Meritocracy

From HandWiki

Meritocracy is the notion of a political or social system in which economic goods, status, or political power are allocated to individuals primarily on the basis of ability, talent, and demonstrated achievement rather than wealth, family background, or social class.[1] Advancement in such a system is typically justified by performance as measured through examinations, credentials, or other forms of evaluated achievement.

Although ideas associated with merit-based rule and advancement are older, the first known use of the term “meritocracy” is commonly attributed to the sociologist Alan Fox (1956).[2] The term was then popularized by Michael Young in his satirical and dystopian book The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958).[3] While Young’s use was condemnatory, the term later broadened and is often used neutrally or positively to describe systems that aim at equality of opportunity and reward based on capability rather than inheritance, challenging nepotism and hereditary aristocracy.[4]

Conceptions

Early conceptions

A common definition conceptualizes “merit” in terms of tested competency and ability, often measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests.[5] In government and administrative systems, “meritocracy” often refers to advancement based on evaluated merits such as performance, intelligence, credentials, and education, frequently determined through examinations or formal review processes.

In a broader sense, “meritocratic” can also describe any evaluative arrangement based on achievement, and may be used to refer to government led by a class of educated or able people.[6] This broadened usage differs from Young’s original satirical critique, which targeted a system where “merit” becomes tightly equated with “intelligence plus effort,” identified early through testing, and reinforced through an obsession with quantification and credentials.[7]

Some discussions link merit-based claims to classical rhetorical ideas about demonstrating competence (for example, Aristotelian ethos), though ancient frameworks typically operated within aristocratic or oligarchic structures rather than modern states.[8]

More recent conceptions

Young’s influential framing defined merit as intelligence plus effort and portrayed a meritocratic society as dystopian: a stratified order built on assessed intelligence and achievement that becomes highly competitive and unequal.[9] Despite this negative origin, the term later gained positive recognition as a contrast to aristocratic or class-based systems, where inherited factors dominate the allocation of status and reward.[10]

Critics argue that meritocracy can function as ideology, legitimating inequality under the appearance of fairness, especially when social mobility is restricted and inherited wealth remains decisive. Thomas Piketty notes that democratic societies often rest on a meritocratic worldview, even as inherited wealth persists in shaping life chances.[11] Research also suggests that, in more unequal societies, belief in meritocracy can increase alongside inequality.[12]

A common contemporary view is therefore twofold: (1) meritocracy as a social system that rewards talent and effort and presupposes social mobility and equality of opportunity; and (2) meritocracy as an ideological discourse that can be deployed in different political traditions (for example, social-democratic or neoliberal framings).[13]

A frequent contemporary screening mechanism is the university degree; critics note limits such as uneven standards, incomplete occupational coverage, and unequal access due to cost, crisis, war, disability, or health constraints.[14]

Etymology

Although merit-based ideas are older, the term “meritocracy” is relatively new. It was used in the 1950s and became widely known through Michael Young’s 1958 book. Young later criticized celebratory uses of the concept, arguing that selection by merit can harden into a closed class.[15]

The word combines a Latin root for “merit” (associated with “to earn”) and a Greek-derived suffix for “rule” or “power.” Etymological discussions often note an associated Greek term “axiocracy,” formed from “axios” (“worthy”) plus a rule/power suffix.[16]

History

Imperial China

One of the earliest administrative examples commonly associated with meritocratic selection is the Chinese civil service examination tradition, often linked to Confucian ideals and later institutionalized in imperial governance. Accounts emphasize that appointments could be opened beyond hereditary nobility, with rank shaped by examination performance and education enabling social mobility.[17][18]

Ancient Greece

In classical political philosophy, Plato and Aristotle advanced arguments that can be interpreted as favoring rule by the wise or the virtuous, though their proposals differ and are embedded in ancient institutional contexts.[19]

Islamic world and early modern empires

Some historical accounts describe merit-related selection in various Islamic and early modern imperial contexts, including elective or consultative leadership ideals in early caliphal politics and recruitment/education pipelines in the Ottoman system. Interpretations vary and the degree of “meritocratic” practice is debated in scholarship.[20]

17th–19th centuries

A common historical narrative holds that ideas about competitive examinations and merit-based appointment traveled into British administrative practice through colonial governance, later influencing reforms in Britain and elsewhere. In the United States, civil service reforms such as the Pendleton Act (1883) are often cited as institutional steps away from patronage and toward competitive examinations and protected public employment.[21]

Confucianism and meritocracy

Confucian thought is frequently associated with the idea that learning and cultivation should not be restricted by class and that public roles should reflect virtue and ability. Later political philosophers debate whether Confucian-inspired “political meritocracy” can serve as an alternative or complement to liberal democracy, particularly in large-scale modern societies. Contemporary contributions include arguments about “meritocracy at the top” combined with local participation, along with critiques concerning legitimacy, accountability, rights, and inequality.[22][23][24]

