Michael Sandel, Meritocracy, and the Illusion of Equality

Montse DomínguezMunllonch
Sep 13
43 min read

Michael Sandel, Meritocracy, and the Illusion of Equality

Philosopher Michael Sandel has emerged as one of the most compelling and influential contemporary critics of meritocracy, the notion that individual success is a direct consequence of talent, hard work, and ambition. Long celebrated in liberal democracies as the most just and efficient mechanism for social mobility, meritocracy has shaped policy, education systems, and economic structures for decades. Yet, in his seminal book The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? (2020), Sandel offers a scathing critique of this ideal, arguing that it not only fails to deliver genuine equality of opportunity, but also contributes to a society that is increasingly divided—economically, morally, and politically.

Sandel challenges the empirical validity of meritocracy by pointing to rising income inequality, stagnant social mobility, and entrenched structural barriers that disproportionately affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds. More importantly, he critiques the moral foundations of meritocracy, exposing its tendency to foster hubris among the successful and humiliation among the unsuccessful. The winners, believing they have earned their place entirely through their own merit, often fail to acknowledge the unearned advantages—such as family wealth, social capital, or access to elite education—that have smoothed their path. Meanwhile, those left behind are frequently told that their failure is their own fault, leading to deep social resentment and alienation.

As Sandel (2020) writes:

"Meritocracy has a dark side. It encourages the successful to inhale too deeply of their own success and to look down on those who haven’t flourished." (p. 25)

This critique lands at a moment of profound global reckoning, as societies confront the limits of neoliberal policies, rising populism, and the disillusionment of those who feel excluded from the promise of progress. Sandel argues that we must move beyond a system that rewards only those who succeed by conventional measures, and instead strive for a politics of the common good—one that recognises and values the contributions of all citizens, regardless of their academic credentials or economic output.

Keywords & Hashtags: Michael Sandel, meritocracy, The Tyranny of Merit, equality of opportunity, social mobility, income inequality, common good, #MichaelSandel #Meritocracy #TyrannyOfMerit #SocialMobility #SocialMobility #IncomeInequality #CommonGood #SocialJustice #Philosophy

Introduction– Context: rise of meritocracy as ideology.– Sandel’s intervention.– Thesis: meritocracy is an illusion both empirically and morally.
The Empirical Illusion of Meritocracy– OECD and World Bank data.– Intergenerational mobility.– Colombia and Chile case studies.– Statistical outliers vs. structural barriers.
The Moral Limits of Meritocracy– Sandel’s critique: hubris and humiliation.– Comparison to Rawls (fair equality of opportunity).– Consequences for dignity and solidarity.
Meritocracy and the Crisis of Democracy– Populism and resentment.– Neoliberalism and the politics of winners/losers.– The “rhetoric of rising” and its discontents.
Beyond Meritocracy: Towards the Common Good– Sandel’s alternative vision.– Valuing all contributions (academic, vocational, communal).– Policy implications: education, work, recognition.
Conclusion– Why equality takes generations.– The moral imperative of rethinking success.

1.- Introduction

Over the past half century, “meritocracy” has become one of the dominant organising ideals in modern liberal democracies. The concept rests on the conviction that individual success is the product of talent, effort, and ambition, rather than inherited privilege or structural advantage. In this sense, meritocracy has been hailed as a just and efficient mechanism for allocating social rewards, ensuring that positions of influence and prosperity are filled by the most capable individuals. In education, this principle underpins competitive admissions systems that claim to identify the most deserving candidates; in economics, it legitimises income differentials by presenting them as reflections of merit; and in politics, it sustains the “rhetoric of rising,” the promise that anyone who works hard enough can ascend the social ladder (Markovits, 2019; Sandel, 2020).

Yet, the apparent fairness of meritocracy masks its deep flaws. Far from dismantling inequality, the meritocratic ideal has often entrenched it, creating societies stratified by educational credentials, professional success, and inherited advantage. The winners of meritocratic competition frequently interpret their success as self-earned, disregarding the conditions that enabled their achievements, while those left behind are made to feel that their failures are their own fault (Sandel, 2020). Such dynamics have fostered resentment, social alienation, and political polarisation across much of the democratic world.

Philosopher Michael J. Sandel has emerged as one of the most influential critics of this prevailing ideology. In “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” (2020), Sandel develops a twofold critique of meritocracy: first, he challenges its empirical plausibility by drawing on evidence of declining social mobility and persistent structural inequality; second, he exposes its moral limitations, arguing that it corrodes civic life by fostering hubris among the successful and humiliation among the unsuccessful. In doing so, Sandel raises fundamental questions about the meaning of success, the role of luck in human affairs, and the moral basis of democratic solidarity.

Empirically, meritocracy fails because the promise of equal opportunity rarely matches reality. Research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2018) and the World Bank (2018) demonstrates that intergenerational mobility remains strikingly low in many societies, with the socioeconomic position of parents continuing to determine the prospects of their children. For example, projections suggest that it would take approximately eleven generations for those born in poverty in Colombia to attain average income levels, and around six generations in Chile—figures that highlight the slow pace of social convergence in contexts of high inequality. These patterns contradict the meritocratic narrative that hard work alone is sufficient to escape disadvantage, revealing instead that structural barriers and inherited circumstances remain decisive factors.

Morally, Sandel argues, meritocracy produces a society marked by arrogance at the top and humiliation at the bottom. Those who succeed are encouraged to believe they deserve their elevated status entirely, overlooking the contingencies—such as family wealth, cultural capital, or sheer luck—that have aided their journey. Conversely, those who struggle to advance are often told, explicitly or implicitly, that their failures are solely their responsibility. This dynamic erodes social solidarity, deepens resentment, and undermines the dignity of those excluded from the rewards of meritocratic success (Sandel, 2020).

This article builds on Sandel’s critique to explore the empirical, moral, and political dimensions of meritocracy. It proceeds in five sections. The first examines the empirical illusion of meritocracy by engaging with global data on social mobility, with particular focus on Latin America. The second explores the moral limits of meritocracy, situating Sandel’s arguments in relation to liberal egalitarian thought. The third analyses the political consequences of the meritocratic ethos, particularly its contribution to populist discontent. The fourth turns to Sandel’s constructive alternative: a politics of the common good that values all forms of contribution. The article concludes by reflecting on the long road to equality and the necessity of rethinking the meaning of success in democratic societies.

2.- The Empirical Illusion of Meritocracy

Meritocracy promises a fair allocation of rewards based on individual talent, effort, and ambition. Its central claim is that opportunities are equally open to all, such that social mobility is both possible and frequent. However, mounting empirical evidence suggests that this promise does not align with reality. Far from being a mechanism of equality, meritocracy often operates as an ideology that obscures structural barriers and legitimises existing inequalities. This section examines the empirical shortcomings of meritocracy, with a particular focus on social mobility research, international comparisons, and case studies from Latin America.

Social Mobility and Structural Inequality

Social mobility refers to the capacity of individuals or families to move across social and economic strata over time. A truly meritocratic society would, in principle, exhibit high rates of mobility, since opportunities would be open to all regardless of background. Yet, research consistently finds that socioeconomic origins strongly determine life outcomes. The OECD (2018) famously reported that, across member states, it would take an average of four to five generations for children born in low-income families to reach median income levels. In highly unequal societies, such as those in Latin America, this figure is dramatically higher.

The persistence of inequality across generations illustrates what has been termed the “Great Gatsby Curve” (Corak, 2013). This concept highlights the correlation between income inequality and intergenerational immobility: countries with greater inequality tend to exhibit lower rates of mobility. The implication is straightforward: the more unequal a society, the less likely individuals can rise above the circumstances of their birth. Meritocracy, therefore, becomes an illusion in contexts where structural disadvantages perpetuate across generations.

The Latin American Case: Colombia and Chile

The World Bank’s landmark report "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility Across Generations Around the World" (2018) provides sobering insights into Latin America. In Colombia, the report estimates that it would take approximately eleven generations for children born in the lowest income quintile to reach the average income level, assuming consistent progress. In Chile, the estimate is around six generations. These figures expose the entrenched barriers to mobility in societies marked by high inequality and weak redistributive mechanisms.

