From class to meritocracy? Changing justifications of pension inequality in Chile (2016–2023)

Latin America has long been characterized by extreme income concentration and limited social mobility, resulting in persistent perceptions of distributive injustice (Chancel et al., 2022; López-Roldán & Fachelli, 2021). Chile exemplifies this paradox: despite sustained growth and poverty reduction, it remains among the most unequal countries in the OECD (Flores et al., 2020). This inequality is clearly expressed in its pension system, established in 1981 under a neoliberal framework that transferred financial risk from the state to individuals through private capitalization funds (Boccardo, 2020). Decades later, the system is widely criticized for delivering low benefits and reinforcing inequality, becoming a focal point of mass mobilizations in 2016 and during the 2019 social uprising (Somma et al., 2021). Understanding how Chileans justify pension inequality is therefore crucial for explaining both the persistence of the system and the legitimacy crisis it faces. This paper examines changes in public support for market justice in the pension system and its relationship with class position and meritocratic beliefs. Preferences for market justice refers to the normative acceptance of income-based inequalities—that is, benefits distributed according to individuals’ payment capacity (Lane, 1986). Drawing on six waves of the Chilean Longitudinal Social Survey (ELSOC, 2016–2023), we analyze whether class position and meritocratic beliefs predict stronger or weaker endorsement of market justice in pensions. The analysis employs longitudinal multilevel ordinal logistic models to disentangle within- and between-person dynamics over time. We argue that beliefs in meritocracy—particularly the emphasis on talent and effort as drivers of economic outcomes—are increasingly linked to support for market justice in pensions, beyond class differences. The study contributes to welfare state research in three ways: first, by providing new evidence on attitudes toward market justice in pensions, an underexplored field (Busemeyer, 2014; Ferre, 2023); second, by using panel data to capture the dynamics between class, meritocracy, and distributive justice preferences; and third, by building on recent multidimensional measures of meritocracy (Castillo et al., 2023) to clarify how its distinct dimensions relate to market justice. Preliminary results show that upper-class positions—especially the service class—are more likely to justify pension inequality, while lower-class groups, particularly informal self-employed and unskilled workers, express stronger rejection. Meritocratic beliefs exert an effort-based effect, increasing support for market justice. These findings underscore the political role of class and meritocratic ideologies in legitimizing structural inequalities within Chile’s highly commodified pension system and, more broadly, their impact on political legitimacy in contemporary democracies.