Meritocracy - Wikipedia

Meritocracy - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Political system in which capital is assigned on the basis of competence
Part of
a series
on
Politics
and
Political Science
Outline
Index
Category
Primary topics
Outline of political science
Index of politics articles
Politics by country
Politics by subdivision
Political economy
Political history
Political history of the world
Political philosophy
Systems
Anarchy
City-state
Collective leadership
Confessional
Democracy
Dictatorship
Directorial
Federacy
Feudalism
Hybrid regime
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Parliamentary
Presidential
Republic
Semi-parliamentary
Semi-presidential
Prime-ministerial
Assembly-independent
Theocracy
Academic disciplines
Political science
political scientists
International relations
theory
Comparative politics
Election science
Political analysis
Political theory
Policy studies
Political psychology
Political sociology
Public Administration
and
Management
Bureaucracy
street-level
Technocracy
Adhocracy
Organizational theory
Public sector ethics
Policy analysis
Program evaluation
Public budgeting
Public finance
Human resource management in public administration
Nonprofit management
Emergency management
Budget-maximizing model
Bureau-shaping model
Public service
Civil service
Policy
and
Public Policy
Public policy doctrine
Domestic policy
Foreign policy
Civil society
Public interest
Government branches
Separation of powers
Fusion of powers
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Election commission
Political Influence,
Advocacy
Ombudsman
and Constituent Services
Advocacy
Lobbying
and
Government Relations
Direct lobbying
Grassroots lobbying
Policy advocacy
Advocacy group
Lobby register
Public interest law
Amicus curiae
and
Intervention (law)
Community organizing
Constituent Services
Constituency office
Constituent Services in the United States
Ombudsman
Regulations
and
Business-to-Government
Relationships
Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory affairs
Public-private partnerships
Trade association
Professional associations
Industry self-regulation
Government procurement
Public sector marketing
Subseries and Further Concepts
Electoral systems
Elections
voting
Unitarism
Federalism
Government
forms
Governance
Ideology
Culture
Political campaigning
Political parties
Sovereignty
Polity
State
Country
Biology and political orientation
Critique of political economy
Political censorship
Political organisations
Theories of political behavior
Related subjects
Law
Economics
Social Science
Global studies
Area studies
Public relations
Strategic communication
Social work
Urban planning
Urban studies
Peace and conflict studies
Intelligence studies
Sociology
History
Public Health
Health Administration
Business Administration
Environmental studies
Politics portal
Part of the
Politics series
Basic forms of
government
List of forms
List of countries
Source of power
Democracy
rule by many
Demarchy
Direct
Economic
Liberal
Representative
Social
Socialist
Others
Oligarchy
(rule by few)
Anocracy
Aristocracy
Broligarchy
Gerontocracy
Kleptocracy
Kritarchy
Meritocracy
Particracy
Plutocracy
Stratocracy
Technocracy
Theocracy
Autocracy
rule by one
Despotism
Dictatorship
Military dictatorship
Tyranny
Anarchy
(rule by none)
Anarchism
Free association
Stateless
Power ideology
Monarchy
Republic
(socio-political ideologies)
Absolute
Communist
Constitutional
Directorial
Legalist
Parliamentary
Presidential
Semi-presidential
Authoritarian
Libertarian
(socio-economic ideologies)
Anarchism
Colonialism
Communism
Despotism
Distributism
Fascism
Feudalism
Islamism
Socialism
Totalitarianism
Tribalism
Religious
Secular
State religion
Secular state
Separation of church and state
State atheism
Global
Local
(geo-cultural ideologies)
City-state
Intergovernmental organisation
National government
World government
Nationalism
Internationalism
Globalism
Power structure
Unitarism
Unitary state
Empire
Principality
Client state
Associated state
Dependent territory
Dominion
Protectorate
Puppet state
Puppet monarch
Satellite state
Self-governing colony
Tributary state
Buffer state
Vassal state
Viceroyalty
Federalism
Confederation
Devolution
Federation
Superstate
Supranational union
International relations
Small power
Middle power
Regional power
Emerging power
Great power
Superpower
Related
Administrative division
Democracy indices
Democratic transition
Autocratization
Democratisation
Hybrid regimes
Politics portal
Meritocracy
merit
, from
Latin
mereō
, and
-cracy
, from
Ancient Greek
κράτος
kratos
'strength, power') is the notion of a political system in which
economic goods
or
political power
are vested in
individual
people based on ability and talent, rather than wealth or
social class
Advancement in such a system is based on performance, as measured through examination or demonstrated achievement.
Although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the first known use of the term was by sociologist
Alan Fox
in the journal
Socialist Commentary
in 1956.
It was then popularized by sociologist
Michael Dunlop Young
, who used the term in his dystopian political and satirical book
The Rise of the Meritocracy
in 1958.
While the word was coined and popularized as a
pejorative
, its usage has ameliorated. Today, the term is often utilised to refer to social systems in which personal advancement and success primarily reflect an individual's capabilities and merits,
frequently seen as
equality of opportunity
It thus challenges forms of
nepotism
or hereditary aristocracy.
Conceptions
edit
Early conceptions
edit
The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely, as measured by
IQ
or standardized achievement tests".
In government and other administrative systems, "meritocracy" refers to a system under which advancement within the system turns on "merits", like performance, intelligence,
credentials
, and education. These are often determined through evaluations or examinations.
10
page needed
In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of evaluation based on achievement. Like "
utilitarian
" and "
pragmatic
", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader connotation, and is sometimes used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people".
11
This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by
Michael Dunlop Young
in his work
The Rise of the Meritocracy
, who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based
Tripartite System
of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time; he claimed that, in the Tripartite System, "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications".
12
Meritocracy in its wider sense, may be any general act of judgment upon the basis of various demonstrated merits; such acts frequently are described in
sociology
and
psychology
In
rhetoric
, the demonstration of one's merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the
Aristotelian
term
Ethos
. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon
aristocratic
or
oligarchic
structures, rather than in the context of the modern
state
13
14
More recent conceptions
edit
To this day, the origin of the term meritocracy is widely attributed to the British sociologist Michael Young, who used it pejoratively in his book
The Rise of the Meritocracy
. For Young, merit is defined as intelligence plus effort. As a result, he portrays a fictional meritocratic society as a dystopia, in which social stratification is based solely on intelligence and individual merit, which creates a highly competitive and unequal society.
Despite this initial negative connotation, the term meritocracy has gained some positive recognition more recently. As such, it is nowadays applied to merit-based systems of status and reward allocation in distinction to aristocratic or class-based systems, in which inherited factors are the primary determinant for the position of an individual in society.
15
Yet, the concept of meritocracy as a social system has also attracted much criticism. In light of the rising social inequality in the 21st century, scholars have labelled meritocracy a political ideology and an illusion.
16
As
Thomas Piketty
notes in his book
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
"our democratic societies rest on a meritocratic worldview".
17
Accordingly, restricted mobility and the significance of inherited wealth co-exist with the belief in a meritocratic system. Consequently, "the idea of meritocracy has become a key means of cultural legitimation for contemporary capitalist culture",
18
in which wealth and income inequalities are being perpetuated and reproduced.
19
This is supported by recent research which shows that, the more unequal a society, the higher the tendency of members of that society to attribute success to meritocracy rather than non-meritocratic variables such as inherited wealth.
20
This illustrates that the contemporary conception of meritocracy is at least twofold.
21
On the one hand, it describes a social system based on the notion that individuals are rewarded and advance in society as a result of their talent and effort.
