The market-oriented resource allocation model has an internal mechanism to make the choice of maximizing income, that is to say, the profit-seeking nature of capital gives economic subjects enough motivation to compare the income of various alternatives in decision-making and allocate resources to the areas with the greatest income; Once the practice proves that the decision is not optimal, the decision-maker will have the internal driving force to adjust the decision. Non-market-oriented resource allocation mode lacks this internal mechanism, but even in a mature market economy, non-market-oriented resource allocation mode cannot be completely eliminated. For example, subsidizing agriculture is a common practice in all countries, but how to subsidize it is very particular. In some countries in East Asia, governments subsidize agriculture by investing in inseparable infrastructure, such as irrigation systems and transportation systems. In Latin America and Africa, it subsidizes divisible commodities (such as agricultural machinery and fertilizers). The results of practice show that the former generally improves agricultural productivity, while the subsidies in Latin America are mainly occupied by landlord groups, while those in Africa are mainly occupied by politically influential tribes. As a result, the expected agricultural productivity has not been greatly improved. Comparing the two, we can see that the opportunity cost of agricultural subsidy decision-making in Latin America and Africa is very high, which is basically equivalent to the general improvement of agricultural productivity in East Asia. This enlightens us that in order to minimize administrative interference in resource allocation, opportunity cost analysis must also be introduced into the necessary administrative resource allocation. Government decision-makers who have the right to allocate resources should consider not only the actual cost to be incurred, but also the opportunity cost. We should not only invest resources in profitable areas, but also strive to invest in the most profitable areas.
However, relying only on the consciousness of decision makers may be reliable for a while and unreliable for a while; A few people may be reliable, and quite a few people are not. This is not to belittle people's consciousness and moral level, but to say that the system is stronger than people. Why do some people choose to go to college and give up the opportunity to work? It is because people expect that the income from going to college-investing in human capital-is greater than the income from taking part in work. If in a society, people's income depends not on the accumulation of their human capital, but on other factors, such as who takes part in the work first, then the opportunity cost of going to college will be too high and the number of people who choose to go to college will be greatly reduced. With the increasing importance of human capital, it is undoubtedly very harmful to social and economic development. Similarly, if the decision-maker's income does not depend on the income brought by his decision-making, then he has no incentive to use scarce resources for the most beneficial purpose to society, which will lead to a great waste of social resources. In this way, it is not surprising that we make hasty decisions, blindly launch new projects, and even "image projects" and "performance projects" appear repeatedly. It can be seen that, on the one hand, the function of allocating resources should be given to the market as much as possible to ensure that the market is effective, to prevent market signals from being artificially distorted, and to avoid the situation that many people do not choose to go to college; On the other hand, the necessary allocation of administrative resources must solve the problem of supervision and encouragement to decision makers.