1The intellectual and political debate on merit as a criterion for the distribution of the most relevant social resources and on meritocracy, i.e. the type of society governed by it, is now being conducted in several Western and Asian countries.

2The arguments presented against the use of this distribution criterion are frequently of a philosophical nature, with a considerable number of cases also being ideological. There are, however, few instances where the arguments are based on empirical evidence. It is not uncommon for those who oppose meritocracy to refrain from indicating which alternative criterion they would prefer to see implemented, unless it is the outright elimination of merit.

3This is a significant debate, as it concerns the fundamental principles of distributive justice, the status order, and the processes of social stratification. In Western countries, the objective of many critics is to propose, or encourage the emergence of, an alternative status order. In the words of Émile Durkheim, it is to devise or implement a more or less extensive declassification of the existing status order and reclassification of statuses. This, according to Durkheim, entails a transformation of the fundamental structure of society.

4Furthermore, this debate frequently neglects to consider the historical and contemporary experiences of China and India, the two countries with the largest populations, exceeding 2,8 billion. The underlying issues are identical, yet the proposed solutions vary considerably from those typically advocated in the West. The book is therefore a valuable and timely contribution to the field.

5The book is structured into four sections. The initial section is of a philosophical nature and comprises contributions from Michael Puett, Ashutosh Varshney and Daniel A. Bell. The second part of the book is devoted to historical analyses of Chinese and Indian societies. It includes contributions from Sudev Sheth and Lawrence L. C. Zhang; Sumit Guha; James Lee, Bamboo Yunzhu Ren and Chen Liang. The third part presents a radical critique of the concepts of merit and meritocracy in the two societies, as well as an assessment of affirmative action implemented in India. Essays on this topic are contributed by Ashwini Deshpande, Ajantha Subramanian and Zachary M. Howlett. The fourth section is dedicated to providing a variety of perspectives on the subject matter. It includes essays on the topic of meritocracy in Singapore (Vincent Chua, Randall Morck and Bernard Yeung), an analysis of the contemporary Chinese university (William C. Kirby), an examination of the role of traditional beliefs in maintaining inequalities (D. Shyam Babu, Chandra Bhan Prasad and Devesh Kapur), and the potential of science and technology to enhance the principles of meritocracy (Varun Aggarwal). The book is completed with an extensive introduction and an afterword by the editors. Following an examination of Puett’s comparative historical analysis, I will briefly examine the cases of China and India.

6Puett identifies two principal forms of meritocracy. The Western model, which emerged in the wake of the British and American revolutions, places a positive value on the market and competition. Such a perspective frequently views the state and its bureaucracy as a hindrance to the uninhibited advancement of productive forces. In contrast, the prevailing view in China is that the market creates inequalities and thus hinders the realisation of the ideal of a just society. In practice, there is a dialectic between the institutional forms of meritocracy and the more radical visions. In China, those of Mohist origin advocate for the establishment of a just society, wherein the state plays a pivotal role in regulating social and economic affairs. In the West, liberal thinkers frequently challenge the prevailing practices of the government. Puett refers to the latter as “Pelagian,” after the Christian heresy that preached the absence of original sin and the principle of responsibility of each human being. This is the reason why Augustine opposed it. In the Indian context, it is evident that the central and local bureaucracies exert a dominant influence over the market and merit in the allocation of public resources. The Constitution and politics have served to amend and reduce the influence of a meritocracy.

7In contrast to the West, the concept of meritocracy in China has been primarily concerned with the selection and promotion of the political class for many centuries, and again since 1978. On initial observation, the Chinese political system appears to be authoritarian in nature. This is the interpretation offered by Western political analysts. However, it is distinct from other authoritarian regimes, such as those observed in North Korea or Saudi Arabia. The key differentiating factor is the implementation of a political meritocracy.

8The subject of political meritocracy in China is explored in detail in an essay by Bell. The intellectual foundations of this institution can be traced back to the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. In practice, it is akin to an obstacle race, punctuated by examinations and evaluations, which engages civil servants for decades. Ultimately, those who possess the greatest ability and virtue are best positioned to gain access to power. The criteria for selecting politicians vary according to the principles that are applied: the Confucian or legalistic approach. While the former are oriented towards the welfare of the citizens, the legalist ideology prioritises the power of the state, which may be maintained by force, if necessary, over all other considerations. This dialectic remains a prominent feature of recent decades.

9Bell concludes that a political meritocracy without competitive elections can only function if certain conditions are met, including the guarantee of freedom of speech for candidates, the provision of space for experimentation, and the establishment of age limits for those in positions of power. These and other conditions, which were entirely absent during the Mao Zedong era, are similarly absent in contemporary China. Consequently, Bell posits that there is a significant discrepancy between the ideal of a meritocratic political system and the actuality of the Chinese political landscape. It is unlikely that the prevailing negative trends will be reversed in the near to medium term.

10The contributions by Kirby and Howlett address developments in university education and its recruitment in China. Kirby highlights the exponential growth in the number of students and educational institutions since 1978. The former now number almost 40 million, while the latter number approximately 2,500 (based on 2013 figure). Meanwhile, the quality and prestige of Chinese universities are on the rise, particularly in the STEM fields.