15
This conception presupposes
social mobility
and equality of opportunity. On the other hand, meritocracy can be understood as an ideological discourse grounded in different belief systems, that manifest themselves in different forms such as social democratic and neoliberal conceptions of meritocracy.
22
Most Americans, across nearly all demographics, believe college admissions, hiring and promotions should be based on qualifications and performance, not social factors. This is according to a private opinion research survey conducted by think-tank, Populace.
23
The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree. Higher education is an imperfect meritocratic screening system for various reasons, such as lack of uniform standards worldwide,
24
25
lack of scope (not all occupations and processes are included), and lack of access (some talented people never have an opportunity to participate because of the expenses, disasters or war, most especially in
developing countries
, health issues or disability).
26
Etymology
edit
Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was first used pejoratively by sociologist Alan Fox in 1956,
and then by British politician and sociologist
Michael Dunlop Young
in his 1958 satirical essay
The Rise of the Meritocracy
27
28
29
30
Young's essay pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, being the combination of the root of Latin origin "
merit
" (from "
mereō
" meaning "earn") and the Ancient Greek suffix "
-cracy
" (meaning "power", "rule").
31
The
purely
Greek word is
axiocracy
αξιοκρατία
), from
axios
αξιος
, worthy) + "
-cracy
" (
-κρατία
, power).
In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).
32
The essay was based upon the tendency of the then-current governments, in their striving toward intelligence, to ignore shortcomings and upon the failure of education systems to utilize correctly the gifted and talented members within their societies.
33
Young's fictional narrator explains that, on the one hand, the greatest contributor to society is not the "stolid mass" or majority, but the "creative minority" or members of the "restless elite".
34
On the other hand, he claims that there are casualties of progress whose influence is underestimated and that, from such stolid adherence to natural science and intelligence, arises arrogance and complacency.
34
This problem is encapsulated in the phrase "Every selection of one is a rejection of many".
34
It was also used by
Hannah Arendt
in her essay "Crisis in Education",
35
which was written in 1954 and refers to the use of meritocracy in the English educational system. She too uses the term pejoratively. It was not until 1972 that
Daniel Bell
used the term positively.
36
History
edit
Imperial China
edit
Further information:
Chinese Legalism
and
Imperial examinations
Some of the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to
Ancient China
37
38
39
40
The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher
Confucius
, who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests".
41
As the
Qin
and
Han
dynasties developed a meritocratic system in order to maintain power over a large, sprawling empire, it became necessary for the government to maintain a complex network of officials.
42
Prospective officials could come from a rural background and government positions were not restricted to the nobility. Rank was determined by merit, through the
civil service examinations
, and education became the key for social mobility.
42
After the fall of the Han dynasty, the
nine-rank system
was established during the
Three Kingdoms
period.
According to the
Princeton Encyclopedia of American History
43
One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han dynasty adopted
Confucianism
as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run
East India Company
... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.
Ancient Greece
edit
Both
Plato
and
Aristotle
advocated meritocracy, Plato in his
The Republic
, arguing that the wisest should rule, and hence the rulers should be
philosopher kings
44
Islamic World
edit
The
Rashidun caliphate
succession rule was based on meritocracy (Most renown people for their merit would gather in a
Shura assembly
and choose the caliph based on merit). As the first caliph of the Rashidun caliphate,
Abu Bakr
was not a monarch and never claimed such a title; nor did any of his three successors. Rather, their election and leadership were based upon merit.
45
After the reforms of
Mehmed II
, the Ottoman standing army was recruited from the
devşirme
, a group that took Christian subjects at a young age (8–20 yrs): they were converted to Islam, then schooled for administration or the military
Janissaries
. This was a meritocracy which "produced from among their alumni four out of five
Grand Viziers
from this time on".
46
Mehmed II's first grand vizier was
Zaganos Pasha
, who was of
devşirme
background as opposed to an aristocrat,
47
and Zaganos Pasha's successor,
Mahmud Pasha Angelović
, was also of
devşirme
background. It is reported by Madeline Zilfi
48
that European visitors of the time commented "In making appointments, Sultan pays no regard to any pretensions on the score of wealth or rank. It is by merits that man rise.. Among the Turks, honours, high posts and Judgeships are rewards of great ability and good service."
Safavid Persian society was also a meritocracy where officials were appointed on the basis of worth and merit, and not on the basis of birth. It was certainly not an
oligarchy
, nor was it an
aristocracy
. Sons of nobles were considered for the succession of their fathers as a mark of respect, but they had to prove themselves worthy of the position. This system avoided an entrenched aristocracy or a caste society.
49
There are numerous recorded accounts of laymen that rose to high official posts as a result of their merits.
50
And since the Safavid society was meritocratic, government offices constantly felt the pressure of being under surveillance and had to make sure they governed in the best interest of their leader, and not merely their own.
17th century
edit
The concept of meritocracy spread from China to British India during the seventeenth century.
43
The first European power to implement a successful meritocratic civil service was the
British Empire
, in their administration of India: "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism".
43
British colonial administrators advocated the spread of the system to the rest of the
Commonwealth
, the most "persistent" of which was Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in
Guangzhou
China
. Meadows successfully argued in his
Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China
, published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only", and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.
51
This practice later was adopted in the late nineteenth century by the British mainland, inspired by the "Chinese mandarin system".
52
18th century
edit
The
Ashanti
King
Osei Kwadwo
, who ruled from c. 1764 to 1777, began the meritocratic system of appointing central officials according to their ability, rather than their birth.
53
19th century
edit
In 1813,
U.S. Founding Father
and President
Thomas Jefferson
declared that there exists a "
natural aristocracy
of men" whose right to rule comes from their talent and virtue (merit), rather than their wealth or inherited status. He believed a successful republic must establish educational institutions that identify these natural aristocrats and train them to rule.
54
The federal bureaucracy in the United States used the
spoils system
from 1828 until the assassination of United States President
James A. Garfield
by a disappointed office seeker in 1881 proved its dangers. Two years later in 1883, the system of appointments to the United States Federal Bureaucracy was revamped by the
Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act
, partially based on the British meritocratic civil service that had been established years earlier. The act stipulated that government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit, through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons.
55
To enforce the merit system and the judicial system, the law also created the
United States Civil Service Commission
55
In the modern American meritocracy, the president may hand out only a certain number of jobs, which must be approved by the
United States Senate
Australia began establishing public universities in the 1850s with the goal of promoting meritocracy by providing advanced training and credentials. The educational system was set up to service urban males of middle-class background, but of diverse social and religious origins. It was increasingly extended to all graduates of the public school system, those of rural and regional background, and then to women and finally to ethnic minorities.
56
Both the middle classes and the working classes have promoted the ideal of meritocracy within a strong commitment to "mate-ship" and political equality.
57
The British philosopher and polymath
John Stuart Mill
advocated meritocracy in his book
Considerations on Representative Government
His model
was to give more votes to the more
educated
voter. His views are explained in
Estlund
(2003:57–58):
Mill's proposal of plural voting has two motives. One is to prevent one group or class of people from being able to control the political process even without having to give reasons in order to gain sufficient support. He calls this the problem of class legislation. Since the most numerous class is also at a lower level of education and social rank, this could be partly remedied by giving those at the higher ranks plural votes. A second, and equally prominent motive for plural voting is to avoid giving equal influence to each person without regard to their merit, intelligence, etc. He thinks that it is fundamentally important that political institutions embody, in their spirit, the recognition that some opinions are worth more than others. He does not say that this is a route to producing better political decisions, but it is hard to understand his argument, based on this second motive, in any other way.