Colombia presents a particularly stark case. Despite significant economic growth over the past decades, the country continues to struggle with entrenched disparities in education, health, and employment. Rural-urban divides, coupled with historical patterns of exclusion, create conditions where the opportunities available to individuals are overwhelmingly determined by the circumstances of their birth (Vélez-Grajales & Huertas, 2019). In such a context, the idea that success is a function of merit rather than inherited privilege or structural advantage collapses.

Chile offers an instructive contrast. Following decades of market-oriented reforms, Chile experienced sustained economic growth and reductions in poverty. Yet, intergenerational mobility remains limited, reflecting persistent inequalities in access to quality education and professional opportunities (Torche, 2014). Despite being hailed as a Latin American success story, Chile exemplifies how growth alone does not translate into greater equality of opportunity. Instead, the benefits of growth are unevenly distributed, and upward mobility remains the privilege of a minority.

Comparative Evidence: The United States and Europe

The Latin American experience resonates with findings from other parts of the world. In the United States, long celebrated as the “land of opportunity,” empirical studies have shown that intergenerational mobility is lower than in many European countries. Chetty et al. (2014) demonstrated that the probability of a child born into the bottom quintile of the income distribution reaching the top quintile is less than 10 per cent in the United States, compared to around 13 per cent in Canada and 11 per cent in Denmark. Furthermore, the researchers found that mobility varies dramatically across regions within the United States, with factors such as residential segregation, quality of education, family structure, and social capital playing decisive roles.

In Europe, mobility rates tend to be higher, especially in Scandinavian countries with robust welfare systems and redistributive policies. Yet even here, significant barriers remain. Research indicates that while education systems in Nordic countries provide more equal opportunities, access to elite institutions and top professional positions is still disproportionately skewed towards individuals from advantaged backgrounds (Breen & Jonsson, 2005). Thus, even in contexts that are relatively more egalitarian, the ideal of pure meritocracy remains elusive.

Statistical Miracles and the Myth of Equal Opportunity

One of the enduring rhetorical devices of meritocracy is the celebration of “success stories”: individuals who rise from extreme disadvantage to positions of prominence. These narratives, while inspirational, are statistical outliers rather than the norm. Chetty et al. (2014) emphasise that mobility for most individuals remains constrained by structural conditions. Treating exceptional cases as evidence of a fair system obscures the broader reality of immobility.

Sandel (2020) argues that the prominence of such stories serves a legitimising function for meritocracy. By highlighting the rare individual who defies the odds, societies perpetuate the illusion that opportunities are equally available to all. This obscures the systemic barriers that prevent the majority from advancing. The danger lies in conflating possibility with probability: while it is possible for some to rise against the odds, the probability remains overwhelmingly low. Thus, the few “miracle cases” do not refute the structural nature of inequality but instead underscore its depth.

Education: The Mythical Equaliser?

Education is often presented as the great equaliser in meritocratic societies. Access to quality schooling and higher education is presumed to provide the tools necessary for upward mobility. However, empirical evidence complicates this narrative. Access to elite institutions is strongly correlated with socioeconomic background. In the United States, for example, students from the wealthiest 1 per cent of families are 77 times more likely to attend Ivy League universities than those from the bottom income quintile (Chetty et al., 2017).

Similarly, in Colombia and Chile, access to high-quality secondary and tertiary education remains unequally distributed, with private schooling and universities often serving as gatekeepers to professional success (Torche, 2014). Even when poorer students manage to access higher education, they often face structural disadvantages such as weaker networks, financial burdens, and discrimination in labour markets. Education, far from leveling the playing field, often reproduces existing inequalities.

The Weight of Circumstance

Underlying these empirical findings is a fundamental challenge to the meritocratic ideal: the weight of circumstance. Individuals do not start from a level playing field; rather, they inherit advantages and disadvantages that shape their trajectories long before personal effort or talent can make a difference. Family wealth, parental education, neighbourhood characteristics, and social networks all contribute to unequal life chances (Breen & Jonsson, 2005). These factors highlight the extent to which outcomes are socially structured rather than purely meritocratic.

The persistence of structural inequality calls into question the empirical plausibility of meritocracy. If the circumstances of one’s birth remain the strongest predictor of life outcomes, then the promise of equal opportunity is not realised in practice. Instead, meritocracy functions as a legitimating narrative that obscures the reproduction of privilege across generations.

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly undermines the ideal of meritocracy. Far from offering equal opportunities, societies across the globe continue to exhibit entrenched inequalities that limit mobility and reproduce privilege. In contexts such as Colombia and Chile, the slow pace of convergence highlights how deeply structural barriers are embedded. Even in countries with more robust welfare systems, such as the Nordic states, pure meritocracy remains elusive. Education, often hailed as the pathway to equality, more often serves to reproduce existing hierarchies.

Sandel’s critique resonates strongly with these findings. By exposing the empirical illusion of meritocracy, he demonstrates that the ideology does not deliver on its promise of fairness. Instead, it obscures the persistence of inequality, legitimises privilege, and fosters resentment among those excluded from its rewards. To fully grasp the limitations of meritocracy, however, it is necessary to move beyond the empirical and engage with its moral dimensions—a task to which the next section turns.

3.-The Moral Limits of Meritocracy

If the empirical evidence undermines the plausibility of meritocracy as an organising principle for modern societies, Michael Sandel’s most incisive intervention lies in exposing its "moral limits". For Sandel (2020), the failure of meritocracy is not merely that it promises more than it can deliver, but that it corrupts the moral fabric of democratic life. At its core, meritocracy encourages two corrosive attitudes: hubris among the successful and humiliation among the unsuccessful. Together, these erode the dignity of individuals, undermine solidarity, and foster resentment. To fully grasp this critique, it is helpful to situate Sandel in relation to other theorists of justice, particularly John Rawls, whose principle of "fair equality of opportunity" provides a contrasting framework.

Hubris and the Moral Psychology of Success

Sandel (2020) argues that the meritocratic ethos invites the successful to believe they deserve their success entirely. Because rewards are ostensibly distributed according to effort and ability, those who occupy elite positions are encouraged to see themselves as self-made. This breeds hubris, a form of excessive pride that blinds the successful to the role of luck, contingency, and inherited advantage in their achievements.

Family wealth, social capital, access to elite schooling, supportive networks, and even sheer good fortune all play decisive roles in shaping life outcomes. Yet, under meritocracy, these background factors are downplayed or ignored. The winners come to “inhale too deeply of their own success,” as Sandel puts it (2020, p. 25), attributing their elevated status solely to personal virtue. This perception fosters arrogance, entitlement, and a diminished capacity for empathy towards those less fortunate.

The problem extends beyond individual psychology to societal values. Meritocratic hubris legitimises vast inequalities by suggesting that they are deserved. Wealth, power, and prestige are interpreted not as accidents of birth or systemic advantage but as rightful rewards for superior talent and effort. In such a climate, inequalities lose their moral urgency; they no longer appear as injustices requiring redress but as natural outcomes of fair competition.

Humiliation and the Burden of Failure

The flip side of hubris is humiliation. If the winners believe they fully deserve their success, the losers are left to conclude that their lack of advancement is their own fault. This imposes a burden of failure that corrodes dignity and fuels resentment. In a meritocratic society, those who fall behind cannot attribute their struggles to bad luck or structural disadvantage without undermining the legitimacy of the system itself. Instead, they are told—explicitly or implicitly—that they lack talent, discipline, or ambition.

The psychological effects of this dynamic are profound. Research in sociology and political psychology has shown that feelings of humiliation and status loss are powerful drivers of social alienation and political backlash (Gest, 2016; Hochschild, 2016). Sandel’s account helps explain why many who feel left behind in the new knowledge economy experience not only material deprivation but also moral injury. To be told one’s failures are deserved is to suffer a deeper indignity than economic hardship alone.

