In the refined halls of academia and textbooks, economists carefully construct elegant theories and models to describe how markets and economies function in an ideal world. The assumptions of rational actors, perfect information, and unfettered competition form the bedrock of classical and neoclassical economic thought. While these mathematical models have tremendous explanatory power, they often fail to account for the messy realities of realpolitik and the actual motivations and constraints faced by corporations, governments, and political actors.

The field of economics rightly prides itself on its scientific rigor and quantitative approaches. However, this focus on pristine theory can at times blind economists to the ways the real world deviates from their tidy models. The realpolitik of diplomacy, lobbying, regulatory capture, and the influence of special interests create distortions and imperfections in markets that are difficult to fully account for. As a result, many of the classical economic prescriptions fail to produce their expected results when implemented in the wild.

Rational Actors and Ulterior Motives

One of the core assumptions in standard economic theory is that individuals and firms are "rational actors" who make decisions purely to maximize their personal utility or profits. In reality, human decision-making is often irrational, driven by cognitive biases, emotions, short-term thinking, and motives beyond just wealth maximization.

Corporations, despite their profit-seeking mandate, frequently act in ways that sacrifice some earnings for other strategic objectives. They may pursue anti-competitive practices to box out rivals, overpay for acquisitions to eliminate future threats, or invest in lobbying and regulatory capture to tilt the playing field in their favor – none of which are contemplated in the profit-maximization frameworks used by economists.

Similarly, politicians and government actors do not simply strive to maximize "social welfare" as utility functions suggest they should. Their choices are driven by political calculations, desire for power, legacy-building, and responding to the interests of influential backers and constituents. The public good is often a secondary consideration compared to these more pragmatic realpolitik incentives.

Concentrated Benefits, Dispersed Costs

Economic theory generally favors policies that increase overall efficiency and benefit the greater good, even if there are some losers in the process (who could theoretically be compensated from the societal gains). However, realpolitik means the "losers" from economic reforms vehemently resist change to protect their interests, while the "winners" are a dispersed group who benefits only marginally.

This asymmetry, where the losses are concentrated among a vocal and mobilized minority and the gains broadly distributed across a majority, creates a political climate very resistant to economic liberalization or pro-competitive policies. Globalization and free trade create economic gains overall, but put significant pressure on import-competing industries and their communities – leading them to lobby fiercely against free trade agreements. Economists may view occupational licensing requirements as inefficient rent-seeking, but professionals in those fields unified in favor of protecting their livelihoods.

The fierce resistance from impacted interest groups and lack of coordinated demand from those who stand to gain means many economically optimal policies remain stuck in the realm of theory and never get implemented in reality. Read more on the website

Public Choice Theory and Government Failures

While market failures and imperfect competition get much attention in economics, the field of public choice studies the misaligned incentives and failures inherent in legislative processes and government intervention. Even if economic models identify areas where government action could improve outcomes, public choice theory explains why such policies frequently get distorted or rendered ineffective in their actual execution.

Thanks to lobbying, regulatory capture, and the disproportionate influence of special interests, government policies often end up favoring incumbent firms and protecting the status quo rather than promoting greater competition and economic efficiency. Tax loopholes get written into laws. Unnecessary barriers to entry get established to limit new rivals. Government subsidies become vehicles for corporate welfare rather than addressing legitimate market failures.

In the real world of realpolitik, the noble economic aims of government intervention frequently get hijacked by the profit motives of politically-connected firms and the personal interests of government officials. Public choice theory shows how self-interested actors within the political process can unravel the grand ambitions of economists' policy prescriptions.

Uneven Diffusion of Knowledge and Best Practices

Classical economic models implicitly assume that all market participants have perfect information and rapidly adopt optimal technologies, processes, and operational best practices. In reality, the diffusion of knowledge and new innovations throughout the real economy is incredibly uneven and fraught with frictions.

Many businesses cling to outdated strategies, techniques and ways of operating long after new, more efficient approaches become available – whether due to organizational inertia, lack of information and training, misaligned incentives for decision-makers, or any number of other behavioral factors. Economists may model firms operating at maximum productive efficiency, but in the real world, there is a wide dispersion in productivity levels and operational performance between the frontier firms and the laggards.

This uneven diffusion of knowledge and best practices limits the potential gains from economic growth and business dynamism. It explains why many of the theoretical benefits from technological innovations, increased competition, and economic liberalization policies often get realized only gradually or don't fully pan out as classical models might predict.

Navigating the Nuances

Of course, economic theories are not meant to be perfect representations of reality, but simplified models to gain broad insights and make analytically tractable predictions. And the classical economic frameworks have been enormously successful in advancing our understanding and guiding policies in the right general direction, even if the real-world outcomes sometimes disappoint compared to the textbook ideals.

However, realpolitik – the pragmatic motivations of political actors, the uneven diffusion of knowledge throughout the economy, the obfuscating fog of cognitive biases and imperfect information, and the asymmetric resistance to economic disruption from concentrated interest groups – creates immense deviations from the cleanly prescribed outcomes suggested by elegant economic models.

The role of economists going forward is not to wholly abandon their classical foundations, but to recognize the limitations and unrealistic assumptions baked into many standard frameworks. By updating their theories to incorporate more descriptive accuracy about the motivations of political and economic actors, economists can strive to develop nuanced models that better predict how markets and policies will actually unfold in an imperfect, realpolitik world.

Rather than staying confined to the sterile environs of perfect competition and omniscient rationality, the next generation of economic thinking needs to venture out into the high weeds of regulatory capture, government failures, and concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs. By engaging with the obstacles and uneven playing fields of realpolitik, economists can construct augmented theories with greater practical relevance.

Armed with more grounded, holistic models that accurately capture the frictions and warped incentives of the real world, economic analysis can better guide policymakers on how to effectively implement growth-enhancing reforms. Realpolitik will always create some deviations from theoretical perfection. But by embracing the untidy constraints of human behavior and political economy, economists can aspire to develop frameworks and prescriptions tailored to succeeding within the inescapable realities of realpolitik.