So, if Aristotle is right that the deliberation is best if participants are numerous (and assuming for simplicity that the voters are the deliberators) then this is a reason for giving all or many citizens a vote, but this does not yet show that the wiser subset should not have, say, two or three; in that way something would be given both to the value of the diverse perspectives, and to the value of the greater wisdom of the few. This combination of the Platonic and Aristotelian points is part of what I think is so formidable about Mill's proposal of plural voting. It is also an advantage of his view that he proposes to privilege not the wise, but the educated. Even if we agreed that the wise should rule, there is a serious problem about how to identify them. This becomes especially important if a successful political justification must be generally acceptable to the ruled. In that case, privileging the wise would require not only their being so wise as to be better rulers, but also, and more demandingly, that their wisdom be something that can be agreed to by all reasonable citizens. I turn to this conception of justification below.
Mill's position has great plausibility: good education promotes the ability of citizens to rule more wisely. So, how can we deny that the educated subset would rule more wisely than others? But then why shouldn't they have more votes?
Estlund goes on to criticize Mill's education-based meritocracy on various grounds.
20th century to today
edit
Singapore
describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.
58
There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population.
59
Singapore has a growing level of tutoring for children,
60
and top tutors are often paid better than school teachers.
60
61
62
Defenders of this system recall the ancient Chinese proverb "Wealth never survives past three
generations
" (
Chinese
富不过三代
), suggesting that the
nepotism
or
cronyism
of elitists eventually will be, and often are, limited by those lower down the hierarchy.
Singaporean academics are continuously re-examining the application of meritocracy as an ideological tool and how it's stretched to encompass the ruling party's objectives. Professor Kenneth Paul Tan at the
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
asserts that "meritocracy, in trying to 'isolate' merit by treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same, can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society, a practice that in fact perpetuates this fundamental inequality. In this way, those who are picked by meritocracy as having merit may already have enjoyed unfair advantages from the very beginning, ignored according to the principle of nondiscrimination".
63
How meritocracy in the Singaporean context relates to the application of
pragmatism
as an ideological device, which combines strict adherence to market principles
without
any aversion to social engineering and little propensity for classical social
welfarism
64
is further illustrated by Kenneth Paul Tan in subsequent articles:
There is a strong ideological quality in Singapore's pragmatism, and a strongly pragmatic quality in ideological negotiations within the dynamics of hegemony. In this complex relationship, the combination of ideological and pragmatic maneuvering over the decades has resulted in the historical dominance of government by the
PAP
in partnership with global capital whose interests have been advanced without much reservation.
65
Within the
Ecuadorian
Ministry of Labor, the Ecuadorian Meritocracy Institute
66
was created under the technical advice of the
Singaporean
government.
With similar objections,
John Rawls
rejects the ideal of meritocracy as well.
67
Confucianism
edit
子曰：有教無類。
The Master said: "In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes."
Analects
15.39 (Legge translation).
Although Confucius claimed that he never invented anything but was only transmitting ancient knowledge (
Analects
7.1
), he did produce a number of new ideas. Many European and American admirers such as
Voltaire
and
Herrlee G. Creel
point to the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with nobility of virtue.
68
Jūnzǐ
君子
, lit. "lord's son"), which originally signified the younger, non-inheriting, offspring of a noble, became, in Confucius's work, an epithet having much the same meaning and evolution as the English "gentleman".
A virtuous commoner who cultivates his qualities may be a "gentleman", while a shameless son of the king is only a "petty person". That Confucius admitted students of different classes as disciples is a clear demonstration that he fought against the feudal structures that defined pre-imperial Chinese society.
69
page needed
Another new idea, that of meritocracy, led to the introduction of the
imperial examination
system in China. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position which would bring wealth and honour to the whole family. The Chinese imperial examination system started in the
Sui dynasty
. Over the following centuries the system grew until finally almost anyone who wished to become an official had to prove his worth by passing a set of written government examinations.
70
Confucian political meritocracy is not merely a historical phenomenon. The practice of meritocracy still exists across China and East Asia today, and a wide range of contemporary intellectuals—from
Daniel Bell
to Tongdong Bai, Joseph Chan, and
Jiang Qing
—defend political meritocracy as a viable alternative to liberal democracy.
71
In
Just Hierarchy
, Daniel Bell and Wang Pei argue that hierarchies are inevitable.
72
Faced with ever-increasing complexity at scale, modern societies must build hierarchies to coordinate collective action and tackle long-term problems such as climate change. In this context, people need not—and should not—want to flatten hierarchies as much as possible. They ought to ask what makes political hierarchies just and use these criteria to decide the institutions that deserve preservation, those that require reform, and those that need radical transformation. They call this approach "progressive conservatism", a term that reflects the ambiguous place of the Confucian tradition within the Left-Right dichotomy.
72
: 8–21
Bell and Wang propose two justifications for political hierarchies that do
not
depend on a "one person, one vote" system. First is raw efficiency, which may require centralized rule in the hands of the competent few. Second, and most important, is serving the interests of the people (and the common good more broadly).
72
: 66–93
In
Against Political Equality
, Tongdong Bai complements this account by using a proto-Rawlsian "political difference principle". Just as Rawls claims that
economic inequality
is justified so long as it benefits those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, so Bai argues that political inequality is justified so long as it benefits those materially worse off.
73
: 102–106
Bell, Wang, and Bai all criticize liberal democracy to argue that government
by
the people may not be government
for
the people in any meaningful sense of the term. They argue that voters tend to act in irrational, tribal, short-termist ways; they are vulnerable to populism and struggle to account for the interests of future generations. In other words, at a minimum, democracy needs Confucian meritocratic checks.
73
: 32–47
In
The China Model
, Bell argues that Confucian political meritocracy provides—and has provided—a blueprint for China's development.
74
For Bell, the ideal according to which China should reform itself (and has reformed itself) follows a simple structure: Aspiring rulers first pass hyper-selective examinations, then have to rule well at the local level to be promoted to positions as the provincial level, then have to excel at the provincial level to access positions at the national level, and so on.
74
: 151–179
This system aligns with what Harvard historian James Hankins calls "virtue politics", or the idea that institutions should be built to select the most competent and virtuous rulers—as opposed to institutions concerned first and foremost with limiting the power of rulers.
75
While contemporary defenders of Confucian political meritocracy all accept this broad frame, they disagree with each other on three main questions: institutional design, the means by which meritocrats are promoted, and the compatibility of Confucian political meritocracy with liberalism.
Institutional design
edit
Bell and Wang favour a system in which officials at the local level are democratically elected and higher-level officials are promoted by peers.
72
: 66–93
As Bell puts it, he defends "democracy at the bottom, experimentation in the middle, and meritocracy at the top."
74
: 151–179
Bell and Wang argue that this combination conserves the main advantages of democracy—involving the people in public affairs at the local level, strengthening the legitimacy of the system, forcing some degree of direct accountability, etc.—while preserving the broader meritocratic character of the regime.
Jiang Qing, by contrast, imagines a tricameral government with one chamber selected by the people (the House of the Commoners
庶民院
), one chamber composed of Confucian meritocrats selected via examination and gradual promotion (the House of Confucian Tradition
通儒院
), and one body made up of descendants of Confucius himself (The House of National Essence
國體院
).
76
Jiang's aim is to construct a legitimacy that will go beyond what he sees as the atomistic, individualist, and utilitarian ethos of modern democracies and ground authority in something sacred and traditional. While Jiang's model is closer to an ideal theory than Bell's proposals, it represents a more traditionalist alternative.
