The meritocratic approach is widely used by people for ordinary everyday tasks. If a person cannot do something themselves or finds it too costly, they hire a specialist—someone who can do it better or cheaper. Similarly, when struggling to rectify an injustice, a person will be glad to accept the help of a specialist, namely a just person competent in solving this class of problems and willing to help at a similar price.

The larger the task facing the specialist, the greater the volume of resources they need to attract to solve it. The same applies to the amount of power required to eliminate a large-scale injustice.

The more frequently large-scale tasks occur, the more economically justified the emergence of large organizations to solve them becomes. The less frequent they are, the more likely such organizations are to split. Otherwise, their structural complexity and ability to operate a large volume of resources become redundant.

The fragmentation of organizations can also be caused by the division of tasks into small, standardized ones. Thus, instead of taxi fleets, taxi aggregators appear: the role of the dispatch service is now performed by software, and freelancers work instead of hired drivers. In other words, we see a tendency to attract only those resources required to solve a task, and only for the duration of the task’s resolution, while automating the search for resources wherever possible. In this way, meritocracy in a developed service market acquires traits of anarchy.

---