With the recent publication of The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits, there has been a surge in discussions of anti-meritocracy arguments. Of course, anti-meritocracy sentiments are not new, and they range from mild criticisms of the meritocratic system that we have in most Western developed nations today, to the total tear down and radical reform of the system. The former still believes in the principle of meritocracy, with the criticisms mostly directed at the practical deviations from the ideal; while the latter rejects meritocracy even in principle as unjust, and seeks to replace it with something else, usually a form of radical egalitarianism. Here, I do not want to argue for or against meritocracy, but rather I want to look at a major open problem that most anti-meritocracy narratives fail to address adequately in my opinion. Namely, the question of how will a non-meritocratic society produce things at the same efficiency and make progress at the same speed as a more meritocratic one?

Meritocracy in principle is (in part) a mechanism that attempts to optimize group productivity, by creating incentives for each individual to engage in activities that are maximally beneficial to the group. In practice, it is far from perfect. Just as many critics correctly point out, even the most meritocratic societies in the world are prone to some problems of corruption, nepotism, and opportunism. But at least that’s what meritocracy tries to do in theory, and usually it works relatively well. It seems to me that to make the case for a non-meritocratic system, you would have to either replace meritocracy with a similar or better mechanism for production optimization, or explicitly give up some of the speed of progress to prioritize something else more important.

Most anti-meritocracy narratives do not adequately address either of these points. We don’t really have a good idea on what an equal or superior optimization mechanism could look like that can replace meritocracy. But we can at least make some headway on the second point. The egalitarian anti-meritocracy critique, for example, is based on the assumption that equality is the supreme value, and that we must maximize it above all else. This is fine philosophically as long as equality is an end. But if it is merely a means to an end, with the ultimate goal being the improvement of everyone’s wellbeing, then sacrificing productivity and growth seems to be a sub-optimal strategy. In the long run, it may be detrimental, as even small growths can compound over time to yield massive progress.

No system that exists is perfect. Real systems should never be judged against hypothetical ideals, and the benefits of the current system should never be overlooked. Yet often critics of society tend to be guilty of this to some degree, including many who are against meritocracy. Criticisms against meritocracy, even against it as a principle, should absolutely be made, but they should not compare the current flawed meritocracy to some ideal non-meritocratic system that “could be”. For the various anti-meritocracy narratives to gain a more solid footing in discourse, the major question mentioned above, on the cost of eliminating meritocracy, must be addressed.