ONLY POLITICAL CHOICES MITIGATING INEQUALITY CAN ENCOURAGE MERIT IN THE EMPLOYMENT MARKET

The British sociologist John Goldthorpe and the Italian sociologist Antonio Schizzerotto discuss “Meritocracy and the employment market”

The examples of Hungary and Sweden teach us that merit is rewarded in societies with little social inequality

With every seat filled, the reception hall of Buonconsiglio Castle today played host to a “dialogue” around an extremely topical subject: “Does the market reward merit?”. In order to provide an answer, the 2008 Festival of Economics enlisted the support of two sociologists: the British sociologist John Goldthorpe, Lecturer at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Leicester and an advisor to various British governments (both conservative and labour), and Antonio Schizzerotto, a lecturer at the University of Trento. The meeting was coordinated by Riccardo Chiaberge, culture and Sunday issue editor for the “Sole 24 Ore” newspaper. The conclusion reached by Prof. Goldthorpe, after long discussion and frequent questions and issues raised by Prof. Schizzerotto, was incisive and not at all comforting: “The free market not only does not take into account merit in establishing which social class individual members should be destined for but is actually indifferent to it”. To support his theory, Goldthorpe cited a number of studies, according to which meritocracy in terms of education, for example, is only taken into consideration in societies with a planned economy: “In socialist Hungary” – the British sociologist stated – “when economic planning reduced inequality of income between different social classes, only those able to count on a good-excellent education succeeded in emerging. However, when communism collapsed and the event gradually transformed the Hungarian economy first into a planned market undergoing change and then into a decidedly free market, social inequality increased and consequently the value of merit acquired through study was also lost”. Historically, the concept of meritocracy was established at the end of the 1950s, when some in Britain warned of the difficulties of improving social position, for example by increasing the level of education, for young people coming from poorer social classes. This stimulus thus led British society to give the appropriate emphasis and due importance to meritocracy in terms of schooling. However, in this case too there were those who warned of an impending risk, the danger of excluding those young people who did not meet with success in their studies from social processes and dynamics. However, the concept of meritocracy was adopted with great conviction in the United States, where so-called “just meritocracy” was introduced, based on the creation of equal educational opportunities for all. Subject to the point of departure, which must be the same for all, the difference in results in terms of income and ultimate social position can be considered to respond to personal merit. Goldthorpe took the public at Buonconsiglio Castle through the twists and turns of meritocracy in order to demonstrate his basic theory regarding the “indifference of the free market as regards meritocracy”. “In all western societies“ – the British sociologist stated – “the expansion of schooling allows increasingly higher levels of education, but this does not guarantee equal opportunities for entering the world of employment. Even the curriculum choices made by students during their schooling do not underline their skills and individual talents... I am good at these subjects so I choose these schools... In truth school choices continue to be influenced by the social origin of students!”. For example, it is known that in our societies, increasingly based on the free market, young people from higher social classes tend to have better results than their peers coming from lower social classes, as a result of social, educational and even genetic causes. “It is a fact” - continued Goldthorpe – “that comparing analysis of meritocracy at the end of the 1950s and 1960s, we can see clearly that the more society evolves, the less the effects of educational level condition the reaching of the higher social classes”. In short it would appear that today employers, in choosing their workers, pay less attention to the level of education and increasingly often put their trust in other criteria, including social and family origin. This can perhaps explain why today, in Italian society, regardless of whether the government belongs to the centre-right or the centre-left, the question of “education” has never received adequate attention on the agenda of the executive organ. So what should we do, faced with a case such as Hungary, the statistics showing us that in a planned and socially level society, merit resulting from education represents an objective criteria for rising up the ladder in terms of social class, whereas when these same societies open up to the free market, this meritocracy declines until it almost disappears? “Note”– Goldthorpe added – “that we can also see and study a similar analogy in unplanned societies with a very high level of wellbeing, such as Scandinavian countries: in Sweden, for example, educational merit is still a criterion for social status, but there too the differences between social classes are minimal. In other words, when the standard of living is pushed up and there is a very strong welfare system, it is precisely levelling that leads to the establishment of selection by merit”. At this point, in order to complete the picture, one fundamental element is lacking in order to tie in to the whole sociological analysis presented by Goldthorpe and Schizzerotto this afternoon: it is “politics” that must make a difference, guiding both educational mechanisms on the one hand and entrance to the world of employment on the other. It is politics which must respond to what is happening in Italy, given that faced with schooling in which is little is invested, we increasingly see castes closed in on themselves, exaggerated familism and lobbies... and the main strategy must be the progressive demolition of social inequality, with levelling at the highest possible point: while Soviet societies planned and levelled downwards, duly rewarding merit, we can have the same honour – and Scandinavia is the proof – by levelling upwards. Only at this point will we be able to say that individual value and the talent of the individual can be made available to the community independently of social, economic or cultural origin. Then we will be able to say that the market creates democracy.