Tongdong Bai presents an in-between solution by proposing a two-tiered bicameral system.
73
: 52–110
At the local level, as with Bell, Bai advocates Deweyan participatory democracy. At the national level, Bai proposes two chambers: one of meritocrats (selected by examination, by examination and promotion, from leaders in certain professional fields, etc.), and one of representatives elected by the people. While the lower house does not have any legislative power per se, it acts as a popular accountability mechanism by championing the people and putting pressure on the upper house. More generally, Bai argues that his model marries the best of meritocracy and democracy. Following Dewey's account of democracy as a way of life, he points to the participatory features of his local model: citizens still get to have a democratic lifestyle, participate in political affairs, and be educated as "democratic men". Similarly, the lower house allows citizens to be represented, have a voice in public affairs (albeit a weak one), and ensure accountability. Meanwhile, the meritocratic house preserves competence, statesmanship, and Confucian virtues.
Promotion system
edit
Defenders of Confucian political meritocracy all champion a system in which rulers are selected on the basis of intellect, social skills, and virtue. Bell proposes a model wherein aspiring meritocrats take hyper-selective exams and prove themselves at the local levels of government before reaching the higher levels of government, where they hold more centralized power.
74
: 151–179
In his account, the exams select for intellect and other virtues—for instance, the ability to argue three different viewpoints on a contentious issue may indicate a certain degree of openness.
74
: 63–110
Tongdong Bai's approach incorporates different ways to select members of the meritocratic house, from exams to performance in various fields—business, science, administration, and so on. In every case, Confucian meritocrats draw on China's extensive history of meritocratic administration to outline the pros and cons of competing methods of selection.
73
: 67–97
For those who, like Bell, defend a model in which performance at the local levels of government determines future promotion, an important question is how the system judges who "performs best". In other words, while examinations may ensure that early-career officials are competent and educated, how is it thereafter ensured that
only
those who rule well get promoted? The literature opposes those who prefer evaluation by peers to evaluation by superiors, with some thinkers including quasi-democratic selection mechanisms along the way. Bell and Wang favour a system in which officials at the local level are democratically elected and higher-level officials are promoted by peers.
72
: 84–106
Because they believe that promotion should depend upon peer evaluations only, Bell and Wang argue against transparency—i.e. the public should not know how officials are selected, since ordinary people are in no position to judge officials beyond the local level.
72
: 76–78
Others, like Jiang Qing, defend a model in which superiors decide who gets promoted; this method is in line with more traditionalist strands of Confucian political thought, which place a greater emphasis on strict hierarchies and epistemic paternalism—that is, the idea that older and more experienced people know more.
76
: 27–44
Compatibility with liberalism and democracy
edit
Another key question is whether Confucian political thought is compatible with liberalism. Tongdong Bai, for instance, argues that while Confucian political thought departs from the "one person, one vote" model, it can conserve many of the essential characteristics of liberalism, such as freedom of speech and individual rights.
73
: 97–110
In fact, both Daniel Bell and Tongdong Bai hold that Confucian political meritocracy can tackle challenges that liberalism wants to tackle, but cannot by itself. At the cultural level, for instance, Confucianism, its institutions, and its rituals offer bulwarks against atomization and individualism. At the political level, the non-democratic side of political meritocracy is—for Bell and Bai—more efficient at addressing long-term questions such as climate change, in part because the meritocrats do not have to worry about the whims of public opinion.
74
: 14–63
Joseph Chan defends the compatibility of Confucianism with both liberalism and democracy. In his book
Confucian Perfectionism
, he argues that Confucians can embrace both democracy and liberalism on instrumental grounds; that is, while liberal democracy may not be valuable for its own sake, its institutions remains valuable—particularly when combined with a broadly Confucian culture—to serve Confucian ends and inculcate Confucian virtues.
77
Critique of political meritocracy
edit
Other Confucians have criticized Confucian meritocrats like Bell for their rejection of democracy. For them, Confucianism does not have to be premised on the assumption that meritorious, virtuous political leadership is inherently incompatible with popular sovereignty, political equality and the right to political participation.
78
These thinkers accuse the meritocrats of overestimating the flaws of democracy, mistaking temporary flaws for permanent and inherent features, and underestimating the challenges that the construction of a true political meritocracy poses in practice—including those faced by contemporary China and Singapore.
79
Franz Mang claims that, when decoupled from democracy, meritocracy tends to deteriorate into an oppressive regime under putatively "meritorious" but actually "authoritarian" rulers; Mang accuses Bell's China model of being self-defeating, as—Mang claims—the
Chinese Communist Party
's authoritarian modes of engagement with the dissenting voices illustrate.
80
He Baogang and Mark Warren add that "meritocracy" should be understood as a concept describing a regime's character rather than its type, which is determined by distribution of political power—on their view, democratic institutions can be built which are meritocratic insofar as they favour competence.
81
Roy Tseng, drawing on the New Confucians of the twentieth century, argues that Confucianism and liberal democracy can enter into a dialectical process, in which liberal rights and voting rights are rethought into resolutely modern, but nonetheless Confucian ways of life.
82
This synthesis, blending Confucians rituals and institutions with a broader liberal democratic frame, is distinct from both Western-style liberalism—which, for Tseng, suffers from excessive individualism and a lack of moral vision—and from traditional Confucianism—which, for Tseng, has historically suffered from rigid hierarchies and sclerotic elites. Against defenders of political meritocracy, Tseng claims that the fusion of Confucian and democratic institutions can conserve the best of both worlds, producing a more communal democracy which draws on a rich ethical tradition, addresses abuses of power, and combines popular accountability with a clear attention to the cultivation of virtue in elites.
Another illustration of the Meritocracy Gap can be seen in the ways that nations, like China, choose to promote many of its government officials. What is very troubling is the ways in which
Princelings
in the Chinese Government contradict the ideas "equal social classes" and "inherent ability" presented in the ideal operations of a meritocratic government.
83
The reality is that four out of the seven Community Party Officials of the Chinese Elite Government are Princelings.
83
It has been widely noted that large numbers of prominent party leaders and families have used their political power to convert state assets into their own private wealth.
83
In reality, the high number of Princelings in Chinese government contradicts the idea of "equal promotion of officials based on ability in a meritocracy government. The high presence of Princelings in Chinese government continues to illustrate that elite corruption still plays a significant role in the convergence and operation of state government.
83
Criticism
edit
By individuals
edit
Michael Young
edit
Michael Young popularized the word "meritocracy" as a pejorative but it was adopted into the English language without the negative connotations that Young intended it to have. It was embraced by supporters of the philosophy. Young expressed his disappointment in the embrace of this word and philosophy by the
Labour Party
under
Tony Blair
in
The Guardian
in an article in 2001, where he states:
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.
84
The Rise and Rise of the Meritocracy
edit
Geoff Dench
in
The Rise and Rise of Meritocracy
(2006) commented that the rise of the meritocracy
was intended to help turn Labour away from meritocracy, by reminding it of the importance of communitarian values. Curiously, though, half a century later we have a Labour government declaring the promotion of meritocracy as one its primary objectives.
85
Chris Hayes
edit
In his 2012 book
Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy
Chris Hayes
argues that the movement towards meritocracy has produced widespread inequality and corruption, which has led to a record decrease in the trust of American institutions.
