IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v7y2024i2d10.1007_s42001-024-00287-2.html

Is meritocracy just? New evidence from Boolean analysis and Machine learning

Author

Listed:
  • Khanh Duong

    (Maynooth University)

Abstract

This research explores the paradoxes of meritocracy using two distinct investigations. The first, employing Boolean analysis, uncovers an irony in meritocracy: it is perceived as fair, yet it downplays hard work (the very architect of fairness) and favours talent. It proposes three potential conditions (not necessarily simultaneously) for a logical meritocracy: difference legitimation, absence of genetic constraints on capabilities, or the use of effort as the yardstick for merit. The second investigation, utilizing Machine learning on data from the European Social Survey round 9, underscores that meritocratic equality of opportunities goes hand in hand with the belief in social privilege. This bolsters the viewpoint that belief in meritocracy is associated with social inequality. The research concludes by endorsing the development of a novel form of meritocracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Khanh Duong, 2024. "Is meritocracy just? New evidence from Boolean analysis and Machine learning," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1795-1821, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00287-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-024-00287-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-024-00287-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-024-00287-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paola Belingheri & Filippo Chiarello & Andrea Fronzetti Colladon & Paola Rovelli, 2021. "Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Robert Tibshirani & Guenther Walther & Trevor Hastie, 2001. "Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 411-423.
    3. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2014. "Inference on Treatment Effects after Selection among High-Dimensional Controlsâ€," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(2), pages 608-650.
    4. Sebastian Hülle & Stefan Liebig & Meike Janina May, 2018. "Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 663-692, April.
    5. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    6. Christina Starmans & Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom, 2017. "Why people prefer unequal societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, April.
    7. Frank Busing & Patrick Groenen & Willem Heiser, 2005. "Avoiding degeneracy in multidimensional unfolding by penalizing on the coefficient of variation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 71-98, March.
    8. Miia Bask & Mikael Bask, 2015. "Cumulative (Dis)Advantage and the Matthew Effect in Life-Course Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Guo, Jiaqi & Wang, Qiang & Li, Rongrong, 2024. "Can official development assistance promote renewable energy in sub-Saharan Africa countries? A matter of institutional transparency of recipient countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    3. Tim Munday & James Brookes, 2021. "Mark my words: the transmission of central bank communication to the general public via the print media," Bank of England Staff Working Paper series 944, Bank of England.
    4. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP54/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Chen, Hui & Jia, Yinxu, 2026. "Identifying differential networks through high-dimensional two-sample inference," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Martin Huber & Sarina Joy Oberhansli, 2026. "Difference-in-differences for mediation analysis using double machine learning," Papers 2602.23877, arXiv.org.
    7. Philipp Bach & Victor Chernozhukov & Malte S. Kurz & Martin Spindler & Sven Klaassen, 2021. "DoubleML -- An Object-Oriented Implementation of Double Machine Learning in R," Papers 2103.09603, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    8. Antonelli Joseph & Cefalu Matthew, 2020. "Averaging causal estimators in high dimensions," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 92-107, January.
    9. Yumou Qiu & Jing Tao & Xiao‐Hua Zhou, 2021. "Inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data with high‐dimensional covariates," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 1016-1043, November.
    10. Martin Huber & Jannis Kueck & Mara Mattes, 2026. "Learning and Testing Exposure Mappings of Interference using Graph Convolutional Autoencoder," Papers 2601.05728, arXiv.org.
    11. Agboola, Oluwagbenga David & Yu, Han, 2023. "Neighborhood-based cross fitting approach to treatment effects with high-dimensional data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    12. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    13. Neng-Chieh Chang, 2020. "The Mode Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.11606, arXiv.org.
    14. Andrew B. Martinez, 2020. "Forecast Accuracy Matters for Hurricane Damage," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-24, May.
    15. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    16. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    17. Ricardo P. Masini & Marcelo C. Medeiros & Eduardo F. Mendes, 2023. "Machine learning advances for time series forecasting," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 76-111, February.
    18. Bas Bosma & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2024. "Machine learning in international business," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(6), pages 676-702, August.
    19. Heiler, Phillip, 2024. "Heterogeneous treatment effect bounds under sample selection with an application to the effects of social media on political polarization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 244(1).
    20. Su, Miaomiao & Wang, Ruoyu & Wang, Qihua, 2022. "A two-stage optimal subsampling estimation for missing data problems with large-scale data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00287-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.