This humiliation also corrodes democratic solidarity. Citizens who feel demeaned or excluded are less likely to trust institutions, cooperate across social groups, or sustain commitment to the common good. In this way, the moral logic of meritocracy exacerbates social fragmentation and weakens the bonds that hold democracies together.

Sandel and Rawls: Fair Equality of Opportunity

Sandel’s critique gains further clarity when contrasted with John Rawls’s theory of justice. In "A Theory of Justice" (1971/1999), Rawls argued that a just society must ensure not only formal equality of opportunity—such as the absence of legal barriers—but also "fair" equality of opportunity. This principle requires that individuals with the same talents and motivation should have roughly equal chances of success regardless of their social background. To achieve this, Rawls endorsed significant redistribution of resources, particularly in education, to compensate for the disadvantages of birth.

Rawls’s position reflects a belief that natural talents are arbitrary from a moral point of view. Since no one chooses the circumstances of their birth or their native abilities, these cannot justify inequalities unless they are arranged to benefit the least advantaged. For Rawls, then, the legitimacy of merit depends on the fairness of the background conditions under which it is exercised.

Sandel, however, pushes the critique further. While Rawls aims to reform meritocracy by ensuring fairer conditions of competition, Sandel questions the moral worth of meritocratic competition itself. Even under perfectly fair conditions, Sandel argues, the successful would still be tempted to view their achievements as entirely their own, and the less successful would still be burdened with the stigma of failure. The problem lies not only in unfair starting points but in the moral logic that attaches desert to success in the first place.

In this respect, Sandel exposes a tension within Rawlsian liberalism. While Rawls recognises the moral arbitrariness of talent and social circumstance, his framework still allows inequalities if they arise from the exercise of talents under fair conditions. Sandel challenges this residual deference to merit by questioning whether success should ever be seen as morally deserved. Instead, he insists that luck, contingency, and collective contribution play such central roles that attributing full credit or blame to individuals distorts reality and corrodes solidarity.

Consequences for Dignity

The hubris-humiliation dynamic has profound implications for human dignity. To be dignified is to be recognised as a person of worth, regardless of one’s social position. Yet, meritocracy implicitly ranks dignity by achievement, attaching honour and respect primarily to those with elite credentials and professional success. This hierarchy of esteem demeans those whose contributions lie in less prestigious domains, such as manual labour, caregiving, or service work.

Sandel (2020) argues that this ranking of dignity devalues essential forms of work and fosters a culture in which academic credentials become the primary markers of worth. In the United States, for example, political discourse frequently celebrates college education as the gateway to success, implicitly stigmatising those without degrees. The result is a society divided not only by income but also by recognition, in which many citizens feel excluded from the promise of dignity.

The consequences are visible in rising resentment among working-class communities. When dignity is tied to credentialed success, those without such credentials experience not only economic insecurity but also cultural marginalisation. This fuels alienation and undermines the possibility of shared civic identity.

Consequences for Solidarity

Beyond the individual experience of dignity, the moral logic of meritocracy erodes solidarity. Solidarity depends on recognising the interdependence of citizens and valuing contributions across diverse roles. Meritocracy, by contrast, promotes a competitive ethos in which individuals are ranked and rewarded according to narrow criteria of success.

The political consequences of this erosion are evident in the rise of populist movements across Europe and the United States. Scholars have linked these movements to feelings of status loss, cultural marginalisation, and resentment among those who perceive themselves as demeaned by meritocratic elites (Gest, 2016; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Sandel’s account provides a moral explanation for these phenomena: when societies valorise the winners and stigmatise the losers, solidarity breaks down, and politics becomes fertile ground for resentment.

Sandel’s alternative is a politics of the common good, in which dignity is not tied to meritocratic achievement but recognised across all forms of contribution. This requires revaluing the work of those who care for families, maintain infrastructure, or serve communities—roles essential to collective flourishing yet undervalued by a meritocratic ethos.

Sandel’s moral critique of meritocracy reveals its corrosive effects on both individuals and societies. By fostering hubris among the successful and humiliation among the unsuccessful, meritocracy undermines dignity, corrodes solidarity, and fuels resentment. While Rawls sought to reform meritocracy by ensuring fairer conditions, Sandel challenges the very logic of attributing moral desert to success. His account invites us to rethink the meaning of dignity and to recognise the collective dimensions of human achievement.

The next section explores how these moral dynamics interact with broader political trends, showing how meritocracy contributes to the crisis of democracy and the rise of populist discontent.

Perfect — here’s Section 4: Meritocracy and the Crisis of Democracy (around 1,000 words). It develops the political consequences of meritocracy, linking Sandel’s critique to populism, neoliberalism, and the failures of the “rhetoric of rising.”

4.-Meritocracy and the Crisis of Democracy

The empirical and moral flaws of meritocracy have profound political consequences. Beyond the erosion of dignity and solidarity at the interpersonal level, the meritocratic ethos reshapes democratic life by dividing societies into winners and losers, fuelling resentment, and fostering populist backlash. Michael Sandel (2020) situates this dynamic within the broader context of neoliberalism and its promise of upward mobility through education and hard work—the “rhetoric of rising.” While this rhetoric once animated democratic optimism, its repeated failure to deliver has left many citizens disillusioned, alienated, and open to populist appeals that challenge both political elites and the meritocratic order they represent.

Populism and Resentment

The rise of populism in the twenty-first century is often explained in economic terms: globalisation, deindustrialisation, and technological change have displaced workers and concentrated wealth in urban centres. While these structural shifts are significant, Sandel adds an important moral dimension. The populist backlash is not only a reaction to material deprivation but also to the "humiliation" of being deemed “losers” in a meritocratic competition.

As Gest (2016) and Hochschild (2016) observe, many working-class communities in the United States and Europe feel not only economically marginalised but also culturally disdained. The successful are portrayed as deserving winners, while those who struggle are seen as lacking effort or ability. This moral devaluation creates a fertile ground for resentment. Populist leaders exploit this sentiment by promising to restore dignity and recognition to those who feel demeaned by elites.

The political effects are visible in events such as the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the election of Donald Trump in the United States. In both cases, populist rhetoric resonated strongly with communities that had been told for decades that education was the key to success, only to find that the opportunities and recognition promised by the meritocratic order never materialised. Sandel’s framework helps explain why these movements are as much about identity and dignity as about economics.

Neoliberalism and the Politics of Winners and Losers

The meritocratic ethos cannot be understood apart from the neoliberal policies that have dominated much of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on markets, competition, and individual responsibility, has provided fertile soil for meritocratic ideals. The narrative is straightforward: in a global economy, individuals must compete, adapt, and invest in their human capital to succeed. Those who thrive are rewarded, while those who fail are deemed responsible for their own misfortunes (Brown, 2015).

This narrative creates a stark political divide between winners and losers. Winners—those with elite education, high-paying jobs, and cosmopolitan networks—benefit not only from economic gains but also from cultural prestige. Losers—those displaced by globalisation, automation, or declining industries—face not only economic hardship but also a loss of social recognition. The politics of winners and losers thus undermines democratic equality by stratifying citizenship along lines of meritocratic achievement.

Sandel (2020) argues that this stratification fuels the crisis of democracy by hollowing out the sense of shared fate that underpins civic life. When political elites celebrate globalisation and technological innovation without acknowledging the costs borne by particular communities, they deepen the divide between those who flourish in the knowledge economy and those left behind. The result is a politics marked by resentment, mistrust, and polarisation.

The “Rhetoric of Rising” and Its Discontents

At the heart of the meritocratic promise lies what Sandel (2020) calls the “rhetoric of rising": the assurance that anyone who works hard and pursues education can rise as far as their talents take them. This rhetoric has been central to political discourse in liberal democracies, from Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s invocations of opportunity in the United States to similar appeals by centrist leaders across Europe. It affirms the dignity of work and the fairness of reward, offering hope that effort will be justly recognised.

However, the rhetoric of rising rests on a fragile foundation. When mobility is stagnant and opportunities remain unequally distributed, the promise rings hollow. For many, particularly those without access to higher education, the repeated emphasis on rising through education feels less like encouragement and more like condemnation. If one fails to rise, the implication is that one has not worked hard enough or lacked ambition. What was intended as an inspiring message becomes a source of shame and alienation.

