According to modern law-and-economics (“L&E”) orthodoxy, the primary—maybe even the only—legitimate justification for government regulation is to correct a market failure. This conclusion is based on two key assumptions. First, when markets are functioning reasonably well, they are better at achieving efficiency than the government is. Second, most markets function reasonably well most of the time. Although there is probably evidence to support these assumptions (for example, the relative prosperity of market-based economies in comparison with the relative poverty of centrally planned economies), both assumptions are usually taken as articles of faith by mainstream L&E scholars. This is why scholarly articles calling for a shift to government-owned means of production or government-provided goods and services are rare.
Logue, Kyle D. "In Praise of (Some) Ex Post Regulation: A Response to Professor Galle." Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 69 (2016): 97-122.