# The Flaws of Meritocracy

> Some thoughts on the problems of meritocracy.

Some thoughts on the problems of meritocracy.

## Overview

<Meritocracy> refers to the idea that it is good to give opportunities to those who have ability, but there seem to be two problems.

- First, since ability is not visible, a measurable proxy is needed, and if this proxy fails to reflect actual ability (e.g. a Harvard diploma from 20 years ago), the meaning of meritocracy fades. This is why <Lee Jun-seok>-style meritocracy is problematic.
- Second, is it fine if we evaluate ability well? That does not seem to be the case either. Ability tends to concentrate, much like wealth. The higher their parents' social class, the easier it is for children to acquire the abilities needed to belong to that class too. Pure meritocracy, to exaggerate a bit, seems to be nothing more than another expression of the <divine right of kings> (royal authority granted by God passing down through bloodlines).

Then what would be better?

## Two meanings of "good"

I said that meritocracy is the idea that it is "good" to give opportunities to those who have ability, but "good" has two meanings here: "morally right" and "efficient." For now, let us assume these two are orthogonal.

(It is actually hard for these two to be orthogonal, because a morally unjust system is unlikely to be efficient in the long run. This is also why I am a [utilitarian](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Utilitarianism.txt). Without introducing concepts like natural rights or other "moral rights," one can derive conclusions that make intuitive sense from the principle alone that "[the interests of sentient beings should be given equal consideration](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Principle%20of%20equal%20consideration.txt).")

Is it morally right? To begin with, a system in which opportunities are distributed differentially according to one's birth environment, and in which those differences tend to be gradually reinforced over generations, is not morally right.

Is it even efficient? That seems to depend on whether short-term efficiency or long-term efficiency matters more.

- **Short-term efficiency**: If only short-term efficiency matters, then going all-in on meritocracy might be a good idea. Probably for that reason, I often feel that groups focused on short-term performance (e.g. the "typical" startup whose only goal is rapid growth and exit) tend to lean toward meritocracy.
- **Long-term efficiency**: What about groups for which long-term efficiency matters, such as states or large corporations? In a situation where many groups have not had their abilities brought out because of unequal opportunities (the inheritance of ability, the gradual widening of gaps across generations), if meritocracy is used as the standard, then available human resources inevitably cannot be fully utilized, so it is hard to say that long-term efficiency is good. (This is the same logic that <John Stuart Mill> argued in <The Subjection of Women> 150 years ago: roughly half of humanity is female, so if women are discriminated against and not given opportunities, humanity as a whole loses.)

## Striking a balance

Just as <capitalism> needs a balancing feedback loop (<Balancing feedback loop>) in order to stay healthy (e.g. welfare), meritocracy likewise needs that kind of balance in order to stay healthy. Opportunities should be given even to those whose immediately visible ability may be somewhat lacking. If you do not explore and instead go all-in on short-term efficiency, there is no improvement. ([Exploration-exploitation dilemma](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Exploration-exploitation%20dilemma.txt)).

From this perspective, welfare systems, diversity education (<DEI>), affirmative action (<Affirmative action>), and the like are not only means necessary to guarantee rightful entitlements, but also— even if one strips out the values of human rights and morality altogether—essential balancing mechanisms needed to raise long-term efficiency. They are not "systems that bestow favor upon the pitiable" (<paternalistic beneficence>).

Even the <gwageo>, a meritocratic policy of <Joseon>, had a quota system guaranteeing the number of successful preliminary examination candidates by region.

## Meritocracy and licensing systems

Then does that mean a person with markedly insufficient ability should be allowed to become a doctor and perform dangerous surgery?

Just as opposing capitalism does not mean claiming that "everyone must unconditionally have exactly the same property," opposing meritocracy does not mean claiming that "everyone should be able to do anything regardless of ability." What I mean is that an appropriate level of exploration is important, not that "we should only do exploration." In fields with little room for exploration (e.g. cardiac surgery), there should still be things like licensing systems, and I think surgery should be performed by those who are licensed. However, differential support will be needed to guarantee equal learning opportunities (AA, DEI), and if someone has legitimately obtained a license, then discrimination based on their alma mater and the like should be reduced.

What if the skill gap between two individuals with the same license is excessively large? That is not a question of whether to do meritocracy or not, but a question of improving the design of the licensing system.