This disillusionment fuels both disengagement from politics and attraction to anti-establishment movements. As Norris and Inglehart (2019) argue, the backlash against liberal democracy is partly a cultural reaction to being excluded from the dominant narratives of success and progress. Sandel’s critique adds moral depth to this account by showing how the rhetoric of rising inadvertently demeans those who do not ascend. By valorising upward mobility as the measure of worth, it stigmatises those who remain in working-class roles, despite the indispensability of their contributions.

Democracy Without Solidarity?

The broader consequence of these dynamics is a crisis of democracy itself. Democratic legitimacy depends on a sense of solidarity among citizens, the belief that despite differences in wealth or status, all belong to a common political community. Meritocracy, however, undermines this solidarity by fostering arrogance at the top, resentment at the bottom, and mistrust in between.

When societies are divided into winners and losers, democratic deliberation becomes more difficult. Political debate turns into a contest of blame, with elites attributing failure to lack of effort and populists attributing success to corruption or betrayal. The possibility of constructive dialogue across social divides diminishes, and politics becomes a zero-sum struggle for recognition.

Sandel’s call for a politics of the common good seeks to address this crisis by revaluing the contributions of all citizens. Rather than celebrating only those who “rise,” democratic politics should affirm the dignity of all forms of work and the shared responsibilities of citizenship. Only by moving beyond the rhetoric of rising can democracies rebuild the solidarity necessary for collective self-government.

The crisis of democracy in the early twenty-first century cannot be explained solely in terms of economic dislocation or cultural change. It is also a moral and political crisis rooted in the failures of meritocracy. By dividing societies into winners and losers, legitimising inequalities, and demeaning those who fail to “rise,” the meritocratic ethos undermines solidarity and fuels populist backlash. Neoliberal policies have reinforced this dynamic by framing success as individual responsibility and failure as personal fault.

The “rhetoric of rising,” once a source of democratic optimism, now exacerbates disillusionment by promising what it cannot deliver. For Sandel, the task ahead is to move beyond a politics that rewards only winners and towards one that affirms the dignity of all contributions. This requires not only policy change but also a transformation of moral outlook—a reorientation towards the common good.

The following section explores Sandel’s constructive alternative in greater depth, focusing on his call for a politics of the common good and its implications for rethinking the meaning of success in democratic societies.

5.- Beyond Meritocracy: Towards the Common Good

Michael Sandel’s critique of meritocracy does not end with diagnosis. While his analysis exposes the empirical illusions and moral failings of the meritocratic ethos, his project is ultimately constructive: to articulate an alternative vision of democratic life oriented around the common good. For Sandel (2020), this entails moving away from a society that prizes only those who “rise” to the top of credentialed hierarchies, and towards one that affirms the dignity of all contributions, whether academic, vocational, or communal. Such a reorientation requires not only cultural change but also policy reforms in education, work, and recognition.

Sandel’s Alternative Vision

At the heart of Sandel’s alternative lies a simple but radical proposition: human worth should not be measured by market success or academic credentials. Instead, the good society should recognise the equal dignity of all citizens, regardless of their position in the social hierarchy. This requires resisting the meritocratic temptation to rank individuals by achievement and instead cultivating a civic ethos that values diverse forms of contribution to the collective good.

This vision echoes older republican traditions in which citizenship was understood not merely as a legal status but as a shared practice of contributing to the common life of the community. Unlike liberal individualism, which emphasises rights and opportunities, Sandel’s communitarian perspective stresses mutual obligation, recognition, and solidarity. In this respect, his politics of the common good seeks to restore the bonds frayed by decades of meritocratic competition and neoliberal individualism.

Valuing All Contributions

One of Sandel’s most urgent claims is that societies must revalue work. In meritocratic cultures, esteem and recognition are disproportionately attached to cognitive achievement and credentialed success. Professions requiring advanced degrees—lawyers, doctors, financiers, academics—are celebrated, while the work of tradespeople, care workers, and service employees is often undervalued despite its indispensability.

Sandel (2020) argues that this hierarchy of esteem not only demeans those in less prestigious roles but also distorts collective priorities. A healthy democracy requires teachers, nurses, farmers, mechanics, and countless others whose contributions sustain communal life. Yet when respect is reserved primarily for those who “make it” in the knowledge economy, the social fabric frays. Revaluing vocational and communal contributions is therefore essential to restoring dignity and solidarity.

This revaluation is not merely symbolic. It also involves tangible shifts in how societies allocate resources, structure institutions, and define success. For instance, wages and working conditions for essential workers must reflect their importance to the common good. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the indispensability of care workers, delivery drivers, and sanitation employees became undeniable, yet their social and economic recognition often lagged behind. A politics of the common good would correct this imbalance by aligning respect and reward more closely with genuine social contribution.

Policy Implications: Education

Education is a crucial arena for enacting Sandel’s vision. For decades, political discourse has presented higher education as the primary gateway to success. Leaders across the political spectrum have exhorted citizens to pursue college degrees as the path to dignity and prosperity. While well-intentioned, this message has reinforced the hierarchy of esteem by stigmatising those without degrees as second-class citizens.

Sandel proposes a different orientation. Rather than channeling ever more resources into elite universities that reproduce privilege, societies should invest in broad-based educational opportunities, including vocational training and lifelong learning. Germany’s dual education system, which integrates apprenticeships with classroom instruction, offers a model of how vocational pathways can command social respect and provide stable careers. Such systems affirm that not all valuable contributions require academic credentials and that dignity is not contingent on a university degree.

Policy should also address inequalities in access to quality education. As Chetty et al. (2017) demonstrate, elite institutions disproportionately serve students from wealthy families. A politics of the common good would democratise access, but more importantly, it would dismantle the narrative that equates worth with entry into elite universities. The goal is not merely to open the gates of Harvard or Oxford to a slightly more diverse cohort but to affirm that many forms of education—and many kinds of work—contribute meaningfully to society.

Policy Implications: Work

Work is another key domain where Sandel’s vision translates into practical reform. If dignity should not depend on meritocratic achievement, then all forms of socially valuable labour must be accorded recognition and respect. This requires rethinking wage structures, labour protections, and workplace democracy.

First, wages should better reflect social value. Currently, financial markets reward speculative activities with outsized compensation, while care work, teaching, and manual labour are often poorly remunerated. A politics of the common good would narrow these disparities, ensuring that those who sustain communities and families receive economic rewards commensurate with their contributions.

Second, labour protections must be strengthened. Precarious work, characterised by low pay, insecurity, and lack of benefits, undermines dignity and social solidarity. Policies that guarantee living wages, collective bargaining rights, and robust social safety nets are essential to ensuring that all workers enjoy basic security and respect.

Finally, workplace democracy should be expanded. Giving workers a voice in decision-making—through mechanisms such as works councils, co-determination, or cooperative ownership—enhances recognition by affirming their role as co-creators of value. Such reforms align with Sandel’s emphasis on the common good by fostering shared responsibility and respect in economic life.

Policy Implications: Recognition

Perhaps the most challenging dimension of Sandel’s vision concerns recognition—the ways in which societies express esteem and value. Recognition cannot be legislated in the same way as wages or education policy, but it can be cultivated through cultural change and political leadership.

Political rhetoric plays a central role. The repeated emphasis on the “rhetoric of rising” has, as Sandel (2020) argues, inadvertently demeaned those who do not ascend the meritocratic ladder. Leaders must instead adopt a language of respect that honours all contributions, not only those rewarded by markets or credentials. Civic rituals, public honours, and symbolic recognition can also reinforce the equal dignity of diverse forms of work.

Cultural institutions—media, education, and civil society—have a role in reshaping narratives of success. Celebrating stories of craftsmanship, care, and service alongside entrepreneurial achievement broadens the horizons of dignity. By challenging the narrow equation of worth with market success, societies can foster a more inclusive ethos of recognition.