Pope Francis
edit
In his 2023 apostolic exhortation
Laudate Deum
Pope Francis
referred to "mistaken notions" developed around the concept of meritocracy, warning that
a healthy approach to the value of hard work, the development of one's native abilities and a praiseworthy spirit of initiative is one thing, but if one does not seek a genuine equality of opportunity, 'meritocracy' can easily become a screen that further consolidates the privileges of a few with great power.
86
Books
edit
The Meritocracy Trap
edit
In his 2019 book
The Meritocracy Trap
Daniel Markovits
poses that meritocracy is responsible for the exacerbation of
social stratification
, to the detriment of much of the general population. He introduces the idea of "snowball inequality", a perpetually widening gap between elite workers and members of the middle class. While the elite obtain exclusive positions thanks to their wealth of demonstrated merit, they occupy jobs and oust middle class workers from the core of economic events. The elites use their high earnings to secure the best education for their own children, so that they may enter the world of work with a competitive advantage over those who did not have the same opportunities. Thus, the cycle continues with each generation.
In this case, the middle class suffers decreased opportunities for individual prosperity and financial success. While it is impossible to quantify the exact effects of this social divide on the middle class, the
opioid epidemic
, dramatic rises in "
deaths of despair
87
(suicides, mental health and alcoholism), and lowering life expectancy in these meritocratic societies are often listed as results of it. It is not only the middle class who suffer the negative effects of meritocracy, however. The societal elite have to pay a significant price for their hectic working life. Many admit suffering from physical and mental health issues, inability to sustain a good quality personal life and a lack of time spent with their families. Children of the social elite are often forced into a highly competitive educational environment from a young age, which continues throughout school, university, and into their work life. Through this argument, the author attacks the idea of a meritocracy as a fair means to evaluate and reward the most skilled and hard-working members of society.
Markovits proposes a different approach to meritocracy, one where socioeconomic life conveniences are freely distributed to the people who are sufficiently successful at the things they are doing rather than creating an environment of ongoing competition. He calls for reform of economic roles, organizations and institutions in order to include a wider population and hence narrow the increasing inequality gap by questioning the social hegemony of high-profile workers, and intervening with redistribution of earnings, working hours and social identity on behalf of middle class workers.
88
89
The Tyranny of Merit
edit
In his book
The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?
, the American political philosopher
Michael Sandel
argues that the meritocratic ideal has become a moral and political problem for contemporary Western societies. He contends that the meritocratic belief that personal success is solely based on individual merit and effort has led to a neglection of the common good, the erosion of solidarity, and the rise of inequality. Sandel's criticism concerns the widespread notion that those who achieve success deserve it because of their intelligence, talent and effort. Instead, he argues that this belief is flawed since it ignores the role of luck and external circumstances, such as social and external factors, which are beyond an individual's control.
90
As a consequence, Sandel attributes the increasing gap between economic "winners and losers", the decline of civic engagement and the rise of populism to the meritocratic ideal. In addition, he argues that the promise of meritocracy creates an elite that is disconnected from society and lacks empathy for those, who are left behind. Elite institutions including the Ivy League and Wall Street have corrupted the virtue, according to Sandel, and the sense of who deserves power.
91
Ultimately, the argument of
Michael Sandel
is that "meritocracy today functions less as an alternative to inequality than as its primary justification".
92
Thus, he makes the case for a reconsideration of our understanding of success and the common good including public debates regarding the extent of the
welfare state
. According to Sandel, this entails a deliberation about what constitutes a contribution to the common good and how these ought to be rewarded. Hence, he appeals to move beyond
distributive justice
towards contributive justice, that is "creating conditions to enable everyone to contribute to the common good and to receive honor and recognition for having done so".
92
To this end, he suggest public policies such as more
progressive taxation
to reduce economic inequalities.
90
Imagined Meritocracy
edit
Most of the criticism against meritocracy, including Sandel's argument in "The Tyranny of Merit", treats "meritocracy" as a mechanism that allocates rewards in accordance with one's abilities, but violates
substantive equality
. Casting doubt on this fundamental assumption, the Japanese sociologist Satoshi Araki examined whether economic outcomes are linked to individuals' skills levels in the United States. He found that the economic return to educational qualifications per se was significantly larger than that to cognitive skills and that intergenerational inequality had been substantially formed via credentials rather than abilities - that is why the unfair situation like "side doors" may exist. Araki therefore argues that contemporary America is a typical credential society, where credentialism prevails over skills-based meritocracy, but people are navigated to misbelieve that their society is meritocratic. Calling this situation "imagined meritocracy", he underscores the importance of examining the credential/meritocratic nature of a society by distinguishing the function of educational credentials as such and that of actual abilities both conceptually and empirically lest we mislead scholarly/policy discussion and public debate based on the imagined discourse of meritocracy.
93
Practicality
edit
See also:
Myth of meritocracy
and
Just-world hypothesis
The term "meritocracy" was originally intended as a negative concept.
One of the primary concerns with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit".
94
What is considered as meritorious can differ with opinions as on which qualities are considered the most worthy, raising the question of which "merit" is the highest—or, in other words, which standard is the "best" standard. As the supposed effectiveness of a meritocracy is based on the supposed competence of its officials, this standard of merit cannot be arbitrary and has to also reflect the competencies required for their roles.
The reliability of the authority and system that assesses each individual's merit is another point of concern. As a meritocratic system relies on a standard of merit to measure and compare people against, the system by which this is done has to be reliable to ensure that their assessed merit accurately reflects their potential capabilities.
Standardized testing
, which reflects the meritocratic sorting process, has come under criticism for being rigid and unable to accurately assess many valuable qualities and potentials of students. Education theorist
Bill Ayers
, commenting on the limitations of standardized testing, writes that "standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning".
95
Merit determined through the opinionated evaluations of teachers, while being able to assess the valuable qualities that cannot be assessed by standardized testing, are unreliable as the opinions, insights, biases, and standards of the teachers vary greatly. If the system of evaluation is corrupt, non-transparent, opinionated or misguided, decisions regarding who has the highest merit can be highly fallible.
The level of education required in order to become competitive in a meritocracy may also be costly, effectively limiting candidacy for a position of power to those with the means necessary to become educated. Eight of the nine
Supreme Court of the United States
Justices, for example, attended only
Harvard
or
Yale
and generally only consider clerkship candidates who attended a
top-five university
, while in the 1950s the two universities only accounted for around one fifth of the justices.
96
Similarly, feminist critics have noted that many hierarchical organisations actually favour individuals who have received disproportionate support of an informal kind (e.g. mentorship, word-of-mouth opportunities, and so on), such that only those who benefit from such supports are likely to understand these organisations as meritocratic.
97
Cornell University
economist
Robert H. Frank
rejects meritocracy in his book
Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy
98
He describes how chance plays a significant role in deciding who gets what that is not objectively based on merit. He does not discount the importance of talent and hard work, but, using psychological studies, mathematical formulae, and examples, demonstrates that among groups of people performing at a high level, chance (luck) plays an enormous role in an individual's success.
Undesirable outcomes
edit
Another concern regards the principle of incompetence, or the "
Peter principle
". As people rise in a meritocratic society through the social hierarchy through their demonstrated merit, they eventually reach, and become stuck, at a level too difficult for them to perform effectively; they are promoted to incompetence. This reduces the effectiveness of a meritocratic system, the supposed main practical benefit of which is the competence of those who run the society.
