Wealth, Privilege and Meritocracy

• Historically, Western societies allocated wealth and privilege based on proximity to an elite or ruling class.
• Before the rise of democratic thought in the 17th century, wealth was concentrated among royalty, church leaders, landowners, and wealthy merchants, not commoners.
• Explaining wealth and privilege disparities remains a central issue in modern, egalitarian societies.
• Since the colonial period, the United States has prided itself on being a fair society where individual ability and determination, rather than connections, determine success.
• Early concepts of merit were influenced by Calvinist and Puritan ideas of predestination, where wealth was seen as a sign of God's favor and poverty as God's will, suggesting inequality was natural.
• The United States has historically viewed itself as a democratic system where merit morally justifies wealth disparities.
• Merit provides a rationale for unequal distribution of wealth, attributing it to the determination, intelligence, or hard work of the wealthy (Stille, 2011).
• Despite this, wealth is increasingly concentrated among a small percentage of the population.
• Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal termed the emphasis on meritocracy, rather than equality, as the "American Creed" after studying democracy in the 1940s United States (Myrdal, 1944).
• Merit is often viewed as a universal good, but social benefits are distributed based on varying and conflicting metrics of that goodness.

Historically, Western societies allocated wealth and privilege based on proximity to an elite or ruling class. The United States has historically viewed itself as a democratic system where merit morally justifies wealth disparities. Merit provides a rationale for unequal distribution of wealth.