Sandel’s politics of the common good offers a powerful alternative to the meritocratic order. By revaluing diverse contributions, reforming education and work, and cultivating recognition, societies can move beyond the corrosive hubris and humiliation fostered by meritocracy. This vision does not abolish achievement or deny the role of effort, but it situates individual success within a broader framework of shared responsibility and mutual respect.

The challenge is both cultural and structural. Policies can help redistribute resources and opportunities, but the deeper task is to reorient collective values towards solidarity and the common good. Only by affirming the dignity of all contributions can democracies overcome the divisions of meritocracy and renew the bonds of citizenship.

The final section of this article draws these threads together, reflecting on the long road to equality and the moral imperative of rethinking success in democratic societies.

Conclusions

The critique of meritocracy advanced by Michael Sandel compels us to confront an uncomfortable reality: equality does not arrive swiftly, nor does it flow naturally from the promise of talent and hard work. Instead, as global evidence shows, the path towards greater equality stretches across generations. The World Bank (2018) estimates that it would take eleven generations for those born in poverty in Colombia to reach average income levels, and six generations in Chile. Even in wealthier societies, such as those of the OECD, the average time required to close the gap is four to five generations (OECD, 2018). These figures reveal the stark truth that the circumstances of one’s birth remain the strongest predictor of life outcomes. For most, the promise of meritocracy is not realised within a lifetime, but delayed across decades or centuries.

This slow pace underscores why meritocracy is an illusion. By presenting opportunity as universally accessible and mobility as readily attainable, it obscures the structural inequalities that entrench disadvantage. Worse, it attributes responsibility for failure to individuals rather than to the systems that constrain them. Those who succeed inhale too deeply of their own success, while those who fall short are told they alone are to blame. This dynamic of hubris and humiliation corrodes dignity, fractures solidarity, and feeds resentment.

The moral imperative, therefore, is to rethink what counts as success in democratic societies. If success continues to be defined narrowly—as academic achievement, professional advancement, or market wealth—then dignity will remain stratified, and solidarity will remain fragile. Sandel’s politics of the common good offers an alternative vision: one in which dignity is not contingent on climbing the meritocratic ladder but is inherent in the diverse contributions that sustain collective life. Teachers, carers, farmers, tradespeople, and countless others must be recognised not as “losers” in a competition they never chose, but as indispensable participants in the shared project of democracy.

Such a reorientation requires more than policy reform; it requires a cultural shift. Education systems must affirm the worth of vocational as well as academic paths. Labour markets must align wages and protections more closely with social value. Political leaders must abandon the narrow rhetoric of rising and instead adopt a language of solidarity, honouring all forms of contribution. Above all, societies must resist the temptation to equate human worth with meritocratic success.

The task is urgent. The crises of populism, polarisation, and democratic distrust are not merely political phenomena but moral symptoms of a society that has elevated meritocracy beyond its limits. By rethinking success and affirming the dignity of all citizens, democracies can begin to repair the bonds of solidarity and confront the long generational journey toward equality. A dignified life should not depend on the statistical miracle of escaping the conditions of one’s birth. It should be the right of all citizens, recognised not for their position in a hierarchy of achievement, but for their shared humanity and their contributions to the common good.

By curiosity,

Montse Domínguez i Munllonch

Pic by

https://unsplash.com/photos/statues-of-people-climb-a-ladder-to-the-sky-vRRrOqSztic

References

Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 223–243. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232)

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. NBER Working article Series, 23618. [https://doi.org/10.3386/w23618](https://doi.org/10.3386/w23618)

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553–1623. [https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022](https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022)

Corak, M. (2013). Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 79–102. [https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.79](https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.79)

Gest, J. (2016). The new minority: White working class politics in an age of immigration and inequality. Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2018). A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. OECD Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en)

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (rev. ed.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1971)

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Torche, F. (2014). Intergenerational mobility and inequality: The Latin American case. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 619–642. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043400](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043400)

Vélez-Grajales, R., & Huertas, E. (2019). Intergenerational mobility in Colombia: Evidence from education and labour market outcomes. Revista de Economía del Rosario, 22(1), 63–91. [https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/economia/a.7546](https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/economia/a.7546)

World Bank. (2018). Fair progress? Economic mobility across generations around the world. World Bank Group. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1210-1](https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1210-1)

Books by Michael J. Sandel

Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy’s discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Harvard University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2005). Public philosophy: Essays on morality in politics. Harvard University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Selected Academic Articles

Sandel, M. J. (1984). The procedural republic and the unencumbered self. Political Theory, 12(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591784012001005
Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

#MichaelSandel #TyrannyOfMerit #Meritocracy #CommonGood #EqualityOfOpportunity #SocialMobility #IntergenerationalMobility #IncomeInequality #GreatGatsbyCurve #Neoliberalism #Populism #DemocraticCrisis #Dignity #Solidarity #HubrisAndHumiliation #Recognition #VocationalEducation #CareWork #WorkingClass #RhetoricOfRising #Rawls #FairEqualityOfOpportunity #EducationInequality #LatinAmerica #Colombia #Chile #Europe

SPANISH VERSION

Michael Sandel, la meritocracia y la ilusión de la igualdad

El filósofo Michael Sandel se ha consolidado como uno de los críticos contemporáneos más sugerentes e influyentes de la meritocracia, la idea de que el éxito individual es consecuencia directa del talento, el esfuerzo y la ambición. Durante décadas, y especialmente en las democracias liberales, la meritocracia se ha celebrado como el mecanismo más justo y eficiente para la movilidad social, dando forma a políticas públicas, sistemas educativos y estructuras económicas. Sin embargo, en su obra capital "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?" (2020), Sandel ofrece una crítica incisiva de este ideal: sostiene que no solo no cumple la promesa de una auténtica igualdad de oportunidades, sino que contribuye a una sociedad cada vez más dividida -en lo económico, lo moral y lo político-.

Sandel impugna la validez empírica de la meritocracia señalando el aumento de la desigualdad de ingresos, la movilidad social estancada y las barreras estructurales arraigadas que perjudican de forma desproporcionada a quienes parten en desventaja. Más aún, cuestiona sus fundamentos morales, al poner de relieve su tendencia a alimentar la hubris entre quienes triunfan y la humillación entre quienes no lo hacen. Los "ganadores", convencidos de haber alcanzado su posición exclusivamente por méritos propios, suelen pasar por alto las ventajas no ganadas -riqueza familiar, capital social o acceso a una educación de élite- que allanaron su camino. Mientras tanto, a quienes quedan atrás se les repite a menudo que su fracaso es solo culpa suya, lo que alimenta un profundo resentimiento social y la alienación.

Como escribe Sandel (2020):

"La meritocracia tiene un lado oscuro. Invita a los exitosos a inhalar en exceso su propio éxito y a mirar por encima del hombro a quienes no han prosperado." (p. 25)

Esta crítica llega en un momento de profunda revisión global, cuando las sociedades afrontan los límites de las políticas neoliberales, el auge del populismo y la desilusión de quienes se sienten excluidos de la promesa del progreso. Sandel sostiene que debemos ir más allá de un sistema que recompensa únicamente a quienes triunfan según los parámetros convencionales y, en su lugar, apostar por una política del bien común: una política que reconozca y valore las contribuciones de todos los ciudadanos, con independencia de sus credenciales académicas o su rendimiento económico.

Keywords : Michael Sandel, meritocracia, The Tyranny of Merit, igualdad de oportunidades, movilidad social, desigualdad de ingresos, bien comun, #MichaelSandel #Meritocracy #TyrannyOfMerit #SocialMobility #EqualityOfOpportunity #IncomeInequality #CommonGood #SocialJustice #Philosophy

.................................

1.-Introducción

" Contexto: auge de la meritocracia como ideología.

" La intervención de Sandel.

" Tesis: la meritocracia es una ilusión tanto empírica como moralmente.

2.- La ilusión empírica de la meritocracia

" Datos de la OCDE y el Banco Mundial.

" Movilidad intergeneracional".

" Estudios de caso: Colombia y Chile.

" Casos excepcionales frente a barreras estructurales.

