Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead. Do you agree or disagree?

The funds allocated by authorities to the arts and culture are considered a way to dissipate money. Many people believe that financial resources should be

instead

Linking Words

focused on public services,

such

Linking Words

as health care systems, transport systems, education etc.

Although

Linking Words

the concerns of those people are understandable, I do not agree with their opinion . On one hand, the reason the ministry is investing in the arts,

such

Linking Words

as exhibitions, plays or music events is to preserve and promote a nation's cultural heritage, giving the opportunity to locals and foreigners to learn and share community values.

Furthermore

Linking Words

, in the long term, state patronised events can become a new economical income able to repay the entire society.

For instance

Linking Words

, take as example La Biennale di Venezia, which concern event about art, theatre, architecture, dance and music, it has always received economical resource from the authority and it become famous over the world. Generally, wide-ranging cultural events

such

Linking Words

as La Biennale are able to repay the economical upfront efforts made out by the host cities, on many levels.

On the other hand

Linking Words

, a state administration must be invested in essential public services to guarantee a health care system for every citizen in need, a functional and sustainable transport system and an appropriate educational environment for the younger generation. A well-developed social program can safeguard human’s basic needs which are essential for personal development.  To conclude, the Government must be able to invest equally on both sides to improve on every level the well-being of society.