2 Introduction
Education has historically been a fundamental pillar of society because it promotes equal opportunities and social mobility. However, various inequalities permeate educational systems worldwide. In this regard, the commodification of education has served as a foundation for the expansion and deepening of inequalities, as market logic has strongly penetrated educational institutions. This is evident when we note that from 2000 to 2019, the proportion of private schools increased from 14% to 18%, and the situation is even more pronounced in higher education, where more than 30% of college students are enrolled in private universities (Danish Shakeel & Dills, 2024; Qureshi & Khawaja, 2021). Thus, the privatization of education has been linked to rising inequality among the student population, with emblematic cases in Chile and Australia illustrating the negative consequences that the education market can generate and raising the question of whether such scenarios are possible in other countries around the world (Lee & Stacey, 2024; Valenzuela et al., 2014). These processes of commodification in education have had consequences not only at the institutional level but also at the cultural level (Busemeyer et al., 2018; Busemeyer & Iversen, 2020). Along these lines, a research agenda has been developed focusing on attitudes toward inequality in education (Busemeyer, 2013; Castillo, Iturra, et al., 2025; Lindh, 2015).
Given the extent of privatization in education, people have come to accept inequalities in the educational system. Although one might expect most people to support public education—especially in countries with greater inequality—various studies have shown that some segments of the population support the private alternative and may even justify the inequalities it creates (Lindh, 2015). This runs counter to the principles of equality that underpin social justice and, in particular, educational justice (Deutsch, 1975; Moyano, 2020; Walzer, 2010). The concept of “market justice” is fundamental to understanding this phenomenon; the term proposed by Lane (1986) refers to the normative beliefs that legitimize the idea that access to essential social goods—such as education—should be governed by market criteria (Lindh, 2015). This research will draw on the concept of market justice in education to examine the extent to which people legitimize inequality in this sphere.
Meritocracy is a concept that is closely linked to educational inequalities. Known as a distributive system based on effort and talent (Young, 2017), meritocratic discourse attributes responsibility for success or failure to the individual. In the educational context, meritocracy lies at the heart of every educational institution, where it is presented as an ideal with the promise that those who work the hardest will receive rewards commensurate with their efforts (Darnon et al., 2018). However, results are influenced by students’ family backgrounds and, on a larger scale, by the structural conditions of society. The meritocratic narrative overlooks the role of underlying conditions in people’s educational trajectories, thereby functioning as a mechanism for legitimizing inequality, since individuals are held responsible for their outcomes in both success and failure (Clycq et al., 2014; Mijs, 2016). With regard to market justice, it has been observed that meritocratic beliefs are positively associated with it, especially with the perception of meritocracy (Castillo et al., 2024; Castillo, Laffert, et al., 2025; Castillo et al., 2026).
The literature supports a link between market justice in education and the perception of meritocracy, but researchers have made progress in deepening our understanding of meritocracy through a multidimensional approach. In this regard, Castillo et al. (2023) proposed a conceptual framework that makes two distinctions: First, it distinguishes between perceptions and preferences. Perceptions refer to how people observe that meritocracy operates in society, while preferences refer to how society should operate. Second, distinguishes between meritocratic beliefs, which are related to effort and talent, and privilege beliefs, which are expressed through family background and social connections. Thus, the framework comprises both perceptions and preferences regarding meritocratic and privilege beliefs. Based on this multidimensional framework of meritocracy, it was demonstrated that meritocratic beliefs and privilege beliefs are neither opposites nor part of the same continuum, but rather distinct dimensions, so they can coexist in people’s minds. In fact, a recent study using this framework found that each dimension relates to market justice in different ways (Laffert et al., 2026).
Although we know that people can hold both meritocratic beliefs and beliefs about privilege simultaneously, we do not know how these beliefs are organized in individuals’ minds. The multidimensional framework of meritocracy allows us to examine the various beliefs that people may hold, but it is important to understand that different beliefs may prevail in each individual. To do this, it is necessary to stop focusing on variables and instead use people-centered methods. These methods allow us to identify patterns in the population based on shared attributes, which are very rare in sociological studies (Van Hootegem, 2022; Zhu, 2025). In this regard, methods such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA) allow us to observe the heterogeneity of beliefs by classifying subgroups, as well as their prevalence in terms of number and size (Collins & Lanza, 2013; Scotto Rosato & Baer, 2012). Therefore, the formation of different subgroups based on meritocratic beliefs could subsequently provide new insights into the relationship between meritocracy and market justice in education.
On the one hand, previous studies have examined the relationship between meritocracy and market justice, but without the possibility to use a multidimensional framework of meritocracy to broaden their understanding of social reality (Castillo et al., 2024; Castillo, Laffert, et al., 2025; Castillo et al., 2026). On the other hand, some studies have adopted multidimensional perspectives on meritocracy but have not examined how these beliefs are organized within the population or which are most prevalent (Laffert et al., 2026). This research contributes to the agenda of meritocracy and market justice through two innovations: First, use a multidimensional approach to meritocracy, combined with a people-centered method, to identify different groups based on their meritocratic beliefs. Second, and most importantly, it analyzes the relationship between different merit-belief-based groups and market justice in education. The argument underpinning these objectives is that, in belief groups where merit-based beliefs predominate, their relationship with market justice in education will be positive, reinforcing the narrative of meritocracy as a legitimizer of inequalities. Furthermore, drawing on the various relationships between meritocratic belief systems and market justice in education, this research aims to demonstrate that meritocracy can function in different ways as a mechanism for justifying inequalities, but this can only be observed by examining the diversity of people’s beliefs.
The research question underlying this study is: How do different groups, based on meritocratic and privilege-based beliefs, relate to market justice in education?
This study is particularly relevant in Chile, a country characterized by high levels of inequality and a system in which social goods are highly commodified (Boccardo, 2020; Castillo, Iturra, et al., 2025). The neoliberal reforms of the civil-military dictatorship (1973–1989) have produced structurally segmented systems in health care, pensions, and education, in which access and quality depend on ability to pay, benefiting higher-income sectors and relegating the poorest to limited, underfunded public alternatives (Madariaga, 2020). Specifically, the education system is highlighted as one of the most privatized in the world, where the quality of private education surpasses that of public education due to limited regulation of the education market, as reflected in high levels of school segregation and low regard for public education (Bellei, 2016, 2025; Ramos, 2022; Valenzuela et al., 2014). Despite this, people continue to hold strong meritocratic beliefs, illustrating the inequality paradox (Mijs, 2021; PNUD, 2017). Thus, in a context marked by high and durable inequalities, deep marketization of education, and the entrenchment of meritocratic beliefs, it is relevant to examine the link between meritocratic beliefs and market-justice preferences in education.