In his book
Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness
(Palgrave, 2012), the philosopher
Khen Lampert
argued that educational meritocracy is nothing but a
post-modern
version of
Social Darwinism
. Its proponents argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. This
social theory
holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by
natural selection
is a model, not only for the development of biological traits in a population, but also as an application for human
social institutions
—the existing social institutions being implicitly declared as
normative
. Social Darwinism shares its roots with early
progressivism
, and was most popular from the late nineteenth century to the end of
World War II
. Darwin only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model normatively to unequal endowments of human ambitions.
See also
edit
Achievement ideology
Civil service entrance examination
Differential Education Achievement
Discrimination of excellence
Educational entrance examination
Elitism
Equality of opportunity
Equality of outcome
Epistemic democracy
Merit, excellence, and intelligence (MEI)
– framework that emphasizes selecting candidates based solely on their merit, achievements, skills, abilities, intelligence and contributions
Merit (Buddhism)
Merit (Christianity)
Ownership society
Social mobility
Technocracy
Notes
edit
This is the history of the meritocracy in the technical sense. The vaguer definition of a meritocracy as a "rule by intelligence" has been applied to many ancient Greek, Indian, Chinese, and Jewish thinkers and statesmen. For example, the Sanhedrin, the legislature of
Ancient Israel
and
Kingdom of Judah
, is sometimes called as an "intellectual meritocracy", in the sense that its members were drawn from religious scribes and not the aristocracy.
99
Appointment was self-perpetuating, however, and new members were chosen personally by existing members.
100
These are not meritocracies in the administrative sense, in which merit is determined objectively as a "tested competency or ability."
101
References
edit
"meritocracy"
Dictionary.com
Archived
from the original on 6 March 2016
. Retrieved
14 February
2016
Littler, Jo (2018).
Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power, and Myths of Mobility
. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 32.
ISBN
978-1-138-88954-5
Fox, Margalit (25 January 2002).
"Michael Young, 86, Scholar; Coined, Mocked 'Meritocracy'
The New York Times
Archived
from the original on 7 November 2016
. Retrieved
19 February
2017
Mijs, Jonathan J.B.; Savage, Mike (2020).
"Meritocracy, Elitism and Inequality"
The Political Quarterly
91
(2):
397–
404.
doi
10.1111/1467-923X.12828
hdl
1765/135370
Sachs-Cobbe, Benjamin (2023).
"Recent Work on Meritocracy"
Analysis
83
(1):
171–
185.
doi
10.1093/analys/anac091
hdl
10023/28168
Allen, Ansgar (1 December 2011).
"Michael Young's The Rise of the Meritocracy: A Philosophical Critique"
British Journal of Educational Studies
59
(4):
367–
382.
doi
10.1080/00071005.2011.582852
ISSN
0007-1005
Chang, C.H. (2017).
"How meritocracy is defined today?: Contemporary aspects of meritocracy"
Recent Issues in Sociological Research
10
(1):
112–
121.
doi
10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-1/8
De Vos, M. (2020). The European Court of Justice and the march towards substantive equality in European Union anti-discrimination law. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 20(1), 62-87.
Levinson, David; Cookson, Peter W.; Sadovnik, Alan R. (2002).
Education and Sociology: An Encyclopedia
. Taylor & Francis. p. 436.
Most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms tested competency and power, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests.
Young (1958)
"Definition of Meritocracy"
Oxford Dictionary
. Oxford University Press. Archived from
the original
on 10 September 2011
. Retrieved
12 September
2011
Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought
. Fontana Press. 1988. p. 521.
Aristot. Pol. 2.1261b
Aristotle, (351 BC)
Politics
. Book Three Part IV. (Jowett, B., Trans)
Scully, M.A. (2014). "Meritocracy".
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management
Panayotakis, C. (2014). "Capitalism, Meritocracy, and Social Stratification: A Radical Reformulation of the Davis-Moore Thesis".
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
73
(1):
126–
151.
doi
10.1111/ajes.12068
Piketty, Thomas (2014).
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
. Harvard University Press. p. 297.
ISBN
978-0674430006
Litter, J. (2018).
Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility
. Routledge. p. 2.
ISBN
978-1-138-88954-5
Piketty, T. (2014).
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
. Harvard University Press.
ISBN
9780674430006
Mijs, J.J.B. (2021). "The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand".
Socio-Economic Review
19
(1):
7–
35.
doi
10.1093/ser/mwy051
Littler, J. (2018).
Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility
. Routledge. pp.
8–
9.
ISBN
978-1-138-88954-5
Littler, J. (2018).
Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility
. Routledge. p. 10.
ISBN
978-1-138-88954-5
"Social Pressure Index - Private Opinion in America"
. Populace.org. 16 May – 24 June 2024.
What's College For?: The Struggle To Define American Higher Education; Zachary Karabell;
ISBN
978-0-465-09152-2
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – May 2008 Volume 5, Number 5 AACSB Accreditation
Furlong, Andy; Cartmel, Fred (1 June 2009).
Higher education and social justice
. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
ISBN
978-0-335-22362-6
Young, Michael
(28 June 2001).
"Down with meritocracy"
The Guardian
Archived
from the original on 3 July 2001
. Retrieved
23 August
2025
Ford, Boris (1992).
The Cambridge cultural history of Britain
. Cambridge University Press. p.
34
ISBN
978-0-521-42889-7
Kamolnick, Paul (2005).
The just meritocracy: IQ, class mobility, and American social policy
. Westport CT: Praeger. p. 87.
ISBN
978-0-275-97922-5
Best, Shaun (2005).
Understanding Social Divisions
. London: Sage. p. 32.
ISBN
978-0-7619-4296-2
"meritocracy" in the Online Etymology Dictionary"
Archived
from the original on 11 September 2016
. Retrieved
3 July
2013
Young, Michael (1958).
The rise of the meritocracy, 1870-2033: An essay on education and inequality
. London: Thames & Hudson. p. 11.
OCLC
3943639
Young (1958)
, p. 13.
Young (1958)
, p. 15.
"Crisis in Education"
Archived
14 October 2013 at the
Wayback Machine
(p. 4).
Littler, Jo (20 March 2017).
"Meritocracy: the great delusion that ingrains inequality"
The Guardian
Archived
from the original on 13 July 2017
. Retrieved
14 July
2017
Kazin, Edwards, and Rothman (2010), 142.
One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China.
Tan, Chung; Geng, Yinzheng (2005).
India and China: twenty centuries of civilization interaction and vibrations
. University of Michigan Press. p. 128.
China not only produced the world's first "bureaucracy", but also the world's first "meritocracy"
Konner, Melvin (2003).
Unsettled: an anthropology of the Jews
. Viking Compass. p.
217
ISBN
9780670032440
China is the world's oldest meritocracy
Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2009). "Touching the Depths of Things: Cultivating Nature in East Asia".
Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities
Harvard Divinity School
: 51.
To staff these institutions, they created the oldest meritocracy in the world, in which government appointments were based on civil service examinations that drew on the values of the Confucian Classics
Sienkewicz, Thomas J. (2003).
Encyclopedia of the Ancient World
. Salem Press. p. 434.
Confucius invented the notion that those who govern should so because of merit and not inherited status, setting in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests.
Burbank and Cooper (2010), 51.
Kazin, Edwards, and Rothman (2010), 142.
See Estlund (2003) for a summary and discussion.
Alkouatli, Claire (2007).
Islam
. Marshall Cavendish.
ISBN
9780761421207
The Ottoman Centuries Lord Kinross
İnalcık, Halil (1991).
"Meḥemmed II"
. In
Bosworth, C. E.
van Donzel, E.
Pellat, Ch.
(eds.).
