“‘Social inequality is the device by which societies ensure that the most important positions are filled by the most qualified persons.’ Explain this view point and state the grounds on which it is refuted.” (1992)
The statement condenses the thesis of Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (“Some Principles of Stratification”, 1945), who called inequality an unconsciously evolved device of this kind. It is, in essence, a meritocratic justification of inequality, and its critics have challenged each link in the chain.
The view point explained
The argument works like a market for talent:
- Demand side: positions differ in importance, measured by how unique a function is and how far other positions depend on it. A surgeon’s work cannot be done by an orderly, but the reverse is possible.
- Supply side: the talent to master such roles is scarce, and turning talent into skill needs long, costly training.
- Price mechanism: to draw the able into training and keep them performing diligently, society attaches greater income, leisure and esteem to these positions.
- Outcome: a hierarchy of prestige and reward that, in principle, sorts people by ability. Talcott Parsons added that such rankings express shared values, so they are accepted as fair.
The view assumes open competition: rewards are attached to positions, not families, and anyone with ability may compete.
Grounds of refutation
- “Most important” is undefined. Melvin Tumin (1953) argued that importance cannot be measured independently of reward. Farm workers and sanitation staff are no less vital than executives.
- “Most qualified” is socially produced. Tumin showed that stratification hides talent in the lower strata by denying them schooling and motivation. Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron (Reproduction, 1970) showed schools rewarding the cultural capital of dominant classes as if it were natural ability.
- Credentials legitimise inheritance. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (Schooling in Capitalist America, 1976) argued that the “meritocracy” of schooling masks the transmission of class position. Michael Young (The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1958) had already satirised merit as a new justification for privilege.
- Rewards follow power. Frank Parkin‘s social closure and Tumin’s example of restricted medical entry show groups manipulating the supply of qualified persons to raise their own rewards.
- Ascription contradicts the thesis. Caste, race and gender allocate positions by birth. Walter Buckley (1958) noted that the theory explains differentiated positions but not inherited strata.
- Alternative motivations exist. Intrinsic satisfaction, public service and esteem can fill demanding roles without steep material inequality.
- Scale of inequality. Even if some differential is needed, the extreme concentration of wealth in many societies far exceeds any incentive requirement.
Indian evidence
- Birth still shapes opportunity: Sam Asher, Paul Novosad and Charlie Rafkin (2024) found intergenerational mobility low and stagnant overall, and lower for daughters than for sons.
- Selection itself is corruptible: after irregularities in national entrance and recruitment examinations, Parliament enacted the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, in force from 21 June 2024. The “device” cannot be assumed to sort fairly.
Conclusion
The view point captures a real function of reward differentials in open, skill-based labour markets. As a general account, though, it mistakes an ideal of meritocracy for the reality of stratification, in which power, inheritance and ascription decide who counts as “most qualified”.