How Meritocracy Entrenches Inequality
by singaporearmchaircritic
In a move that took many industry players by surprise, American regulators recently opened a probe on the hiring practice of JPMorgan Chase in China. Ongoing investigation seeks to establish if the investment bank’s recruitment of the offspring of high-ranking and influential Chinese officials aka “princelings” – one of whom is the son of a former banking regulator, the other the daughter of a now-disgraced railway official – was a quid pro quo for coveted business deals, prohibited under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
What’s the fuss about, you may wonder. Isn’t the hiring of relatives of powerful politicians and well-connected persons of that ilk a time-tested and pervasive practice that extends far beyond China?
Going a step further, you may even, like New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, defend such hiring decisions in a matter-of-factly manner:
… given that many of the children of the elite have some of the best educations and thriving networks of contacts, it is hard to see how businesses are supposed to not seek them out, let alone turn them away. As hard to defend as the phrase may be, it is a reality of life, “It’s not what you know, but whom you know.”
Being well-connected, of course, doesn’t mean a new hire is “unqualified.” The children of political elite who are educated in top universities are the norm and not the exception. However, by arguing that the princelings are being hired on their own merits and by dressing up their inherited advantages as a “reality of life,” Sorkin has conveniently glossed over the modus operandi of meritocracy.
Meritocracy Unraveled
The fallacies of Sorkin’s argument may be illuminated by our local debate over meritocracy. First of all, the need to revamp the concept by adding adjectives to it is, in itself, telling of the pitfalls of meritocracy. For instance, “fair” meritocracy connotes that meritocracy can be unfair; “compassionate” meritocracy underscores how meritocracy may breed a sense of self-entitlement or elitism; “unfettered” meritocracy implies that meritocracy itself has to be restrained.
How is meritocracy unfair? Kenneth Paul Tan explains in “Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City,”
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.
Meritocracy, defined as a system that rewards according to ability or achievement and not birth or privilege, may be unfair precisely because it is blind to differences of class, wealth and social status.
Under Singapore’s education system, for instance, the concentration of good schools in well-to-do neighborhoods and the greater means affluent families have for tuition programs clearly afford the rich an edge over the less so (Donald Low, “Good Meritocracy, Bad Meritocracy”). This is to say that between two equally intelligent children, one from a poor family and another from a rich background, the former has a lower chance of gaining entry into good schools.
Such a passive blindness to differences in the name of meritocracy already aggravates inequality. What is worse, however, is a policy that actively reinforces inherited advantages. A fine example of this is the preferential access to schools given to children of alumni. No wonder experts have found that Singapore’s education system has the proclivity to stifle intergenerational mobility.
Meritocracy, therefore, may be unfair and perpetuate inequality in two ways: (1) by simply disregarding class, wealth or status differences on the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) by deepening differences through discrimination against the less privileged.
If life is one big competition for resources, (1) is akin to inadvertently giving the rich and privileged a head start in the race, whereas (2) is like deliberately installing obstacles in the way of the disadvantaged.
How does meritocracy that purportedly reward in accordance with one’s ability degenerate into a system that recompenses based on one’s birth and wealth?
This has to do with how meritocracy is defined in a society and who defines it.
From Meritocracy to Nepotism and Elitism
The hiring practice of investment banks currently under scrutiny again proves illustrative.
New York Times reported that JPMorgan initiated a program called “Sons and Daughters” in 2006 to impose proper standards when hiring relatives of China’s ruling elite on a separate track. However, the program subsequently went awry:
… in the months and years that followed, the two-tiered process that could have prevented questionable hiring practices instead fostered them, according to the interviews as well as the confidential government document. Applicants from prominent Chinese families, interviews show, often faced few job interviews and relaxed standards. While many candidates met or exceeded the bank’s requirements, some had subpar academic records and lacked relevant expertise.
In this instance we see clearly how the definition of “merit” has been reduced from stellar paper qualifications, relevant expertise plus apparent familial connections to familial connections above everything else. The best person for the job need not be the brightest. His or her merit lies in “opening doors,” or more explicitly, bringing in business deals, and is rewarded thus.
Now expand this scenario to a society.
Amartya Sen, in “Merit and Justice,” writes that the concept of merit is contingent on our view of a good society. Yet, as Kenneth Paul Tan points out,
… the good society (and therefore its idea of merit) is in fact defined by meritocracy’s winners and their organic intellectuals, who must actively promote their definition in order to gain widespread consensus and support. Control of this definition is vital to the control of future prospects for winning and staying in power.
As with the situation in investment banks, the beneficiaries of a “meritocratic” system define merit in a self-serving manner. In Singapore, where winners not only take all but also possess close to absolute control over the definition of merit via ideological state apparatuses such as the media and education, the dominant discourse that has been drummed into citizens is that our system is inherently just, that inequality is but a reality of life or the inevitable outcome of globalization, and that the poor are responsible for their own plight (contradicting evidence) and therefore undeserving of help.
