Privatisation is founded upon this (false) conception. In short due to the (false) “unavoidable tragedy of the commons”, our only choice is to have assets either privately owned or owned by the state.

This was what was espoused by the (debunked) paper and remains a pillar of contemporary neo-liberal ideology.

> Privatisation is founded upon this (false) conception

“Privatization” is a government policy, not “modern economic theory”, and to the extent that policy is based on that broad concept of a general effect of which the essay purported to document an example (rather than specific analysis of the ___domain being privatized), that essay is not the basis (it neither introduced the concept—which was much older—nor was is it the sole purported example).

> This was what was espoused by the (debunked) paper and remains a pillar of contemporary neo-liberal ideology.

It was a pillar of liberal ideology long before the essay was written, it never rested on the essay and, in any case, ideology isn’t the same as economic theory (Austrian school aside.)

Pretty confident that a ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’ fits within ‘Modern economic theory’.

I think we’re at semantics.

> Pretty confident that a ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’ fits within ‘Modern economic theory’.

If you mean the 2009 one for work that included one of the many dismantlings of both the underlying essay you are you are talking about and the broader principal it addresses, sure, but that further rebuts, rather than supports, your argument that modern economic theory is based on that essay.