This is the CBSi in the world. I'm John Batcher visiting with the author Adrian Woolridge who is also Badgett at the Economist magazine Adrian

Waldrich his new book is The aristocracy of talent how meritocracy made the

modern world it's incredibly presciently up to, but we are exploring how we got here. The word

meritocracy isn't until the middle of the 20th century. However, the search for who is capable of giving good governance, who can we depend upon, who will live out his reign, includes nepotism, patronage, and venality.

And I note, rather than look at the negatives,

I want to make clear that there were successes.

I wrote down three, Adrian.

Thomas Cromwell Adam Smith well that's enough those

two those two would be enough for any country so patronage patronage and

nepotism had its advantages was it attractive to the

kings did that did it make them worry that they were having to choose people outside

of their family for leadership?

So it's very important to remember that in pre-modern society jobs were not things that individuals earned on merit necessarily.

There were things that were given away by the ruling classes

through a system of patronage.

But the ruling classes quite often give jobs to people who are completely

useless. But if they'd only give them jobs to people who are completely

useless, society would have collapsed. So they also give certain jobs to people who are far from useless, so extremely good.

One classic example of that is Henry VIII who chooses a succession of lowly-born men of extraordinary administrative ability to run his country

for him while he's out hunting and womanizing and doing all the things that he likes to do.

The first one he chooses is Thomas Woolsey,

who is the son of a butcher,

...