3.-Los límites morales de la meritocracia

" Crítica de Sandel: hubris y humillación.

" Comparación con Rawls (igualdad de oportunidades justa).

" Consecuencias para la dignidad y la solidaridad.

4.- Meritocracia y la crisis de la democracia

" Populismo y resentimiento.

" Neoliberalismo y la política de ganadores/perdedores.

" La retórica del ascenso y su desgaste.

5.-Más allá de la meritocracia: hacia el bien común

" La visión alternativa de Sandel.

" Valorar todas las contribuciones (académicas, profesionales, comunitarias).

" Implicaciones de política: educación, trabajo, reconocimiento.

6.- Conclusión

" Porque la igualdad lleva generaciones.

" El imperativo moral de repensar el éxito.

1. Introducción

En el último medio siglo, la "meritocracia" se ha convertido en uno de los ideales organizativos dominantes de las democracias liberales modernas. El concepto descansa en la convicción de que el éxito individual es fruto del talento, el esfuerzo y la ambición, y no del privilegio heredado ni de la ventaja estructural. En este sentido, la meritocracia se ha presentado como un mecanismo justo y eficiente para asignar recompensas sociales, garantizando que los puestos de poder y prosperidad recaigan en las personas más capaces. En educación, este principio sustenta sistemas de admisión competitivos que afirman identificar a los candidatos "más merecedores"; en economía, legitima las diferencias de ingresos al presentarlas como reflejo del mérito; y en política, mantiene la "retórica del ascenso", la promesa de que cualquiera que trabaje lo suficiente puede subir en la escala social (Markovits, 2019; Sandel, 2020).

Sin embargo, la aparente equidad de la meritocracia oculta defectos profundos. Lejos de desmantelar la desigualdad, el ideal meritocrático a menudo la ha afianzado, generando sociedades estratificadas por credenciales educativas, éxito profesional y ventajas heredadas. Los ganadores de la competencia meritocrática suelen interpretar su éxito como auto-conseguido, desatendiendo las condiciones que lo hicieron posible, mientras que a los perdedores se les hace sentir que su fracaso es culpa exclusiva suya (Sandel, 2020). Estas dinámicas han alimentado el resentimiento, la alienación social y la polarización política en gran parte del mundo democrático.

El filósofo Michael J. Sandel se ha convertido en uno de los críticos más influyentes de esta ideología. En The Tyranny of Merit: What 's Become of the Common Good? (2020), desarrolla una doble crítica: por un lado, cuestiona su plausibilidad empírica apoyándose en pruebas de la caída de la movilidad social y de la persistencia de la desigualdad estructural; por otro, expone sus límites morales, al sostener que corroe la vida cívica al fomentar la hubris entre los exitosos y la humillación entre los que no lo son. Con ello, Sandel plantea preguntas fundamentales sobre el significado del éxito, el papel de la suerte en los asuntos humanos y la base moral de la solidaridad democrática.

En el plano empírico, la meritocracia fracasa porque la promesa de igualdad de oportunidades rara vez coincide con la realidad. Investigaciones de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE, 2018) y del Banco Mundial (2018) muestran que la movilidad intergeneracional sigue siendo muy baja en muchas sociedades: la posición socioeconómica de los padres continúa determinando las perspectivas de los hijos. Por ejemplo, las proyecciones sugieren que en Colombia serían necesarias aproximadamente once generaciones para que quienes nacen en pobreza alcancen los niveles de renta medios, y en Chile alrededor de seis: cifras que evidencian el lento ritmo de convergencia social en contextos de alta desigualdad. Estos patrones contradicen el relato meritocrático de que el trabajo duro basta para escapar de la desventaja, y revelan que las barreras estructurales y las circunstancias heredadas son factores decisivos.

En el plano moral, Sandel sostiene que la meritocracia produce una sociedad marcada por la arrogancia en la cúspide y la humillación en la base. Quienes triunfan son inducidos a creer que merecen íntegramente su posición, obviando contingencias - riqueza familiar, capital cultural o pura suerte - que les han ayudado. A la inversa, quienes no logran ascender suelen escuchar, de forma explícita o implícita, que su situación se debe únicamente a ellos. Esta dinámica erosiona la solidaridad, ahonda el resentimiento y menoscaba la dignidad de quienes quedan excluidos de las recompensas del éxito meritocrático (Sandel, 2020).

Este artículo desarrolla la crítica de Sandel para explorar las dimensiones empíricas, morales y políticas de la meritocracia. Consta de cinco secciones: la primera examina la ilusión empírica a partir de datos globales de movilidad social, con especial atención a América Latina; la segunda explora los límites morales y sitúa los argumentos de Sandel en diálogo con el igualitarismo liberal; la tercera analiza las consecuencias políticas del ethos meritocrático, en particular su contribución al descontento populista; la cuarta expone la alternativa constructiva de Sandel - una política del bien común que valore todas las formas de contribución -; la quinta concluye con una reflexión sobre el largo camino hacia la igualdad y la necesidad de repensar el significado del éxito en las democracias.

2. La ilusión empírica de la meritocracia

La meritocracia promueve una asignación justa de recompensas basada en el talento, el esfuerzo y la ambición. Su alegato central es que las oportunidades están igualmente abiertas a todos y que, por tanto, la movilidad social es posible y frecuente. Sin embargo, la evidencia empírica acumulada desmiente esta promesa. Lejos de ser un mecanismo de igualdad, la meritocracia funciona a menudo como una ideología que oculta barreras estructurales y legitima desigualdades existentes. Esta sección examina sus carencias empíricas con atención a la investigación sobre movilidad social, las comparaciones internacionales y casos latinoamericanos.

Movilidad social e inequidad estructural

La movilidad social alude a la capacidad de individuos o familias para moverse entre estratos socioeconómicos a lo largo del tiempo. Una sociedad verdaderamente meritocrática mostraría, en principio, tasas altas de movilidad, pues las oportunidades no dependen del origen. No obstante, la investigación muestra con consistencia que el origen socioeconómico determina de forma marcada los resultados vitales. La OCDE (2018) informó de que, en promedio, hacen falta entre cuatro y cinco generaciones en sus países miembros para que los hijos de familias con bajos ingresos alcancen la renta mediana. En sociedades muy desiguales, como las latinoamericanas, la cifra es mucho mayor.

Esta persistencia intergeneracional ilustra la llamada "Curva de Gatsby" (Corak, 2013): la correlación entre desigualdad de ingresos y baja movilidad. Cuanta mas desigualdad, menor probabilidad de superar las circunstancias del nacimiento. En estos contextos, la meritocracia deviene una ilusión.

El caso latinoamericano: Colombia y Chile

El informe del Banco Mundial "Fair Progress?" (2018) ofrece datos elocuentes: en Colombia se necesitan unas once generaciones para que quienes nacen en el quintil más bajo alcancen la renta media; en Chile, alrededor de seis. Colombia, pese a su crecimiento, arrastra brechas históricas en educación, salud y empleo, asi como divisiones rural-urbanas que condicionan de partida las oportunidades (Vélez-Grajales & Huertas, 2019). En Chile, a pesar del crecimiento y la reducción de la pobreza, la movilidad intergeneracional sigue siendo limitada por las desigualdades en el acceso a educación de calidad y a oportunidades profesionales (Torche, 2014).

Evidencia comparada: Estados Unidos y Europa

El caso latinoamericano resuena con hallazgos de otras regiones. En Estados Unidos —la "tierra de las oportunidades"— la movilidad es inferior a la de muchos países europeos. Chetty et al. (2014) mostraron que la probabilidad de que un niño nacido en el quintil inferior alcance el superior es inferior al 10 % en EE. UU., frente a aproximadamente 13 % en Canadá y 11 % en Dinamarca. Además, la movilidad varía mucho entre regiones, influidas por segregación residencial, calidad educativa, estructura familiar y capital social. En Europa, las tasas tienden a ser más altas —especialmente en los países nordicos—, pero incluso allí persisten sesgos en el acceso a élites educativas y posiciones profesionales de prestigio (Breen y Jonsson, 2005).