The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
Volume VI:
Mahk–Mid
. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
ISBN
978-90-04-08112-3
For more on this topic: Madeline C. Zilfi,
Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600–1800)
Roger Savory
Iran under the Safavids
, p. 183.
Sir E. Denison Ross, Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, pp. 219–20.
Bodde, Derke.
"China: A Teaching Workbook"
. Columbia University.
Archived
from the original on 4 January 2012
. Retrieved
5 August
2012
Huddleston, Mark W. Boyer, William W.
The higher civil service in the United States: quest for reform
. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 9-10.
Kevin Shillington
, 1995 (1989),
History of Africa
, New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 195.
"Jefferson, Adams, and the SAT's New Adversity Factor"
The New Yorker
. 23 May 2019.
Archived
from the original on 15 April 2023
. Retrieved
13 April
2023
"Civil Service Reform"
Digital History
University of Houston
Archived
from the original on 12 March 2016
. Retrieved
19 February
2016
Julia Horne, and Geoffrey Sherington, "Extending the educational franchise: the social contract of Australia's public universities, 1850-1890",
Paedagogica Historica
(2010) 46#1 pp 207-227
Miriam Henry (1988).
Understanding Schooling: An Introductory Sociology of Australian Education
. Psychology Press. p. 81.
ISBN
9780203135990
Speech by Singapore Ambassador to France
, 28 August 2008.
Archived
2 March 2012 at the
Wayback Machine
Ngiam Tong Dow (28 October 2006).
"Singapore's elites"
. Little Speck. Archived from the original on 1 November 2006.
"Growing trend of uplifting education business in Singapore"
Free Library and Tuition
. Archived from
the original
on 25 April 2017
. Retrieved
25 October
2016
"$1 billion spent on tuition in one year"
AsiaOne
. Archived from
the original
on 2 January 2017
. Retrieved
25 October
2016
"2015 Private Tuition Rates in Singapore | Epigami Blog"
Epigami Blog
. 21 January 2015. Archived from
the original
on 14 December 2016
. Retrieved
25 October
2016
Tan, Kenneth Paul (January 2008).
"Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore"
International Political Science Review
29
7–
27):
7–
27.
doi
10.1177/0192512107083445
S2CID
143983490
"Opinion | How Singapore is fixing its meritocracy"
Washington Post
Archived
from the original on 14 September 2017
. Retrieved
14 September
2017
Tan, Kenneth Paul (9 December 2011). "The Ideology of Pragmatism: Neo-liberal Globalisation and Political Authoritarianism in Singapore".
Journal of Contemporary Asia
42
(1):
67–
92.
doi
10.1080/00472336.2012.634644
S2CID
56236985
Web page of "Instituto Nacional de Meritocracia de Ecuador"
, 12 March 2013.
Rawls, John (1999).
A Theory of Justice
. Harvard University Press. pp.
91–
92.
Creel, Herlee G.
(1960).
Confucius and the Chinese Way
. New York: Harper & Brothers.
ISBN
0-06-130063-2
{{
cite book
}}
ISBN / Date incompatibility (
help
Chin, Annping
(2008).
Confucius: a Life of Thought and Politics
. Yale University Press.
ISBN
978-0-300-15118-3
Bai, Tongdong (2012).
China: The Political Philosophy of the Middle Kingdom
. Zed Books. pp.
60–
82.
ISBN
978-1-78032-075-5
Kim, Sungmoon (2020). "The challenge of Confucian political meritocracy: A critical introduction".
Philosophy & Social Criticism
46
(9):
1005–
1016.
doi
10.1177/0191453720948380
S2CID
225056920
Daniel A. Bell; Wang Pei (2020).
Just Hierarchy
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bai, Tongdong (2019).
Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Daniel A. Bell (2016).
The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy
. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp.
63–
110,
151–
179.
Hankins, James (2019).
Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy
. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
ISBN
978-0-674-23755-1
Jiang Qing (2013).
A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China's Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN
9780691154602
Joseph Chan,
Confucian Perfectionism: A Political Philosophy For Modern Times
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013).
Kim, Sungmoon (2014).
Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
978-1-107-04903-1
Tan, Sor-hoon (2003).
Confucian Democracy: A Deweyan Reconstruction
. Albany: State University of New York Press.
ISBN
0-7914-5889-X
Mang, Franz (2020).
"Political meritocracy and its betrayal"
Philosophy & Social Criticism
46
(9):
1113–
1126.
doi
10.1177/0191453720948386
S2CID
225056766
He Baogang; Warren, Mark (2020). "Can meritocracy replace democracy? A conceptual framework".
Philosophy & Social Criticism
46
(9):
1093–
1112.
doi
10.1177/0191453720948388
S2CID
225056621
Tseng, Roy (2020). "Political meritocracy versus ethical democracy: The Confucian political ideal revisited".
Philosophy & Social Criticism
46
(9):
1033–
1052.
doi
10.1177/0191453720948398
S2CID
224941702
"Rule of the Princelings"
"Young, Michael,
"Down with meritocracy"
. The Guardian; 28 June 2001"
The Guardian
. 29 June 2001
. Retrieved
16 May
2024
Dench, Geoff (2006).
The Rise and Rise of Meritocracy
. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pope Francis (2023),
Laudate Deum
, paragraphs 32, accessed 10 June 2024
Case, Anne; Angus, Deaton (2020).
Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism
. Princeton University Press.
ISBN
9780691190785
Markovits, Daniel (10 September 2019).
The Meritocracy Trap
. Penguin Random House.
Archived
from the original on 30 April 2021
. Retrieved
30 April
2021
Karma, Roge (2019),
"The Meritocracy Trap, explained"
Vox
archived
from the original on 14 May 2021
, retrieved
30 April
2021
Sandel, M. (2020).
The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?
. Allan Lane.
ISBN
9780241407608
"Michael Sandel: Why the elites don't deserve their status"
UnHerd
Archived
from the original on 19 May 2022
. Retrieved
24 May
2022
Sandel, Michael (2021). "How Meritocracy fuels Inequality - Part I".
American Journal of Law and Equality
(1).
Araki, S. (2023). "Beyond 'Imagined Meritocracy': Distinguishing the Relative Power of Education and Skills in Intergenerational Inequality".
Sociology
57
(4):
975–
992.
doi
10.1177/00380385231156093
S2CID
257382308
Arrow, Bowles and Durlauf.
Meritocracy and Economic Inequality
. Princeton, 1999.
To teach: the journey of a teacher, by William Ayers, Teachers College Press, 1993,
ISBN
0-8077-3985-5
ISBN
978-0-8077-3985-3
, pg. 116
"Death by Degrees"
n+1
. n+1 Foundation, Inc. 25 June 2012.
Archived
from the original on 30 October 2019
. Retrieved
20 January
2015
Laurie, Timothy; Stark, Hannah; Walker, Briohny (2019),
"Critical Approaches to Continental Philosophy: Intellectual Community, Disciplinary Identity, and the Politics of Inclusion"
Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy
30
: 4,
archived
from the original on 11 December 2019
, retrieved
17 February
2019
Princeton University Press, 2016
Elazar, Daniel Judah (1985).
The Jewish polity: Jewish political organization from Biblical times to the present
. Indiana University Press. p. 127.
ISBN
978-0253331564
Novak, David (2005).
The Jewish social contract: an essay in political theology
. Princeton University Press. p. 134.
ISBN
9780691122106
The Sanhedrin were appointed by those who were members when there was a vacancy
Levinson, David; Cookson, Peter W.; Sadovnik, lan R. (2002).
Education and sociology: an encyclopedia
. Taylor & Francis. p. 436.
