What is a meritocracy?
A meritocracy is a system in which positions of power, status, or advancement are meant to be awarded based on demonstrated ability and achievement, rather than on birth, wealth, or personal connections.
Last reviewed . Not yet independently reviewed.
Core tenets
- Advancement by demonstrated ability
- Positions and rewards are meant to be distributed according to individual talent and effort, assessed through some form of testing, evaluation, or track record.
- Formal equality of opportunity
- The system is meant to give everyone a genuine chance to compete for positions on the basis of merit, rather than restricting eligibility by birth or social class.
- Rejection of inherited privilege as a basis for position
- Family wealth, noble lineage, or personal connections are not meant to be a legitimate basis for holding office or position under a meritocratic ideal.
How it works in practice
Meritocracy functions as both a description of specific selection systems, such as competitive exams, and as a broader ideal that real societies are judged against.
- Competitive examination systems
- Formal tests are used to select candidates for civil service positions or educational advancement, intended to reward demonstrated ability over connections.
- Performance-based advancement
- Promotion within organizations is tied to measured performance and achievement rather than seniority or personal relationships alone.
Common variants
- Educational meritocracy
- Emphasizes competitive academic testing as the primary gateway to advancement.
- Civil service meritocracy
- Emphasizes competitive examination specifically for government administrative positions, historically associated with reforms such as China's imperial examination system.
What it is often confused with
Meritocracy is a principle about how advancement should be allocated, not a specific form of government like a democracy or republic; it can be invoked as an ideal within many different political systems.
Criticisms and debates
Criticism of meritocracy centers on whether real-world systems that claim to reward merit actually succeed in doing so, and on what a pure meritocratic ideal implies about those who do not succeed.
Unequal starting-point critique
Argues that unequal access to education, resources, and preparation before any competition begins means real-world meritocratic systems often reward existing privilege rather than pure ability.
Response: Defenders of the meritocratic ideal argue this is an argument for expanding genuine equality of opportunity earlier in life, not evidence against merit-based selection as the right principle once opportunity is more equal.
Moral-desert critique
Philosopher Michael Sandel and others have argued that meritocratic ideology can foster contempt for those who do not succeed, implying their position is fully deserved regardless of unequal starting circumstances or luck.
Response: Some defenders respond that even an imperfect meritocracy is preferable to systems based explicitly on inherited status, while acknowledging the moral complications Sandel and others raise.
Historical examples
- Imperial Chinese examination system, formalized under the Sui and Tang dynasties
- A widely cited historical example of a civil service selection system based on competitive written examination rather than noble birth.
- Modern civil service exam systems, various countries
- Many governments today use competitive examinations for at least some government hiring, an explicit attempt to implement meritocratic selection.
Sources
- 1.Young, Michael. The Rise of the Meritocracy. 1958.
- 2.Sandel, Michael. The Tyranny of Merit. 2020.
- 3.Encyclopaedia Britannica. Meritocracy.