It is argued that governments should invest in education instead of the arts. I completely agree with this point of view because education contributes to improving of technologies and also always is supported by citizens.
Funding education encourages a technological advancement. The arts take a crucial part in people`s cultural and social lives. However, education stimulates scientific and technological innovation, leading to the development of new industries and increasing a country’s competitiveness on the world stage. Investments in research and education can have a more direct impact on technological progress than investments in the arts. Unlike art, which can inspire or stimulate creativity, research and education often directly generate innovation. The results of scientific research can be used to create new technologies, improve processes and develop new industries.
In addition, improving the quality of education in a country has usually widespread public support. Typically, investment in education has wider public support as it is perceived as a more direct and immediate investment in the future, whereas arts budgets can be controversial in terms of their importance to society as a whole. For example, in the United States, education budgets often attract greater public support. Investments in education, especially at the higher education or research level, tend to receive more political and public support because they are considered key to innovation, economic growth and a country’s competitiveness.
In conclusion, government spending should be on education rather than the arts. For one thing, more funds education is taken, more technologies can be created, and for another, people support always such kinds of improvements by authorities as compared with the arts.