Milagros estadísticos y mito de la "igualdad de oportunidades"

La retórica meritocrática celebra historias de "superación" desde la desventaja extrema. Inspiradoras, si, pero estadísticamente excepcionales. Chetty et al. (2014) subrayan que, para la mayoría, la movilidad está constreñida por condiciones estructurales. Confundir posibilidad con probabilidad oculta la inmovilidad real.

¿La educación como gran igualadora?

La evidencia complica ese relato. El acceso a instituciones de élite se correlaciona con el origen socioeconómico. En EE. UU., los estudiantes del 1 % más rico tienen 77 veces más probabilidades de asistir a la Ivy League que los del quintil inferior (Chetty et al., 2017). En Colombia y Chile, la educación secundaria y superior de calidad sigue distribuyendo de forma desigual, y las redes, las cargas financieras y la discriminacion laboral perpetúan brechas (Torche, 2014).

El peso de las circunstancias

Riqueza familiar, educación de los padres, barrio y redes sociales moldean oportunidades desde muy temprano (Breen y Jonsson, 2005). Si las circunstancias de nacimiento siguen siendo el predictor más fuerte del destino social, la promesa de igualdad de oportunidades no se cumple y la meritocracia opera como narrativa legitimadora de la reproducción del privilegio.

En síntesis, la evidencia global socava la plausibilidad de la meritocracia: lejos de abrir oportunidades iguales, las sociedades reproducen privilegios y perpetúan desventajas.

3. Los límites morales de la meritocracia

Si la evidencia empírica socava la plausibilidad de la meritocracia como principio organizador, la contribución mas incisiva de Sandel está en revelar sus "límites morales". Para Sandel (2020), el fallo no es solo que promete más de lo que ofrece: corrompe el tejido moral de la vida democrática. En su núcleo, fomenta dos actitudes corrosivas: la hubris de los exitosos y la humillación de los no exitosos. Ambas erosionan la dignidad, minan la solidaridad y alimentan el resentimiento.

Hubris y psicología moral del éxito Al atribuir las recompensas al esfuerzo y la capacidad, la meritocracia induce a los ganadores a verse como "hechos a sí mismos", ignorando suerte y ventajas heredadas. La consecuencia es arrogancia, sentimiento de derecho adquirido y menor empatía hacia los demás.

Además de un efecto psicológico individual, la hubris tiene un impacto cultural: legitima las desigualdades como merecidas. En ese clima, riqueza, poder y prestigio se interpretan como premios justos al talento y al esfuerzo, no como resultado de circunstancias arbitrarias.

Humillación y carga del fracaso El reverso de la hubris es la humillación. Si los ganadores creen merecer plenamente su éxito, los perdedores interiorizan que su fracaso es responsabilidad propia. Esta carga socava la dignidad y genera resentimiento social. Para muchos, no se trata solo de privación material, sino de una herida moral: la sensación de no tener valor. La sociología y la psicología política muestran que la humillación y la pérdida de estatus son potentes motores de alienación y de reacciones políticas (Gest, 2016; Hochschild, 2016).

Sandel y Rawls: igualdad justa de oportunidadesLa crítica de Sandel gana claridad al compararse con John Rawls. En A Theory of Justice (1971/1999), Rawls defiende la igualdad de oportunidades "justa": individuos con el mismo talento y motivación deben tener similares posibilidades de éxito con independencia de su origen social. Para lograrlo, Rawls propone redistribución de recursos, sobre todo educativos.

Rawls reconoce que los talentos naturales y la cuna son moralmente arbitrarios, pero aun así admite desigualdades si benefician a los menos aventajados bajo condiciones justas. Sandel va más allá: incluso en un escenario de perfecta igualdad de oportunidades, la lógica meritocrática seguiría produciendo arrogancia en los exitosos y estigmatización de los que no ascienden. En otras palabras, cuestiona el valor moral de vincular "desierto" y éxito.

Consecuencias para la dignidad. La meritocracia jerarquiza la dignidad: honra a quienes acumulan credenciales y éxito profesional, mientras devalúa trabajos esenciales como los cuidados, los oficios manuales o los servicios comunitarios. Sandel (2020) sostiene que esta jerarquía erosiona la autoestima de amplios sectores sociales y margina culturalmente a quienes no encajan en el ideal de "éxito".

Consecuencias para la solidaridadLa solidaridad requiere reconocer la interdependencia y valorar la diversidad de contribuciones. La lógica meritocrática, en cambio, promueve un ethos competitivo y fragmenta a la ciudadanía en ganadores y perdedores. De ahí se nutre la desconfianza y el populismo contemporáneo (Norris & Inglehart, 2019).

En suma, la crítica moral de Sandel muestra como la meritocracia degrada tanto la dignidad individual como la cohesión social. Frente al intento de Rawls de reformarla, Sandel cuestiona la propia lógica de atribuir mérito como base de reconocimiento y justicia.

4. Meritocracia y la crisis de la democracia

Las fallas empíricas y morales de la meritocracia tienen consecuencias políticas profundas. Más allá de erosionar la dignidad y la solidaridad en el plano individual y social, el ethos meritocrático configura la vida democrática al dividir a la sociedad en ganadores y perdedores, alimentar el resentimiento y favorecer la reacción populista. Sandel (2020) sitúa esta dinámica en el marco del neoliberalismo y su promesa de ascenso mediante la educación y el esfuerzo: la llamada "retórica del ascenso". Esa retórica, que antes inspiraba optimismo democratico, se ha convertido en fuente de desilusión al no cumplirse para amplios sectores.

Populismo y resentimientoEl auge del populismo en el siglo XXI suele explicarse en términos económicos: globalización, desindustrialización y cambios tecnológicos han desplazado trabajadores y concentrado riqueza. Pero Sandel añade una dimensión moral: la humillación de ser catalogados como "perdedores" en la competencia meritocrática.

Estudios como los de Gest (2016) y Hochschild (2016) muestran que muchas comunidades trabajadoras en Estados Unidos y Europa no solo se sienten económicamente marginadas, sino culturalmente despreciadas. Los exitosos son celebrados como "ganadores", mientras que quienes no prosperan son vistos como faltos de esfuerzo o talento. Esa desvalorización moral crea un terreno fértil para el resentimiento. Los líderes populistas lo capitalizan prometiendo devolver dignidad y reconocimiento a los excluidos.

Neoliberalismo y política de ganadores/perdedoresLa meritocracia está entrelazada con el neoliberalismo, que prioriza mercados, competencia y responsabilidad individual. En esta lógica, los individuos deben invertir en su "capital humano" y competir en un mundo globalizado. Los que triunfan disfrutan no solo de beneficios económicos, sino de prestigio cultural; los que fracasan sufren no solo privación material, sino desvalorización social. Esta segmentación erosiona la igualdad democrática al estratificar la ciudadanía según logros meritocráticos.

Sandel (2020) advierte que esta división debilita la democracia al vaciar el sentido de destino compartido. Cuando las elites celebran globalización e innovación sin reconocer los costes asumidos por comunidades específicas, profundizan la brecha entre quienes prosperan en la economía del conocimiento y quienes son desplazados. El resultado: polarización, desconfianza y política de resentimiento.

La retórica del ascenso y sus desengañosLa promesa central de la meritocracia es la retórica del ascenso: cualquiera puede prosperar si trabaja duro y estudia. Políticos como Bill Clinton o Barack Obama la popularizaron en EE. UU., y ha inspirado discursos en Europa. Pero cuando la movilidad se estanca y las oportunidades siguen distribuyendo de forma desigual, la promesa se vacía.

Para quienes no acceden a la educación superior, el mensaje deja de ser inspirador y se convierte en condena: si no asciendes, es porque no lo intentaste lo suficiente. Lo que pretende motivar termina estigmatizando, generando vergüenza y exclusión. Este desencanto alimenta tanto el alejamiento de la política institucional como el atractivo de movimientos anti-elitistas (Norris e Inglehart, 2019).

