Retrospective Versus Prospective Meritocracy

This National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Steven N. Durlauf introduces a theoretical framework distinguishing between retrospective and prospective meritocracy. Retrospective meritocracy is defined as a static, backward-looking approach where merit is determined by an individual's inherent characteristics or past achievements, serving as a reward for excellence or a position already secured. In contrast, prospective meritocracy is forward-looking, defining merit functionally based on an individual's comparative contribution to specific social objectives. Using formal economic models, the author demonstrates that these differing conceptions lead to significantly different outcomes in assigning students to schools and workers to jobs. The analysis highlights that each approach requires distinct information sets for policymakers and varies in terms of social efficiency. The paper critically examines how these alternative versions of meritocracy impact public policy, suggesting that the choice between retrospective and prospective definitions has profound implications for educational and labor market structures. Ultimately, the work serves as a foundational analysis for understanding how meritocratic principles can be optimized or misapplied in various societal contexts, urging a reevaluation of merit as a policy desideratum.