> A key component of the total benefits came from psychological wellbeing, which contributed almost €80 million
> And, as much as I like psychological wellbeing (who doesn't!) - saying that it's worth €80 million when you didn't actually get €80 million doesn't help things
There are a LOT of problems with this programme, but personally, I think associating a costed economic benefit with "psycholigical wellbeing" seems good. It may make a pretty good precedence argument for other beneficial-to-society programme pilots to point to when selling their merits. The idea of a government programme appearing to prioritise psychological wellbeing seems net positive.
Psychological wellbeing is great! But this report was much ballyhooed in Irish media to claim that the program paid for itself when it absolutely did not.
Making Tuesday free ice cream day would also improve psychological well-being, but that doesn't help pay for the program.
My taxes pay for the programme. That is why I pay them. If the programme benefits psychological wellbeing, then it is worthwhile for me to pay for it.
Whether you choose to quantify this in terms of monetary net contrib to the economy as a broad concern, or as direct public benefit, is splitting econ hairs.
> And, as much as I like psychological wellbeing (who doesn't!) - saying that it's worth €80 million when you didn't actually get €80 million doesn't help things
There are a LOT of problems with this programme, but personally, I think associating a costed economic benefit with "psycholigical wellbeing" seems good. It may make a pretty good precedence argument for other beneficial-to-society programme pilots to point to when selling their merits. The idea of a government programme appearing to prioritise psychological wellbeing seems net positive.