Excellence vs. Superiority: Rethinking Meritocracy and Human Worth
The modern economy operates on a fundamental but rarely questioned assumption: that meritocracy is the fairest way to determine success. The idea is simple—those who work the hardest, are the smartest, or display the most talent rise to the top. But as Yale professor Daniel Markovits has extensively argued in The Meritocracy Trap, this system doesn’t reward true value—it rewards superiority, and there’s a crucial difference between superiority and excellence.
The Problem with Superiority
Markovits defines superiority as a positional value, meaning that for someone to win, others must lose. It creates a zero-sum hierarchy where success is not about contributing to society but about outperforming others, regardless of whether that performance generates real value. This is why Wall Street financiers who engage in complex arbitrage schemes—exploiting short-term inefficiencies without creating anything tangible—can make billions while teachers, nurses, and engineers struggle to afford housing. Superiority is not about meaningful work; it is about extracting as much as possible from the system.
Additionally, superiority is formal rather than substantive—meaning someone can be superior at something completely worthless, and still be rewarded disproportionately. Modern finance is a perfect example. As Markovits notes, much of contemporary financial trading produces no real economic value; it simply moves money around in ways that generate profit for a select few. Yet those who master this system are rewarded far more than those who build infrastructure, cure diseases, or educate future generations.
This dynamic creates a world where power and resources are concentrated in the hands of those who manipulate the system best, rather than those who contribute the most to human progress.
The Case for Excellence
Excellence, in contrast, is threshold-based rather than positional—it is not about ranking people, but about ensuring that everyone reaches a level of skill and competence that makes their work valuable. In an excellence-driven system, a doctor does not need to be "the best" surgeon in the world to be valued; they simply need to meet the standard of excellence required to perform life-saving surgeries effectively. Excellence is about enabling as many people as possible to reach their full potential rather than artificially limiting opportunities to preserve an elite class.
Moreover, excellence is substantive rather than formal—meaning it is tied to the intrinsic value of the work itself. A person achieves excellence in a field because their contributions are meaningful, not because they have won a competition for prestige or wealth. In this model, industries would prioritize work that actually benefits society, ensuring that rewards align with contributions rather than market distortions.
How EFI Aligns with Excellence Over Superiority
The Equitable Future Initiative (EFI) rejects the meritocratic obsession with ranking individuals based on their ability to extract wealth from the system. Instead, it focuses on structuring work and industry around excellence—ensuring that people are valued based on meaningful contributions rather than arbitrary market metrics.
EFI's Public Industry Administration Model (PIAM) is designed to reward excellence rather than superiority by:
Ensuring that labor is fairly distributed and that essential work is prioritized.
Creating pathways for all individuals to reach their full potential without being forced into cutthroat competition.
Removing the artificial scarcity of jobs by ensuring industries focus on collective well-being rather than shareholder profit.
Under EFI, work is no longer about proving superiority over others—it’s about achieving excellence in a field that contributes to society. This shift allows for a system where dignity is not tied to wages and where human worth is recognized beyond economic output.
The Road Ahead
The meritocratic system is failing, but the conversation about what comes next is still in its early stages. Markovits and others have identified the flaws in meritocracy, but few alternatives have been fully developed. EFI offers one such alternative—a vision where success is not about defeating others but about ensuring that as many people as possible can contribute meaningfully to a thriving society.
The challenge ahead is twofold: first, dismantling the ideological package that ties human worth to market-based meritocracy, and second, structuring an economic system that rewards excellence rather than superiority. EFI is committed to both, and as economic crises continue to expose the flaws of the current system, the demand for a real alternative will only grow.
The time to redefine success is now.
What do you think? Should we continue to measure worth by market superiority, or is it time to transition toward a system that values excellence and meaningful contribution? Join the conversation and help shape the future of economic justice.
