<p>There isn't any right amount generally. The most efficient way to allocate government resources (regardless whether we are talking about things you consider essential or non-essential) is to allocate resources in a way that maximizes some social welfare function.</p>
<p>Social welfare function depends on what sort of goals/values government wants to pursue.</p>
<p>For example, social welfare function could be given by:</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$W(x_1,x_2)= x_1^ax_2^{1-a} \quad st \quad y=px_1 +qx_2$$</span></p>
<p>where <span class="math-container">$x_1$</span> would be essentials and <span class="math-container">$x_2$</span> non essentials, <span class="math-container">$y$</span> government budget and <span class="math-container">$p$</span> and <span class="math-container">$q$</span> price of essentials and non-essentials.</p>
<p>With government believing <span class="math-container">$a=1$</span> the most efficient thing would be to spend whole government budget only on essentials and completely ignore non-essentials (e.g. 0 money for sports, arts etc). If <span class="math-container">$a=0$</span> most efficient way would be to spend entirety of budget only on non-essentials.
The most efficient allocation of budget to essentials or non-essentials will always be one that maximizes the welfare function and thus given by <span class="math-container">$\max W.$</span></p>
<p>However, different welfare functions (and the same welfare function with different parameters) will give you different amount of spending and there is no objective 'correct' welfare function, since what objectives government should pursue is matter of philosophy not science.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T21:00:11.860Z
How would one determine a precise value for "a"?
Brian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T21:03:05.453Z
@TrystwithFreedom you can pick any value you want based on your ideology. Suppose you are essential 'fanatic' -  then a is 1. Suppose you are non-essential fanatic then a=0. If you are neither essential fanatic nor non-essential fanatic a will be something in between 0 and 1. a is the intensity with which you believe government should prefer essentials to non-essentials. Any value is equally valid. You can use philosophy or religion to figure out what a should be, there is no objective answer
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T21:03:44.280Z
Damnit, why does everything boil down to philosophy in the end :(
Brian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T21:04:12.167Z
@TrystwithFreedom science is descriptive not prescriptive.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-27T10:19:11.263Z
physics or biology is also misused to justify government programs. Any science can be misused. Also economics does not say bad things will happen if house prices go down you should educate yourself
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T20:56:51.590Z
2022-11-23T21:01:03.190Z
2022-11-23T21:01:03.190Z
1muflon1
<p>By directly non essential, I mean things like sports, research at public universities etc. How <strong>should</strong> a government decide how much of the yearly budget to keep for such things? Is there some way to figure out what is the right amount to invest in such fields?</p>

<government><government-spending><research>
What is the economically most efficient way to spend on activites which don't produce direct economical gain?
Brian
# What is the economically most efficient way to spend on activites which don't produce direct economical gain?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-23)

By directly non essential, I mean things like sports, research at public universities etc. How **should** a government decide how much of the yearly budget to keep for such things? Is there some way to figure out what is the right amount to invest in such fields?

**Tags:** government, government-spending, research

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-11-23. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

There isn't any right amount generally. The most efficient way to allocate government resources (regardless whether we are talking about things you consider essential or non-essential) is to allocate resources in a way that maximizes some social welfare function.

Social welfare function depends on what sort of goals/values government wants to pursue.

For example, social welfare function could be given by:

$$W(x\_1,x\_2)= x\_1^ax\_2^{1-a} \quad st \quad y=px\_1 +qx\_2$$

where $x\_1$ would be essentials and $x\_2$ non essentials, $y$ government budget and $p$ and $q$ price of essentials and non-essentials.

With government believing $a=1$ the most efficient thing would be to spend whole government budget only on essentials and completely ignore non-essentials (e.g. 0 money for sports, arts etc). If $a=0$ most efficient way would be to spend entirety of budget only on non-essentials.
The most efficient allocation of budget to essentials or non-essentials will always be one that maximizes the welfare function and thus given by $\max W.$

However, different welfare functions (and the same welfare function with different parameters) will give you different amount of spending and there is no objective 'correct' welfare function, since what objectives government should pursue is matter of philosophy not science.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: How would one determine a precise value for "a"?  
> **username_1**: @TrystwithFreedom you can pick any value you want based on your ideology. Suppose you are essential 'fanatic' -  then a is 1. Suppose you are non-essential fanatic then a=0. If you are neither essential fanatic nor non-essential fanatic a will be something in between 0 and 1. a is the intensity with which you believe government should prefer essentials to non-essentials. Any value is equally valid. You can use philosophy or religion to figure out what a should be, there is no objective answer  
> **username_0**: Damnit, why does everything boil down to philosophy in the end :(  
> **username_1**: @TrystwithFreedom science is descriptive not prescriptive.  
> **username_1**: physics or biology is also misused to justify government programs. Any science can be misused. Also economics does not say bad things will happen if house prices go down you should educate yourself  

---