ISBN
9780815316152
Further reading
edit
Library resources
about
Meritocracy
Resources in your library
Resources in other libraries
Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick. (2010).
Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN
0-691-12708-5
Kazin, Michael, Edwards, Rebecca, and Rothman, Adam. (2010).
The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History Volume 2
. Princeton University Press.
ISBN
0-691-12971-1
Kett, Joseph F.
Merit: The History of a Founding Ideal From the American Revolution to the Twenty-First Century.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012.
ISBN
978-0801451225
Lampert, Khen.
Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness
, Palgrave-Macmillan, UK, 24 December 2012;
ISBN
1137324880
Mulligan, Thomas. (2018).
Justice and the Meritocratic State
. New York: Routledge.
ISBN
9781138283800
Schwarz, Bill. (1996).
The expansion of England: race, ethnicity and cultural history
. Psychology Pres.
ISBN
0-415-06025-7
Sandel, Michael
The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?
. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2020.
ISBN
9780374289980
External links
edit
Wikiquote has quotations related to
Meritocracy
Look up
meritocracy
in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Quinion, Michael
(21 July 2001).
"World Wide Words: Meritocracy"
World Wide Words
. Retrieved
17 February
2016
Bent, Nick.
"Time for a more inclusive and progressive definition of meritocracy"
Progress Online
. Archived from
the original
on 5 June 2008
. Retrieved
17 February
2016
Markovits, Daniel (19 August 2019).
"How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition"
The Atlantic
. Retrieved
26 August
2019
Political philosophy
Authority
Citizenship‎
Duty
Elite
Emancipation
Freedom
Government
Hegemony
Hierarchy
Justice
Law
Legitimacy
Liberty
Monopoly
Nation
Obedience
Peace
People
Pluralism
Power
Progress
Propaganda
Property
Regime
Revolution
Rights
Ruling class
Society
Sovereignty‎
State
Utopia
War
Government
Aristocracy
Oligarchy
Autocracy
Bureaucracy
Dictatorship
Democracy
Ochlocracy
Gerontocracy
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Tyranny
Plutocracy
Republic
Technocracy
Theocracy
Ideologies
Agrarianism
Anarchism
Capitalism
Christian democracy
Colonialism
Communism
Communitarianism
Confucianism
Conservatism
Corporatism
Distributism
Environmentalism
Fascism
Feminism
Feudalism
Hindutva
Imperialism
Islamism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Localism
Marxism
Monarchism
Multiculturalism
Nationalism
Nazism
Populism
Republicanism
Social Darwinism
Social democracy
Socialism
Third Way
Concepts
Balance of power
Bellum omnium contra omnes
Body politic
Clash of civilizations
Common good
Consent of the governed
Divine right of kings
Family as a model for the state
Monopoly on violence
Natural law
Negative and positive rights
Night-watchman state
Noble lie
Noblesse oblige
Open society
Ordered liberty
Original position
Overton window
Separation of powers
Social contract
State of nature
Statolatry
Supermajority
Tyranny of the majority
Philosophers
Antiquity
Aristotle
Chanakya
Cicero
Confucius
Han Fei
Lactantius
Mencius
Mozi
Plato
political philosophy
Polybius
Shang
Sun Tzu
Thucydides
Xenophon
Middle Ages
Al-Farabi
Aquinas
Averroes
Bruni
Dante
Gelasius
al-Ghazali
Ibn Khaldun
Marsilius
Muhammad
Nizam al-Mulk
Ockham
Plethon
Wang
Early modern
period
Boétie
Bodin
Bossuet
Calvin
Campanella
Filmer
Grotius
Guicciardini
Hobbes
political philosophy
James
Leibniz
Locke
Luther
Machiavelli
Milton
More
Müntzer
Pufendorf
Spinoza
Suárez
18th and 19th
centuries
Al-Afghani
Bakunin
Bastiat
Beccaria
Bentham
Bolingbroke
Bonald
Burke
Carlyle
Comte
Condorcet
Constant
Cortés
Engels
Fichte
Fourier
Franklin
Godwin
Haller
Hegel
Herder
Hume
Iqbal
Jefferson
Kant
political philosophy
Le Bon
Le Play
Madison
Maistre
Marx
Mazzini
Mill
Montesquieu
Nietzsche
Owen
Paine
Proudhon
Renan
Rousseau
Sade
Saint-Simon
Smith
Spencer
de Staël
Stirner
Taine
Thoreau
Tocqueville
Tucker
Voltaire
20th and 21st
centuries
Agamben
Ambedkar
Apo
Arendt
Aron
Badiou
Bauman
Benoist
Berlin
Bernstein
Burnham
Chomsky
Dmowski
Du Bois
Dugin
Dworkin
Evola
Fanon
Fisher
Foucault
Fromm
Fukuyama
Gandhi
Gentile
Gramsci
Guénon
Habermas
Hayek
Hoppe
Huntington
Kautsky
Khomeini
Kirk
Kropotkin
Laclau
Lenin
Luxemburg
Mansfield
Mao
Marcuse
Maurras
Michels
Mises
Mosca
Mouffe
Negri
Nozick
Nursi
Nussbaum
Oakeshott
Ortega
Pareto
Popper
Qutb
Rand
Rawls
Röpke
Rothbard
Russell
Sartre
Savarkar
Schmitt
Scruton
Shariati
Sorel
Spann
Spengler
Strauss
Sun
Taylor
Voegelin
Walzer
Weber
Works
Republic
(c.375 BCE)
Politics
(c.350 BCE)
Analects of Confucius
(c.475 BCE-1279 CE)
On the Republic
(51 BCE)
Siyasatnama
(11th century)
Treatise on Law
(c. 1274)
Monarchy
(1313)
Muqaddimah
(1337)
The Prince
(1532)
Leviathan
(1651)
Two Treatises of Government
(1689)
The Spirit of Law
(1748)
The Social Contract
(1762)
Reflections on the Revolution in France
(1790)
Rights of Man
(1791)
Elements of the Philosophy of Right
(1820)
Democracy in America
(1835–1840)
The Communist Manifesto
(1848)
On Liberty
(1859)
The Revolt of the Masses
(1929)
The Road to Serfdom
(1944)
The Open Society and Its Enemies
(1945)
The Origins of Totalitarianism
(1951)
The Wretched of the Earth
(1961)
A Theory of Justice
(1971)
The End of History and the Last Man
(1992)
Related
Authoritarianism
Collectivism and individualism
Conflict theories
Contractualism
Critique of political economy
Egalitarianism
Elite theory
Elitism
History of political thought
Institutional discrimination
Jurisprudence
Justification for the state
Political ethics
Political spectrum
Left-wing politics
Centrism
Right-wing politics
Religion in politics
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Secular state
Separation of church and state
State atheism
Political violence
Separatism
Social justice
Statism
Totalitarianism
Category:Political philosophy
Portals
Politics
Society
Authority control databases
: National
Japan
Czech Republic
Latvia
Retrieved from "
Categories
1950s neologisms
Affirmative action
Political neologisms
Political philosophy
Political systems
Socio-economic mobility
Hidden categories:
Articles containing Chinese-language text
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1: unfit URL
CS1 errors: ISBN date
Articles with short description
Short description matches Wikidata
Use dmy dates from February 2020
Pages using sidebar with the child parameter
Articles containing Latin-language text
Articles containing Ancient Greek (to 1453)-language text
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from May 2019
Articles containing Greek-language text
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from August 2023
Articles containing French-language text
Meritocracy
Add topic