There is an argument among people that governments should not invest in art, as arts have no effect on living standards. I agree with this statement. Firstly, I will discuss how spending money on art can initiate unwanted consequences, then, in which services governments may invest in order to improve welfare.
Focusing too much on arts development rather than services that have significance in the life of population, can lead to unwanted results, such as a coup. No doubt that people who are starving or have medical issues will not enjoy listening to live music or watching paintings, instead, dissatisfied people with huge contempt to authorities can group up with like-minded residents and plan actions against the state. For example, in 2019, such situation happened in Turkey, when military leader in charge of army attempted a coup as a protest to rise in art investments and taxes.
To evade from results of disbalance that may stem from absurd expenditure on art, governments should primarily focus on improving key public services like education and medicine. This is an essential step towards future innovations and enhancement of habitat well-being. For instance, in Finland, one of the most happy and successful countries in the globe, the major priorities of the government are education and housing, which put the Finnish one point ahead in technological breakthroughs, along with no homelessness.
To conclude, although art represents a nation’s traditions and can benefit a country in financial matters, I believe that it has very few crucial implications on well-being of population, therefore, governments should put all effort in main public services.