[001sky]

This is an interesting exposition, but (I would just add for generality) the nature of "Market" is quite undefined, ex ante.[1] There are only specific markets in specific places for specific things, with specific participants. The nature of a "free market," is also precisely that they are not "gamed" by external authority ex-ante.[2]

The study of "non-economic" (ie, meta) activity that has (determinant) economic impact is most properly referred to as Political Economy. Although many trained "economists" avoid this. The illusory notion that veracity lies in 'scientific' objectivity (and so with it, government funding), has something to do with it.

_______

[1] ie, It is only defined directly by identification of a contractual exchange between N parties (agents), or 'archeologcally' through recipt, contract, or other record. But such an exchange directed by fiat, for example, would not qualify.

[2] For the definitional seperation of Hierarchy from Market, see for example Coase or Williamson.