When failures are blamed on a lack of resources, while their actual cause lies in inefficiency and irresponsibility.[1]
Definition:
In fact, the Resource Excuse Fallacy is an attempt to mislead public opinion and divert focus from the real issues. It diverts attention from the real problem—lack of motivation, irresponsibility, or the absence of wise education. Instead of acknowledging the true internal causes of failure, an individual or institution appeals to an external one, namely, a ”lack of resources”. Yet even when society provides additional resources, the failures persist.
For example, over a decade (2014–2024), Sweden, aiming to combat organised crime, witnessed the most significant injection of resources into the police force in its modern history. The budget of the Swedish Police Authority (Polismyndigheten) increased dramatically—from approximately 20 billion SEK in 2014 to over 41 billion SEK in 2024, a rise of more than 100%. Concurrently, the government expanded the workforce, increasing the total number of police employees from over 28,500 in 2014 to 39,690 by 2024.
Despite this massive growth in resources, organised crime did not decline. This fact shows that invoking a ”lack of resources” to justify failure in tackling crime in Sweden is a clear example of the Resource Excuse Fallacy.
The Resource Excuse Fallacy shares similarities with the Fig Leaf Fallacy, as both serve as a kind of cover used to conceal the truth.
However, they differ in the nature of the cover: the Fig Leaf Fallacy typically involves a small positive gesture (e.g., planting a few trees to mask vast environmental destruction), while the Resource Excuse Fallacy uses a negative excuse (a claimed lack of means) to deflect from the true cause.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- An institution or individual faces a problem or crisis.
- Instead of acknowledging their own shortcomings, they attribute the cause of the problem or crisis to a “lack of resources.”
- False conclusion: “Since we do not have enough resources, we are not responsible.”
Examples from real life:
1. United Nations bureaucracy (international system):
Many agencies within the United Nations working in development and humanitarian assistance have, during periods of financial stability, received steadily increasing budgets and expanded in size. However, internal evaluations indicate that these agencies have often failed to achieve their primary objectives, mainly due to overlapping mandates, excessive bureaucracy, and poor coordination among different departments. Nevertheless, many of these institutions, before admitting to structural failures, are quick to attribute any shortcomings in fulfilling their missions to ”major funding gaps” or ”a reduction in voluntary contributions.”
Here, it should be noted that this fallacy shifts the core problem from the realm of structural management to that of financial resources. As long as existing funds are used to duplicate tasks, maintain unnecessary structures, and sustain inefficient bureaucracy, additional funding will only exacerbate inefficiency and increase its cost. In this case, appealing to a lack of resources serves as a way to evade the difficult managerial reforms necessary to preserve existing resources and improve efficiency.
2. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (public/administrative sector):
The National Health Service (NHS) is one of the world’s largest public employers, with its budget steadily and annually increasing to meet the growing needs of the population. Despite massive and historic budget rises over several decades, the NHS has continually faced operational crises, including extremely long waiting lists and unacceptable delays in emergency services. Many managers, politicians, and associated unions attribute these recurring failures solely to “underinvestment” or “insufficient funding.”
Here, it should be noted that the continual increase in funding without a corresponding improvement in efficiency suggests that the root of the problem lies in quality, structure, staff management, and logistics systems, rather than merely in the quantity of funding. In an organisation of this scale, insisting on the “lack of resources” fallacy allows managers and politicians to avoid more difficult discussions about staff demotivation, administrative mismanagement, or the need for fundamental structural reform, while shifting all the blame onto the public purse.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It diverts self-criticism (by those in charge) outward, towards society, by blaming it for not providing enough resources.
- It reinforces and institutionalises the evasion of responsibility.
- It leads to the accumulation of problems, as it conceals their real causes.
- It misleads public opinion and diverts attention from inefficiency to an alleged ”lack of resources.”
How can we recognise and respond to it?
When a lack of resources is presented as the reason for failures, we should ask:
– Is the problem really caused by a lack of resources?
– Has this institution not received more resources before? What was the result?
– Would allocating more resources lead to any real change?
– Could the root of the problem lie in a lack of motivation, efficiency, or responsibility?
An appropriate response might be: “Your claim of lacking resources is merely an excuse. The root of the problem lies in inefficiency and avoidance of responsibility. Increasing resources will not bring about any real change.”
Conclusion:
The Resource Excuse Fallacy illustrates how superficial excuses can conceal the actual causes of problems. This fallacy diverts attention away from the development of responsibility, motivation, and proper planning, directing public focus instead towards an alleged ”lack of funds or resources.” Recognising this error helps us avoid accepting shallow justifications and encourages us to address the real sources of inefficiency.
Yet, the deeper root of this fallacy lies not in economics or management, but in education and human development. A society that fails to embed moral education within its schooling system cannot cultivate aware, responsible, and honest individuals who act with inner motivation and a sense of duty in managing public affairs.
It is precisely because of this need that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasises that the aim of education should be the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Aligning the educational system with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nurtures a sense of responsibility in individuals. A responsible person faces problems honestly and, when the fault lies with themselves, reflects critically on their words and actions and takes steps to correct them.
[1] This fallacy was identified and defined by Bahman Azadfar.