Civic Republicanism in Search of the Common Good: Sandel’s Critique and Reconstruction of the Market Meritocracy

Volume: 

29

Number: 

2

Published date: 

December, 2025

Authors: 

Ming-Hsiang Chen

Abstract: 

How can we understand the practical dilemmas facing modern democracy, including economic inequality and the populist backlash? How can we overcome them? In recent years, Michael Sandel’s critique of neoliberalism has argued that the current wave of populism largely originates from a market-driven, meritocratic society shaped by globalization: market triumphalism has produced significant economic inequality, while meritocracy has deepened the gap between the rich and the poor, fostering elite hubris and a politics of humiliation. From the perspective of civic republicanism, he suggests promoting the common good as a way to renew democracy. From What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (2012a) to The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? (2020), Sandel has continued his critique of liberalism. While he analyzes the market meritocracy and populism on the surface, in essence he guides civic deliberation and institutional reflection on the common good through his republicanism. In other words, Sandel advocates for a public philosophy approach, emphasizing contributive justice through the dignity of work. In contrast to studies that focus on his critiques, this article not only elaborates on how Sandel diagnoses the market meritocracy but also addresses and defends three major controversies: (1) The market debate on the neutrality of the concept of the good life; (2) What is the communal meaning of the common good in a meritocracy? (3) Is financialization an obstacle to the common good? Through this discussion, I argue that Sandel reconstructs a politics of the common good and a conception of contributive justice based on the recognition of the dignity of work, thereby advocating a form of civic republicanism that can accommodate the pluralistic contemporary society. In terms of political thought, these two works demonstrate his dual efforts—both practicing philosophy and promoting civic education in the public sphere—ultimately contributing to a political-public philosophical system uniquely his own.

Keywords: