Matta Effect

The Matthew Effect is a concept introduced into the literature in 1968 by sociologist Robert Merton. The term derives from a verse in the Gospel of Matthew: “For to everyone who has, more will be given... but from him who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away”^【1】. In its most general definition, the Matthew Effect is used to explain phenomena in social and educational contexts where advantages lead to further advantages and disadvantages accumulate to produce even greater disadvantages.

This process leads to significantly skewed distributions of resources, achievements, and rewards over time. Small initial differences, if left unaddressed, grow larger over time and can influence individuals’ lifelong accumulations. The underlying mechanism is often described as “positive feedback loops” or “self-amplifying loops.” It is frequently noted that these mechanisms operate implicitly and are largely unrecognized by participants.

The Matthew Effect can manifest as either absolute or relative depending on the context in which it occurs. Absolute Matthew Effect resembles a zero-sum game, where one participant’s gain corresponds directly to another’s loss. In relative Matthew Effect, however, the situation is a positive-sum game in which resources expand; while everyone may benefit, there is a risk that some participants will monopolize gains.

The Matthew Effect: How Small Initial Advantages Accumulate into Disproportionate Inequalities (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

Theoretical Development and Related Approaches

Robert K. Merton first applied the concept to explain phenomena in the scientific community. He observed that scientists and institutions with high prestige, even when producing work of similar quality, receive greater recognition and resources than lesser-known peers. Existing prestige generates further prestige. Harriet Zuckerman’s 1977 study of Nobel laureates supported this cumulative advantage by showing that more than half of the laureates had previously worked with individuals who had already won Nobel Prizes.

Before Merton’s conceptualization, James S. Coleman and colleagues’ 1966 report (the Coleman Report) demonstrated that academic achievement is influenced not only by in-school factors but also by a range of out-of-school variables. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu provided a framework for these findings, arguing that inequalities stem not only from socioeconomic status but also from cultural and social capital. According to Bourdieu, education can facilitate the reproduction of social class^【2】.

In education, Keith Stanovich (1986, 1999) showed that the Matthew Effect also applies to reading skills. “Word-rich” students become increasingly enriched while “word-poor” students fall further behind, demonstrating how small initial differences in education expand over years^【3】.

Daniel Rigney (2010), in his book The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage, examined the manifestation of the effect across diverse fields such as science, economics, politics, and education, as well as the interactions among these domains.

Another theoretical approach similar to the Matthew Effect is Gunnar Myrdal’s (1957, 1970) principle of circular and cumulative causation. According to this principle, centers with advantages in capital, human resources, and other assets attract more of these resources, thereby deepening inequalities between themselves and their surroundings.

Albert-László Barabási’s work on “scale-free” networks and “preferential attachment” is also related to the Matthew Effect. Preferential attachment describes the tendency of a new node entering a network—for example, a scientist or artist—to connect not randomly but to nodes with the highest existing number of connections (centres or “hubs”). This process results in a network’s connection distribution following a “power law” rather than a normal distribution (bell curve).

In this context, a distinction emerges between performance and success. Performance typically has a limit and follows a normal distribution. Success—such as the number of citations received or income earned—can be unlimited and follows a power law. Consequently, very small differences in performance can lead to disproportionately large differences in success. Success becomes a process not merely determined by individual performance but by how society, through network structures, evaluates that performance.

Application Areas

The Matthew Effect can be observed in all areas of life where inequalities exist.

Science and Technology

Well-known scientists receive more citations than their lesser-known peers. Early-career researchers who co-publish with established scientists can see increased citation rates not only for those publications but for their other works as well. Similarly, prestigious scientific institutions attract more resources, qualified academics, and students, reinforcing their position. In technology, countries with advanced infrastructure are more likely to develop new technologies, thereby exacerbating the digital divide.

Economics

In economics, the Matthew Effect is expressed in sayings such as “money attracts money” or “the big fish eats the small fish.” Initial advantages such as inheritance or inherited social position influence individuals’ future life chances. Markets can evolve into “winner-take-all” structures, where small differences in performance lead to disproportionate rewards.

