Which economic sectors should exist, according to this framework?

There is no fixed list of sectors that "should exist", but the utility-and-cost framework helps rank them: high-utility, low-cost activities are carried out right away, high-utility, high-cost ones are planned, and low-utility, high-cost ones are cut.

The framework that weighs utility against cost is not a new economic theory: it is a management tool used to decide where to spend time and money. Applied to the economy as a whole, the question of which sectors should exist has no single answer, but it does have a criterion: every activity is judged by what it contributes and what it costs.

## Quick wins: high utility, low cost

This is where sectors that generate returns with relatively little investment fit in. Retail and local services are the classic example: opening a shop or a workshop requires less capital than a factory, and returns can arrive within months. Hospitality and equipment repair work on the same logic. So do software and digital services, where the marginal cost of serving one more customer is almost zero once the tool is built.

These are activities that do not transform a country's productive structure, but they sustain employment and output without requiring major infrastructure. In Spain, retail and hospitality account for a significant share of the SME fabric, according to data from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

## Strategic investment: high utility, high cost

The pharmaceutical industry, semiconductor manufacturing and energy infrastructure fit here. They generate long-term value, but demand capital, time and specialised knowledge. A country that wants them must plan for them, break them into phases and accept that returns will not arrive in the first year. Renewable energy is a clear case: installation is costly, but subsequent operating costs are low and the strategic value is high.

The same goes for research and development. It does not produce immediate results, but without it, quick-win sectors end up competing on price rather than innovation.

## Maintenance: low utility, low cost

Last-mile logistics, routine accounting and facilities upkeep do not make anything grow on their own, but if they fail, the system jams. These are tasks best automated or scheduled so they do not interrupt what does add value. In sector terms, administration and support services perform this lubricating function.

## Drains: low utility, high cost

Here the framework is ruthless: if an activity consumes a lot and returns nothing, it is eliminated. In economics, that translates into oversized sectors living off subsidies with no measurable return, or activities that generate external costs —pollution, congestion— that nobody pays for. The criterion is not sarracena, it is cash flow: freeing up resources for what actually works.

Applying this framework to economic policy is a simplification, and no sector decision should be made on this table alone. But as an initial filter, it forces the question many public plans avoid: how much does it cost and what does it give back?