Read "Policy Paradox" by Deborah Stone. She gives a great example, where she describes bringing in a cake to class for her students to share - all would no doubt agree that the distribution of cake should be 'fair'...but that means many different things to different people.

Equal amount per student present ('unfair' to absent students)? Equal amount per student enrolled ('unfair' to those who made the effort to come vs those who didn't). Amount of cake proportional to body mass (unfair to small students)? Amount proportional to grade? Amount proportional to degree of historic injustice to a minority? And so on.

The point of course being, there is no such thing as 'fair', only that policy makers (and the voters who vote for them) need to balance benefits and harms to different groups, and make a set of choices that have the most benefit and least harm, according to some set of priorities.

I think it's unhelpful when the implicit criticism of the "people who need help" is that they are too stupid or too evil to know what's good for them. We might want to at least explore the possibility that they value the freedom they feel they might lose from increased welfare above the purely monetary benefits they might gain.

you need to define optimal. does it result in highest gdp relative to <x>, highest gdp growth relative to <x>, happiest citizenship, lowest incarceration rate, highest incarceration rate, lowest recidivism rate of criminals, best education, least amount of divorce, etc.

good luck on the paper. things are simple on an individual level and complex when looked at as a whole (think economics / behavior / incentives).