We study assortative (`meritocratic') matching in voluntary contributions games. Under non-meritocracy (society is randomly formed), theory predicts maximal inefficiency but perfect equality. Higher levels of meritocracy (society matches contributors with contributors) are predicted to improve       efficiency but come at the cost of growing inequality. We conduct an experiment to test this tradeoff and make the astonishing finding that, notwithstanding theoretical predictions, higher levels of meritocracy increase both efficiency and equality. Fairness considerations explain the departures from theoretical predictions including the dissolution of the efficiency-equality tradeoff.