¿Democracia sin solidaridad?La legitimidad democrática requiere solidaridad: la convicción de que, pese a las diferencias, todos comparten una misma comunidad política. La meritocracia socava esa solidaridad al fomentar arrogancia arriba, humillación abajo y desconfianza en medio.

En sociedades divididas en ganadores y perdedores, el debate público se degrada a un intercambio de culpas: las elites atribuyen los fracasos a falta de esfuerzo, los populistas acusan a las elites de corrupción. En ese clima, se rompe la posibilidad de deliberación constructiva.

Sandel propone recuperar una política del bien común, que reconozca y valore todas las contribuciones. En lugar de celebrar solo a los que "ascienden", la democracia debería afirmar la dignidad de todas las formas de trabajo y de la ciudadanía compartida. Solo así puede reconstruirse la solidaridad necesaria para la autogobernanza.

En definitiva, la crisis de la democracia no puede explicarse sólo por cambios económicos o culturales, sino como síntoma moral y político de los límites de la meritocracia. La tarea, según Sandel, es trascender la lógica de ganadores y perdedores y construir una ética cívica centrada en el bien común.

5. Más allá de la meritocracia: hacia el bien común

La crítica de Sandel no se limita al diagnóstico. Su proyecto es también constructivo: articular una visión alternativa de la vida democrática basada en el bien común. Para Sandel (2020), esto implica alejarse de una sociedad que valora únicamente a quienes "ascienden" en jerarquías de credenciales y mercado, y orientarse hacia otra que afirme la dignidad de todas las contribuciones, sean académicas, vocacionales o comunitarias. Esta orientación requiere cambios culturales y reformas de política en educación, trabajo y reconocimiento.

Una visión alternativaLa propuesta central de Sandel es sencilla pero radical: el valor humano no debe medirse por el éxito de mercado ni por las credenciales académicas. La buena sociedad es aquella que reconoce la dignidad igual de todos sus ciudadanos, con independencia de su posición social. Esto exige resistir la tentación meritocrática de jerarquizar a las personas por logros y cultivar una ética cívica que valore la diversidad de aportes al bien común.

Esta visión conecta con tradiciones republicanas que entendían la ciudadanía como una práctica compartida de contribución a la vida colectiva. Frente al individualismo liberal que prioriza derechos y oportunidades, la perspectiva comunitaria de Sandel enfatiza obligación mutua, reconocimiento y solidaridad.

Revalorizar todas las contribuciones Una de sus tesis más urgentes es la necesidad de revalorizar el trabajo. En las culturas meritocráticas, el prestigio y la estima se concentran en las profesiones de alta credencialización (abogados, médicos, financieros, académicos). Mientras, oficios esenciales —cuidados, servicios, artesanía, mantenimiento— son subestimados pese a su carácter indispensable.

Sandel (2020) sostiene que esta jerarquía distorsiona las prioridades colectivas y margina a quienes desempeñan roles esenciales. Las democracias sanas requieren maestros, enfermeras, agricultores, mecánicos y muchos otros. Valorar estas contribuciones es crucial para restaurar dignidad y solidaridad.

Educación: más allá del fetiche universitarioDurante décadas, los discursos políticos han presentado la universidad como la principal vía al éxito. Este mensaje, aunque bien intencionado, refuerza la jerarquía de la estima al estigmatizar a quienes no tienen titulación.

Sandel propone invertir en oportunidades educativas diversas, como la formación profesional y el aprendizaje dual. El sistema dual alemán, que combina formación en aula y prácticas en empresas, es un ejemplo de cómo las trayectorias ocupacionales pueden ser respetadas y estables. No se trata de abrir más puertas a las universidades de élite, sino de reconocer que muchos caminos educativos y laborales tienen igual valor social.

Trabajo: dignidad y reconocimiento Si la dignidad no debe depender de la "ascensión meritocrática", todas las formas de trabajo socialmente valiosas deben ser reconocidas. Esto requiere:

Salarios que reflejen mejor el valor social del trabajo (corrigiendo brechas como la que separa especulación financiera de cuidados esenciales).
Protecciones laborales que garanticen seguridad y respeto en el empleo (salarios dignos, derechos sindicales, protección frente a la precariedad).
Democracia en el trabajo, ampliando la participación de los trabajadores en la toma de decisiones (consejos de empresa, cogestión, cooperativas).

Reconocimiento: un cambio cultural La dimensión más difícil es la del reconocimiento. No puede legislarse del mismo modo que los salarios o la educación, pero si cultivarse mediante cambios culturales y liderazgo político.

Los discursos públicos deben abandonar la retórica del ascenso como única vara de medir y adoptar un lenguaje de respeto hacia todas las formas de contribución. También son importantes los rituales cívicos, los honores públicos y los relatos culturales que celebren oficios, cuidados y servicios al mismo nivel que los logros empresariales o académicos.

SíntesisLa política del bien común que propone Sandel ofrece una alternativa poderosa al orden meritocrático. Revalorizar las contribuciones diversas, reformar educación y trabajo, y cultivar reconocimiento son pasos esenciales para superar la dinámica de hubris y humillación.

No se trata de negar el valor del esfuerzo o de la excelencia, sino de situarlos en un marco de responsabilidad compartida y respeto mutuo. La tarea es tanto estructural (redistribuir recursos, ampliar oportunidades) como cultural (reorientar valores colectivos hacia la solidaridad).

6. Conclusiones

La crítica de Sandel nos obliga a afrontar una realidad incómoda: la igualdad no llega deprisa ni surge de manera natural a partir de la promesa del talento y el esfuerzo. La evidencia global muestra que el camino hacia la convergencia social se mide en generaciones. El Banco Mundial (2018) estima que en Colombia se necesitan once generaciones para que quienes nacen en pobreza alcancen los niveles medios de ingreso, y en Chile alrededor de seis. Incluso en sociedades más ricas, como las de la OCDE, el promedio es de cuatro a cinco generaciones (OCDE, 2018). Estos datos revelan una verdad contundente: el origen de nacimiento sigue siendo el mejor predictor del destino social. Para la mayoría, la promesa meritocrática no se cumple en una vida, sino que se difiere a lo largo de décadas o siglos.

Este ritmo lento explica por qué la meritocracia es una ilusión. Al presentar la oportunidad como universal y la movilidad como alcanzable, oculta desigualdades estructurales y traslada la responsabilidad del fracaso al individuo. Los exitosos inhalan su propio éxito, mientras que los que quedan atrás cargan con la culpa. Esta dinámica corroe la dignidad, rompe la solidaridad y alimenta el resentimiento.

El imperativo moral es repensar qué entendemos por éxito en una democracia. Si lo seguimos definiendo en términos estrechos —credenciales académicas, carrera profesional o riqueza—, la dignidad seguirá estratificada y la solidaridad será frágil. La política del bien común que defiende Sandel ofrece una alternativa: una sociedad en la que maestros, cuidadores, agricultores, trabajadores manuales y tantos otros sean reconocidos no como perdedores de una competición que no eligieron, sino como participantes indispensables en el proyecto común democratico.

Esto exige más que reformas políticas: requiere un cambio cultural. Los sistemas educativos deben prestigiar la formación profesional tanto como la académica. Los mercados de trabajo deben ajustar salarios y protecciones al valor social de cada actividad. Los líderes políticos deben abandonar la retórica del ascenso y adoptar un lenguaje de solidaridad. Sobre todo, debemos resistir la tentación de equiparar el valor humano con el éxito meritocrático.

La tarea es urgente. Las crisis de populismo, polarización y desconfianza en las instituciones no son solo fenómenos políticos, sino síntomas morales de una sociedad que ha llevado la meritocracia más allá de sus límites. Repensar el éxito y afirmar la dignidad de todos los ciudadanos es la condición para recomponer lazos de solidaridad y afrontar el largo camino generacional hacia la igualdad.

Una vida digna no debería depender del milagro estadístico de escapar de las condiciones de nacimiento. Debería ser el derecho de toda ciudadanía, reconocida no por su posición en una jerarquía de logros, sino por su humanidad compartida y su contribución al bien común.