Criticism

By individuals

Michael Young later objected to celebratory uses of the concept, warning that selecting people by merit can create a rigid new elite class.[25]

Other commentators argue that meritocratic rhetoric can mask structural advantage, erode trust, or intensify status competition. Pope Francis has warned that if equality of opportunity is not genuine, “meritocracy” may become a screen consolidating privilege.[26]

Books and academic critiques

Critiques include arguments that meritocracy can exacerbate social stratification (“snowball inequality”), producing economic and cultural divides and legitimating inequality as deserved.[27] Michael Sandel argues that meritocratic ideals can erode solidarity and become a primary justification for inequality, emphasizing the role of luck and background conditions.[28]

Some empirical work distinguishes between skills-based meritocracy and credential society dynamics, arguing that educational credentials may outweigh measured skills in shaping outcomes, producing an “imagined meritocracy.”[29]

Practicality and unintended outcomes

Common concerns include disagreement over what counts as “merit,” potential corruption or bias in assessment systems, and unequal access to education and preparation resources. Critics also discuss “promotion to incompetence” dynamics associated with hierarchical advancement (often framed through the “Peter principle”). Standardized testing has been criticized for failing to measure qualities such as creativity, judgment, ethical reflection, and other complex dispositions.[30]

See also

Notes

One recurring ambiguity is the difference between “meritocracy” in a technical administrative sens




  1. ↑ Dictionary.com, “meritocracy” (definition page), accessed 14 February 2016.
  2. ↑ Jo Littler, Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power, and Myths of Mobility. Routledge, 2018, p. 32.
  3. ↑ Margalit Fox, “Michael Young, 86, Scholar; Coined, Mocked ‘Meritocracy’,” The New York Times, 25 January 2002.
  4. ↑ C.H. Chang, “How meritocracy is defined today?: Contemporary aspects of meritocracy,” Recent Issues in Sociological Research, 10(1), 2017, pp. 112–121.
  5. ↑ David Levinson, Peter W. Cookson, and Alan R. Sadovnik, Education and Sociology: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 436.
  6. ↑ Oxford Dictionaries (archived definition page), “meritocracy,” Oxford University Press, accessed 12 September 2011 (archived 10 September 2011).
  7. ↑ Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. Fontana Press, 1988, p. 521.
  8. ↑ Aristotle, Politics, 2.1261b; see also Politics, Book III, Part IV (B. Jowett, trans.).
  9. ↑ Michael Young, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2033: An Essay on Education and Inequality. Thames & Hudson, 1958.
  10. ↑ M.A. Scully, “Meritocracy,” Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 2014.
  11. ↑ Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press, 2014, p. 297.
  12. ↑ Jonathan J.B. Mijs, “The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand,” Socio-Economic Review, 19(1), 2021, pp. 7–35.
  13. ↑ Jo Littler, Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility. Routledge, 2018, pp. 8–10.
  14. ↑ Andy Furlong and Fred Cartmel, Higher Education and Social Justice. Open University Press, 2009.
  15. ↑ Michael Young, “Down with meritocracy,” The Guardian, 28 June 2001.
  16. ↑ Online Etymology Dictionary, “meritocracy,” accessed 3 July 2013.
  17. ↑ Michael Kazin, Rebecca Edwards, and Adam Rothman (eds.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, 2010, p. 142.
  18. ↑ Mary Evelyn Tucker, “Touching the Depths of Things: Cultivating Nature in East Asia,” in Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities. Harvard Divinity School, 2009, p. 51.
  19. ↑ For a modern discussion of epistemic arguments about rule by the wise, see David Estlund, “Why Not Epistocracy?,” in Political and Legal Philosophy discussions (2003).
  20. ↑ Claire Alkouatli, Islam. Marshall Cavendish, 2007, p. 44.
  21. ↑ University of Houston, Digital History, “Civil Service Reform” (Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act overview), accessed 19 February 2016.
  22. ↑ Sungmoon Kim, “The challenge of Confucian political meritocracy: A critical introduction,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(9), 2020, pp. 1005–1016.
  23. ↑ Daniel A. Bell, The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2016.
  24. ↑ Tongdong Bai, Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case. Princeton University Press, 2019.
  25. ↑ Michael Young, “Down with meritocracy,” The Guardian, 28 June 2001.
  26. ↑ Pope Francis, Laudate Deum, 2023, paragraph 32, accessed 10 June 2024.
  27. ↑ Daniel Markovits, The Meritocracy Trap. Penguin Random House, 2019.
  28. ↑ Michael Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Allan Lane, 2020.
  29. ↑ Satoshi Araki, “Beyond ‘Imagined Meritocracy’: Distinguishing the Relative Power of Education and Skills in Intergenerational Inequality,” Sociology, 57(4), 2023, pp. 975–992.
  30. ↑ William Ayers, To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher. Teachers College Press, 1993, p. 116.
Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Meritocracy&oldid=4057913"