2 Introduction
Education has historically been viewed as a means of equalizing opportunities. However, educational systems have undergone transformations that have given rise to various forms of inequality worldwide. In this context, the privatization of education is a phenomenon that has been extensively studied for its causes and consequences, which are often linked to educational inequality. For example, in Australia, there are many private schools with no tuition caps, a situation accompanied by high levels of school segregation (Lee & Stacey, 2024). A similar situation exists in Chile: as one of the countries with the highest levels of educational privatization, school segregation persists, restricting equal opportunities for students due to the financial barriers imposed by the logic of the school market (Bellei, 2025; Valenzuela et al., 2014). These findings are consistent with those of (Sciffer et al., 2022) who argue that, despite differences between countries, private education contributes to socioeconomic segregation. Along these lines, the incorporation of private-sector logic into education—a process known as commodification—has had an impact not only at the institutional level but also at the cultural level, shaping the acceptance of market dynamics within the educational sphere (Castillo, Iturra, et al., 2025; Lindh, 2015).
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.
The justification for inequalities in education can be understood through classic self-interest hypotheses, in which people with higher status defend their social position by supporting the market or opposing redistribution. However, there are other factors that are equally important, if not more so, in this area, such as meritocracy. 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, promising that those who work the hardest will receive rewards commensurate with their efforts (Darnon et al., 2018). However, outcomes are influenced by students’ family backgrounds and, more broadly, 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—whether success or failure (Clycq et al., 2014; Mijs, 2016). Regarding market justice, meritocratic beliefs are positively associated with it, particularly with the perception of meritocracy (Castillo et al., 2024; Castillo, Laffert, et al., 2025; Castillo et al., 2026).
Until now, the literature has studied meritocracy with a particular focus on perceptions of effort and talent, but I argue that examining the relationship between market justice in education and meritocracy requires a broader model than one based solely on perceptions of merit. 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 meritocracy operating in society, while preferences refer to how society should operate. Second, it 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 encompasses both perceptions and preferences regarding beliefs about meritocracy and privilege. Based on this multidimensional framework of meritocracy, evidence supports the view that meritocratic beliefs and privilege beliefs are neither opposites nor part of the same continuum, but rather distinct dimensions and can therefore coexist in people’s minds (Castillo et al., 2023).
Previous studies have examined the relationship between market justice and meritocracy, but without a multidimensional framework to observe how meritocratic beliefs operate alongside those based on privilege (Castillo et al., 2024). Similarly, most studies examining market justice and meritocracy have relied on variable-centered methods, which make it impossible to determine whether beliefs are heterogeneous within the population (Castillo, Laffert, et al., 2025; Castillo et al., 2026). This research aims to contribute to the agenda of meritocracy and market justice in two ways: first, by applying a structural equation model to the multidimensional framework of meritocracy and privilege to examine how each latent dimension relates to market justice in education. Second, and more importantly, I apply a novel person-centered approach, which will allow us to identify patterns of belief based on shared attributes—an approach that is uncommon in sociological studies (Van Hootegem, 2022; Zhu, 2025). This will allow us to observe how meritocratic and privilege-related beliefs are organized in people’s minds in terms of the number and size of groups, and to understand how each group relates to market justice in education. Both contributions are complementary, as each offers insights through approaches focused on variables and people, respectively, ultimately shedding light on the relationship between market justice and meritocracy from different perspectives.
The argument underpinning the objectives is that where merit-based beliefs predominate (whether in latent dimensions or belief-based groups), 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 and privilege 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, particularly by examining the diversity of people’s beliefs. Thus, the two research questions underlying this study are: (1) How do meritocratic and privilege-based beliefs relate to market justice in education? (2) How do different groups of people, 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.