11The primary challenge facing Chinese universities in the future is the pervasive influence of ideological and political factors on academic research and teaching. “Document 9” of 2013, drafted by the Chinese Communist Party, enumerates seven topics that are proscribed for discussion. Such prohibited subjects include the advancement of Western constitutional democracy, the propagation of “universal values,” the dissemination of Western (i.e., autonomous) journalism, and the critique of the Communist government, which is regarded as a form of “historical nihilism.” The objective is to impose ideological discipline within the humanities and social sciences. In light of these considerations, Kirby’s concluding inquiries remain pertinent: can world-class universities flourish within the context of an illiberal political system? The question thus arises as to whether the formation of critical thinking, in accordance with the Humboldtian model of general education, is compatible with the prescriptions set forth in “Document 9.”

12In this contribution, anthropologist Howlett addresses the National College Entrance Examination, also known as the Gaokao. It is the university entrance examination that engages approximately ten million high school seniors in China on an annual basis. It is likely to be one of the most challenging tests globally. The level of competition is considerable, as are the human costs for students and their families. Nevertheless, the test is widely accepted by the general public due to its perceived fairness and the opportunities it provides for social mobility. In fact, regional admission quotas and alternative admissions procedures are offered by elite universities. Those from urban and coastal areas tend to benefit from the superior quality of the schools they attend, whereas those from rural areas are at a disadvantage.

13Building on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction, Howlett posits that the concept of meritocracy is a myth. The concept is predicated on two fundamental beliefs: firstly, that those at the pinnacle of society possess inherent merit, and secondly, that the process of evaluating and selecting those who are deserving is inherently fair. In effect, the examination would transform what is commonly understood as “privilege” into individual merit. It can be seen, therefore, that social justice and merit are mutually exclusive concepts. Subramanian employs identical arguments with regard to India. For Howlett, it is nevertheless challenging to comprehend why millions of students (and their families) are willing to bear significant costs to participate in the Gaokao. In order to achieve this, the author does not utilise the concept of false consciousness, but instead employs the equivalent concept of “popular misconception.”

14The future and the actions of the ruling class will determine whether and to what extent the Gaokao will undergo changes that are more equitable and less stressful for young people and their families.

15India is a country that is both distinctive and exceptional. India exhibits low levels of income, education and urbanisation, accompanied by a nascent but still modest middle class, within which the caste system persists as a dominant feature. A pervasive view in India is that democracy and merit are incompatible institutions. From a Western perspective, the logic of elective political representation does not extend to the domains of occupation and education. The principles that underpin these systems are distinct. In India, the prevailing view is to the contrary.

16The contributions by Varshney and Babu et al. address this problem in a critical manner and attempt to provide an explanation for it. In the name of an ideal of a just society, Deshpande and Subramanian, on the other hand, seek to justify the reserved quota system and extend it.

17The new Indian Constitution of 1950 addressed the issue of structured inequalities, including those based on caste, class and gender, through the introduction of a reserved quota system for members of the lower castes. The Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are two distinct groups within the Indian population. For these groups, a proportionate number of reserved seats were provided in political bodies, the civil service, in state-owned enterprises, and in admissions to tertiary public education. Consequently, approximately half of the places in these institutions are thus reserved for members of the specified castes. Over the course of the past seven decades, these measures have yielded some favourable outcomes, provided one disregards what happens after the reserved access to tertiary education and does not consider the unanticipated consequences they have produced.

18In point of fact, the caste hierarchy has been reinforced, rather than eroded. The number of social groups seeking protection has increased from two to seven. The middle classes (Other Backward Classes or OBCs), the creamy layers of OBCs, SCs and STs, and the poor upper caste layer have been incorporated into the system. This is the consequence of a competition, supported by political parties, between various social groups to obtain a licence to be regarded as backward and thus gain access to the reserved quotas. Affirmative action, or better restorative discrimination, has evolved from a means of redressing historical injustices to an end in itself. This case study can be included in a textbook on the heterogenesis of ends and on the perverse effects of social action.

19The situation is distinct, at least for the time being, in the private sector. In India, approximately 85-93% of the workforce is employed in the informal sector of the economy, with the remainder engaged in the corporate sector. Since the abandonment of central planning in 1991, the private sector has experienced a greater rate of growth than the public sector. Consequently, politicians have expressed interest in including quotas in the private sector as well. Thus far, this interest has not yet manifested in the form of legislation. The compatibility of the market in India with the idea of a just society remains contingent upon the outcome of future political discourse.

20The current situation is also largely contingent upon the initial repudiation of a policy of quantitative and qualitative development of primary and secondary education. This is the antithesis of the policy pursued by South Korea since the 1960s, when its income per capita was comparable to that of Afghanistan.

21A comparison of the relative effectiveness of the education policies implemented by China and India since 1990 can be made. It seems reasonable to posit that the divergence of educational policies has had a significant impact on the economy in the medium and long term. China and India are currently among the world’s largest economies. In 1980, India had a per capita income of $582, which was almost two times the Chinese per capita GDP of $307. By 2024, China’s GDP per capita ($25,015) will be 2,42 times that of India ($10,123), according to data from the World Bank. The causal factors of these historical differences are numerous and complex. It is pertinent to enquire whether the downgrading of merit and the presence of extensive caste reservations in the political system, in education, and in public bureaucracy in India also contributed to the creation of this economic gap.

22In conclusion, the book provides valuable insights into the historical and contemporary differences in the selection of the ruling classes between China and India. While there are numerous indications of comparison between various national experiences, the editors have chosen to juxtapose the two cases rather than undertake a comparative analysis. Additionally, the educational policies of Japan and South Korea, which could have further illuminated the comparative challenges, benefits, and drawbacks of those adopted by the two major Asian countries, are not referenced.