A merit-based system values individuals’ inherent abilities and talents, while a desert-based system emphasizes effort and contribution—traits for which individuals can be held accountable. Despite this distinction, both frameworks accept a certain level of economic inequality as morally permissible, provided the system is fair and rewards are distributed according to their respective principles. One challenge for desert-based theories is the difficulty of isolating individual contributions, especially in collaborative settings. Critics of meritocracy argue that merit is merely instrumental, requiring not only quantification of results but also an assessment of whether outcomes are socially desirable. However, as Amartya Sen notes, meritocracy is less concerned with defining social value and more focused on process rather than specific outcomes. Finally, both meritocracy and desert-based theories lack universality, as they largely apply to those who are economically active. In considering groups such as the elderly, children, the unemployed, or individuals with severe disabilities—who are unable to contribute productively—productivity-based theorists often turn to supplementary principles like benevolence, need, compassion, freedom, or utility.