This article makes a simplified argument against social planning utilizing the cost of solving wicked problems.
Wicked problems have a technical definition which includes many characteristics, the first of which is “There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.”The general notion behind the concept is simply that some public policy or social planning questions are harder to solve than others. Some wicked problems may even be impossible to solve from a policy or social planning perspective.
Given that wicked problems exist, we already have a reason to favor the private market over the public institution.Basically, if some problem is very difficult or impossible to solve by way of public policy or social planning it becomes rather obvious that one solution is not to address the question as a matter of public policy or social planning.Policymakers will be more effective and productive if they use their resources only to address tame problems and avoid wicked problems. Let the market handle such problems. This is a case where laissez faire seems to be an efficient and strategic choice.
But I will do you one better than that. You see, tame problems are also more quickly and efficiently solved on the market. So if the market is a more efficient solver of both tame and wicked problems than a centralized traditional political state, why should the latter be used at all?It shouldn’t, and as a matter of economic reality the traditional centralized state will be replaced in the long run.