Merit can mean what you did, or what you will do. The difference changes who gets the job.

This paper proposes two ways to define merit: what someone has already achieved, or what they are expected to contribute in the future. It turns out these definitions lead to very different decisions about who gets into schools or jobs.

For decades, institutions have used 'merit' to justify who gets access to scarce resources, like top universities or high-paying jobs. This paper shows that how you define merit changes everything. If you focus on past achievements, you might pick different people than if you focus on future potential. This means that the way governments and organizations define merit is not neutral; it's a policy choice with real consequences for who wins and loses.