As usual, we will want to put this in the context of the reasonable dialog among economists over the last few centuries.
The Fundamental Theorem of Microeconomics gives us an argument against government intervention in markets, but, as usual, it isn't a conclusive argument, but it puts the burden of proof on those who want to argue in favor of government intervention.
Nevertheless, the burden of proof may be met in some cases. The argument against government intervention can be undercut in some cases if we can show that the assumptions underlying the Fundamental Theorem of Economics are untrue in a particular case. Adam Smith's Lighthouse, and pure public goods in general, are such a case.
That would shift the burden of proof back on those who oppose government intervention. Again, they might be able to respond by undercutting the public good theory in some way. One common way is to argue that government, by its nature, is so inefficient that we are better off without it, even when markets are not efficient. If you are persuaded by that claim, the conclusions of the public goods theory are undercut -- but since this is more a matter of political science than of economics, we will not pursue it here.
Market provision can also be efficient for quasipublic goods, but because they are more complex, arguments based on quasipublic goods will generally be easier to undercut.
Public and quasipublic goods are not the only exceptions that undercut the Fundamental Theorem of Economics. There is another category, probably more important in quantitative terms but a little more complex still: externalities.
Copyright