Politics and Public Policy

In politics, “power begets more power.” For example, high rates of re-election in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives illustrate this phenomenon. The effect can also deepen social inequalities. In the United States, for instance, limited educational and employment opportunities for Black Americans have contributed to intergenerational poverty and inability to accumulate wealth. This situation can lead to secondary negative effects in areas such as crime rates and health. Tax policies can further deepen inequalities by reducing the burden on advantaged groups while increasing it on disadvantaged ones.

Education

One of the most prominent areas where the Matthew Effect is observed is education. There is a strong correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement. International student assessment programs such as PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS focus on out-of-school factors—such as family characteristics and home resources—that are strongly linked to student performance.

The Matthew Effect in the Turkish Education System

In a 2023 article titled “The Matthew Effect in the Turkish Education System,” Mahmut Özer notes that over the past two decades, access to education in Türkiye has become massified, with enrollment rates exceeding 99% at all levels. During this period, numerous social policies have been implemented—including free textbooks, free meals, transportation support, scholarships, and conditional education assistance—with the aim of promoting not merely access to education but also equality of opportunity within education^【4】. Nevertheless, despite these support mechanisms, the article evaluates that the Matthew Effect remains particularly intense in four areas:

• Access to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): For many years, access to ECEC has been closely tied to socioeconomic status, leading children who received such education to begin primary school with a distinct advantage. PISA and TIMSS data show that students who attended ECEC achieve higher academic outcomes than those who did not.

• Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: The strong correlation between SES and academic achievement is one of the most evident manifestations of the effect. A study based on 2020 LGS (Secondary School Transition System) data found that the variable most strongly correlated with student performance was the socioeconomic level of the school. It is also noted that the total years of education attained by parents have a stronger impact than household income.

• School Tracking: The placement of students into different school types—such as science high schools, Anatolian high schools, and vocational high schools—through examinations is seen as a practice that deepens the Matthew Effect. This tracking groups students not only by academic achievement but also by socioeconomic status. As a result, students with similar SES and achievement levels cluster in the same schools. In schools with concentrations of low achievement and low SES, teacher expectations for student success decline and peer learning diminishes. In particular, the TEOG system, which ranked all schools by examination scores, is said to have maximized the Matthew Effect by categorizing students according to their socioeconomic levels.

• Access to Senior Teachers: In Türkiye, a strong relationship has been identified between student academic achievement and teacher experience. New or less experienced teachers (approximately 50.4%) are disproportionately assigned to the most disadvantaged regions and schools, thereby limiting access to experienced teachers for students from low-SES backgrounds and perpetuating existing disadvantages.

Interventions and Mitigation Strategies

Rigney (2010) argues that the Matthew Effect is not an inevitable social phenomenon but rather a consequence of existing social policies (“artificial rules”) and therefore can be altered. It is argued that through egalitarian approaches and social interventions, the accumulation of advantages can be reduced. Public policies in education, health, and social security can help mitigate the chain reactions of this effect. In education, it is recommended that school tracking be delayed as long as possible^【5】.

In the context of Türkiye’s education policies, some steps have been taken to mitigate the Matthew Effect:

• Expanding Early Childhood Education: A campaign launched at the end of 2021 increased the number of ECEC institutions from 2,782 to 9,482 by May 2023. The preschool enrollment rate for five-year-olds has exceeded 99.9%. It is claimed that this development has eliminated the dependency of ECEC access on socioeconomic status at the age of five^【6】.

• Reforms in the Examination System: The replacement of the TEOG system with the LGS system, under which most students are assigned to schools based on their place of residence rather than central exam scores, is regarded as a step that reduces the impact of school tracking.

• Supportive Projects: Initiatives such as the “1000 Schools in Vocational Education Project” and the “10,000 Schools in Basic Education Project” are designed to provide “positive discrimination” to disadvantaged schools. Additionally, direct budget allocations to schools to meet their specific needs are among the measures taken in this context.

• Continuation of Social Policies: Social policies implemented over the past two decades—including free textbooks, free meals, scholarships, and transportation support—are noted to have contributed to minimizing disparities.