It s all futile. Just get out of the way and let prices and market forces deliver their own economically rational solution. The use of words such as always and everything make it a definition applicable to few economists. More satisfactory is Robert Manne s argument that what characterises economic rationalism is a profound suspicion of all forms of state intervention in economic life and an almost equally profound faith in the beneficence of unfettered, or almost unfettered, market forces . In their most basic form, economic rationalist views simply hold that, generally speaking, markets usually provide more satisfying answers to questions of choice, consumer preference and so on and in doing so, provide a more rapidly advancing level of total well-being for all concerned than decisions by diktat, whether those be by politicians, bureaucrats or controllers generally.
Economic rationalists are, of course, aware that markets can fail .
But they will generally believe that, whatever the problems of market failure may sometimes be, they are as nothing to the demonstrated and persistent proofs of government failure where governments are employed in place of markets. The problem with such a definition is that it assumes a remarkable homogeneity among economists. John Edwards correctly points out that Even between people who think of themselves as market-oriented economists there are frequent disagreements over policy. The mainstream agenda for reform is quite limited, and beyond it there are disputes between economists with very similar technical modes of analysis and similar value systems. Elsewhere Blandy has qualified his argument by insisting that economic rationalism is just another phrase for microeconomic reform.