If only we had the evidence to support this sort of sweeping generalization. It's a nice theory on paper, in practice it seems to be more complicated depending on time scales and type of goal. There is a lot of no-true-scotsman-ing in support of the dogma, which muddies the waters. For people who want to affect actual change and believe in evidence-based approaches, it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that (today at least) you are best off with a mix.

This empirical mismatch is either handled by engaging in no-true-scotsman support for the dogma, or engaging

Having worked in both government and corporate environments, I don't see it. The efficiency of the market is about as mythical as the long term planning ability of the government.