This set of beliefs was branded as elitism by ESM Goh Chok Tong,
When society’s brightest and most able think that they made good because they are inherently superior and entitled to their success; when they do not credit their good fortune also to birth and circumstance; when economic inequality gives rise to social immobility and a growing social distance between the winners of meritocracy and the masses; and when the winners seek to cement their membership of a social class that is distinct from, exclusive, and not representative of Singapore society – that is elitism.
The Perils of Revolving Doors
Now some of you may ask how does it matter if a person is hired for his connections and background. It helps companies win business deals and make money, doesn’t it?
Yet as this writer astutely argues: if the finance industry has to rely heavily on connections to reap profits, then it is not coming up with innovative products that will be rewarded in an open market. It is merely banking on access to the ruling elite to accumulate wealth. This implies that the financial market is a failing one that requires government intervention.
Furthermore, the finance sector entrenches inequality by closing its doors to individuals who are not well-connected by birth despite being talented and able.
In the case of America, the “upper crust passes on their connections to their kids, who then use said connections to acquire a position in finance or some other field where connections are rewarded. The rare person from the middle or lower class who manages to get a foot in the door quickly gets assimilated, using the connections he built during his rise to help his children … Finance becomes the near-exclusive playground of the already-wealthy” (source).
The cost of this market externality, caused by the self-interested behavior of one particular sector, is unfairly borne by the entire society.
If nepotism in the guise of meritocracy in one sector already produces inequality, imagine the ramifications if the entire society embraces and even celebrates meritocracy in an uncritical manner.
The sense of entitlement of the privileged class means it will resist any redistributive policies – a progressive tax system, more generous social handouts, and higher government expenditure on education etc. – to rein in widening inequality. We can all see this is already happening in Singapore.
terrific piece
Thanks!
[…] Under Singapore’s education system, for instance, the concentration of good schools in well-to-do neighborhoods and the greater means affluent families have for tuition programs clearly afford the rich an edge over the less so (Donald Low, “Good Meritocracy, Bad Meritocracy”). This is to say that between two equally intelligent children, one from a poor family and another from a rich background, the former has a lower chance of gaining entry into good schools. Such a passive blindness to differences in the name of meritocracy already aggravates inequality. What is worse, however, is a policy that actively reinforces inherited advantages. A fine example of this is the preferential access to schools given to children of alumni. No wonder experts have found that Singapore’s education system has the proclivity to stifle intergenerational mobility. Meritocracy, therefore, may be unfair and perpetuate inequality in two ways: (1) by simply disregarding class, wealth or status differences on the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) by deepening differences through discrimination against the less privileged. If life is one big competition for resources, (1) is akin to inadvertently giving the rich and privileged a head start in the race, whereas (2) is like deliberately installing obstacles in the way of the disadvantaged. How does meritocracy that purportedly reward in accordance with one’s ability degenerate into a system that recompenses based on one’s birth and wealth? … Amartya Sen, in “Merit and Justice,” writes that the concept of merit is contingent on our view of a good society. Yet, as Kenneth Paul Tan points out, … the good society (and therefore its idea of merit) is in fact defined by meritocracy’s winners and their organic intellectuals, who must actively promote their definition in order to gain widespread consensus and support. Control of this definition is vital to the control of future prospects for winning and staying in power. …In Singapore, where winners not only take all but also possess close to absolute control over the definition of merit via ideological state apparatuses such as the media and education, the dominant discourse that has been drummed into citizens is that our system is inherently just, that inequality is but a reality of life or the inevitable outcome of globalization, and that the poor are responsible for their own plight (contradicting evidence) and therefore undeserving of help. This set of beliefs was branded as elitism by ESM Goh Chok Tong, When society’s brightest and most able think that they made good because they are inherently superior and entitled to their success; when they do not credit their good fortune also to birth and circumstance; when economic inequality gives rise to social immobility and a growing social distance between the winners of meritocracy and the masses; and when the winners seek to cement their membership of a social class that is distinct from, exclusive, and not representative of Singapore society – that is elitism. If nepotism in the guise of meritocracy in one sector already produces inequality, imagine the ramifications if the entire society embraces and even celebrates meritocracy in an uncritical manner. The sense of entitlement of the privileged class means it will resist any redistributive policies – a progressive tax system, more generous social handouts, and higher government expenditure on education etc. – to rein in widening inequality. We can all see this is already happening in Singapore. […]
[…] Click here to view original web page at singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com […]
Here are some examples of questionable “meritocracy’ in Singapore:
1. Nepotism
2. Scholarship for the privileged and already wealthy
3. Fast track promotion
4. NS deferment
5. GRC
6. School admission
They are not unique to Singapore. However, they are far more prevalent and common in Singapore than in other developed countries.
Yes, and in some instances like school admission, a questionable measure of “merit” (i.e. that the parent is an alumnus) is even institutionalized. It is rather disturbing when you think about the assumptions behind this: why should the fact that my father/mother is an alumnus of the school impart to me an advantage over the rest? Eugenics???
Dubious meritocracy is also pervasive on the sub-state level, in companies such as the case of investment banks as mentioned in my blog post.
