due to the fact that the involvement of commercial information platforms makes it difficult to restore the reputation of particular defaulting subjects in the market,and the incentive provided by the system mainly lies in the elimination of administrative disadvantageous treatment The system’s incentives are mainly related to the elimination of administrative disadvantages,but not to the recovery of the loss of reputation in the market due to the breach of trust,and the social credit repair system does not provide enough result orientation and there is still room for further exploration.The first is that the design of the conditions should be refined,and attention should be paid to two aspects: firstly,the design of the conditions should pay attention to the prevention of moral hazard,and the conditions of behaviour should be explored on the basis of different breaches of trust,and the threshold of access should be refined;secondly,the design of the conditions should pay attention to the discretionary power of the public authorities and improve the monitoring and reporting mechanism to monitor the exercise of power to prevent rent-seeking.The second part is to shift from a subtractive to an additive approach by removing information to an additive approach by adding information,allowing the public to fully evaluate a particular subject by allowing the subject of a breach of trust to explain himself or herself or to be officially marked,while at the same time adding information to divert the public’s attention from the record of breach of trust and to take into account the protection of the public’s right to know.