The Myth of Meritocracy: To What Extent Does Personal Effort Determine Success Compared to Structural Factors?

More than once I have heard some liberals say that “the poor are poor because they want to be,” alluding to the idea that it is our decisions that set the path we will follow throughout our lives, regardless of circumstances. However, this is a crude oversimplification that distorts the fundamental principles of liberalism, since true liberalism has never held that circumstances are unimportant. In fact, the theoretical structure of liberalism rests on ideas that seek to transform and eradicate a specific set of circumstances, namely: the oppression of absolutism, state-granted privilege, and the arbitrariness of power.

In this sense, then, the liberal who says that only “decisions” matter falls into a contradiction, because by setting circumstances aside, he implicitly leaves the door open for someone to reply: “if circumstances don’t matter, then it doesn’t matter whether the system is socialist, because in the end, decisions are the only thing that determines human life.” In other words, the liberal who maintains that only decisions matter would have to accept that there is no point in fighting statism. Put differently, if circumstances truly had no impact on individuals’ destinies, it would be completely absurd to oppose socialism, collectivism, or any totalitarian regime, since a success-oriented person would achieve it regardless of bureaucratic entanglements or the absence of property rights.

Human decisions take place within a context, a circumstance, especially a social one; therefore, everything related to the law, the economic system, and institutions in general influences the process of choice. Freedom requires a precise institutional framework in order to unfold effectively, and that is precisely why we liberals fight against statism: because we recognize that the institutional environment matters a great deal. A system that destroys the free market, prohibits private initiative, and concentrates power in the state creates a set of suffocating circumstances that nullify people’s real capacity to choose, stifling any possibility of individual progress at the root. That is exactly why someone with good ideas would have a more tortuous path to success, however they may define it, in Venezuela than in the United States.

Those analysts or scholars who call themselves liberals yet claim to ignore structural constraints when it comes to the origins of poverty, while vehemently invoking them when criticizing state intervention, are being inconsistent. Poverty is rarely a simple voluntary choice (though, mind you, some people are indeed poor by choice); far more often it is the direct consequence of extractive institutional frameworks, closed markets, protected monopolies, low-quality educational monopolies, and laws that prevent the disadvantaged from capitalizing on their effort. Whoever attributes economic vulnerability solely to a moral failing or a lack of willpower forgets that freedom requires real options, and that when the rules of the game are rigged, personal determination alone is not enough to get ahead.

For this reason, a genuine defense of freedom demands recognizing that rules and institutions dictate the range of possibilities a person can aspire to. Properly understood, liberalism is not an apology for moralistic determinism nor a consolation for the status quo, but an incisive critique of the obstacles that hinder human development. Fighting for freedom means working so that an individual’s origins do not relentlessly define their destiny, which requires removing the artificial barriers (whether state, legal, or corporate) that deprive people of the opportunity to prosper.

Thus, freedom of choice only takes on real meaning when the minimum conditions exist for that choice to be viable and productive. And by this I do not mean that the state should guarantee those minimum conditions, since we know well that the state is the main enemy we face on our path to success. I am simply attacking the idea that the consistency of liberal thought lies in denying the reality of social constraints; rather, it lies in distinguishing which of them are inherent to the human condition and which are coercively imposed by power.

As I have already said, defending freedom and combating collectivist models only makes sense because we recognize that the institutional environment can crush an individual’s potential. A coherent and mature liberal must reject, with equal firmness, the tyranny of the state and the myth that context does not matter, reaffirming that the ultimate goal of freedom is precisely to build a society where the circumstances of one’s birth do not shut down anyone’s dreams or efforts.

Originally published in Spanish by ContraPoder.