In Singapore, we also have preferential hiring by nationality, as in foreign managers hiring their countrymen. And this is especially prevalent in the local banking sector: http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/21/singapore-based-banks-under-pressure-to-hire-more-locals/
If foreign managers do prefer their own countrymen for no apparent and valid reason other than they hail from the same country (merit defined in terms of nationality), then we can understand why they keep putting down Singaporeans, accusing us of being undeserving of our job and salary. And our mainstream media is complicit in echoing their views, in part also to justify the government’s ultra-liberal immigration policy.
And because there are no independent unions in Singapore, citizens who lose out to foreigners in these instances have no way to seek redress. When some of us express our frustrations on the internet, we are accused of being “xenophobic”.
The only way to make sure the government hear our voices and heed our displeasure is through our vote.
School administrations also institutionalise nepotism through allowing students from affiliated schools in through more relaxed standards…that isn’t very fair, is it?
[…] Why the Singapore Conversation is still going to be awkward – Singapore Armchair Critic: How Meritocracy Entrenches Inequality – The Independent, Singapore: The Politics of OSC: What […]
For the past year or so I have been a keen follower of the online blogs. In all of my sixty odd years, I have not seen such happenings. The government has never encouraged or nurtured such a forum where citizens expressed opinions and comments of which I must say is of very high standards.
The comments written are very well thought out, researched and profound. I am glad that we have finally arrived at the stage where we see citizens expressing their views never seen before.
This, I think, is a sign that we have come of age. It is time the government recognize the maturing of Singaporeans and encourage more of such forums instead of putting stupid laws to stifle such expressions.
Sock it to them Bloggers….!
Hi Fred,
Thank you for your encouraging words.
It’s evident from the recent controls on online content and the onslaught of propaganda in the mainstream media that old habits die hard, i.e. the ruling party would never promote the freedom of expression as it threatens its hold on power. Nonetheless citizens and netizens should not be cowed into silence. Expressing our views in a responsible and informed manner while pushing the limits is the way to go, be it bloggers or netizens in general.
cheers,
sac
Why must we express “our views in a responsible and informed manner” while they hijack the MSM for propaganda purpose. Do you believe they always express their views in a responsible manner? Case in point – minimum wage, immigration. In many cases, they are far more informed than you and me. Yet they often manipulate information to suit their agenda.
This is not a level playing field. You are fighting a uphill (and losing) battle.
” It is time the government recognize the maturing of Singaporeans and encourage more of such forums..”
Sorry, it ain’t going to happen. If and when they do become “enlighten”, they are sure to lose power shortly after. Singapore does not have a Gorbachev, just a bunch of greedy and power hungry politicians.
Meritocracy ignores one of the strongest human instinct that has helped the survival of the specie, Human Relations. Throughout human history, in every society, every generation, every technological level, the success of an individual hinges upon human relations and not his ability. The best and strongest hunter and gatherer were never rewarded many times more than the weaker of them in the group. To survive in a hostile environment, they needed cooperation of other members and that they could only do so by SHARING. The weaker member was still given more than he or should could produced for the group. Therefore it was never the survival of the fittest but the MOST FITTING.
[…] Meritocracy Entrenches Inequality" Quote: How Meritocracy Entrenches Inequality | Singapore Armchair Critic How Meritocracy Entrenches Inequality In a move that took many industry players by surprise, […]
A relevant article in New York Times:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/the-glass-floor-problem/?_r=0
“It is a stubborn mathematical fact that the top fifth of the income distribution can accommodate only 20 percent of the population. If we want more poor kids climbing the ladder of relative mobility, we need more rich kids sliding down the chutes.
Even the most liberal parents are unlikely to be comfortable with the idea that their own children should fall down the scale in the name of making room for a smarter kid from a poorer home. They invest large amounts of economic, social and cultural capital to keep their own children high up the social scale. As they should: there is nothing wrong with parents doing the best by their children.
The problem comes if institutional frameworks in, say, the higher education system or the labor market are distorted in favor of the powerful — a process the sociologist Charles Tilly labeled “opportunity hoarding.” The less talented children of the affluent are able to defy social gravity and remain at the top of the ladder, reducing the number of places open to those from less fortunate backgrounds.”
[…] And thus, the meritocracy myth is not a tool of seeking equity in a free society, but a deforming myth, because: […]
[…] And thus, the meritocracy myth is not a tool of seeking equity in a free society, but a deforming myth, because: […]
[…] https://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/how-meritocracy-entrenches-inequality/ […]
[…] text used for the reading practice (original blog post here) will also be the basis for the discussion next Monday, on the question “Does meritocracy […]
[…] By singaporearmchaircritic, a blog about politics and policies in Singapore and beyond. This article first appeared here. […]
[…] feels like the fascists are winning, no? The interlockage between business, state, authoritarianism (that’s required to keep this […]
[…] know, in recent years, online discourse on the very concept of meritocracy in Singapore has been linked to income inequality, not […]
[…] feels like the fascists are winning, no? The interlockage between business, state, authoritarianism (that’s required to keep this […]