All theory on market failure uses the same methodology. It artificially constructs an imaginary perfect world, and then condemns a failure of real-world people to measure up this unreal standard, as "market failure".
But market transactions only means *voluntary* transactions. If such and such a good or service is not supplied by the market, that's just another way of saying that people don't want it, or don't want to pay what the sellers require in order to supply it. That's not a market failure, it's a market success. Why should people be forced into buying a service they don't want.
And the protagonists of market-failure theory never apply the same standard to government. Their method is only "because something I don't like *therefore* government is the solution". But they never even attempt to justify this line of reasoning. For example, if the original problem is that the people not buying something that the know-it-all thinks they should, how can government be any solution, since it's *only* claim to legitimacy is that it represents these same people. If they are too stupid or selfish to buy something that's good for them, obviously a representative government will be just as stupid or selfish.
Besides, does applying for a job in the government suddenly make one virtuous and clever? This is the absurd assumption of all such theory.
Many of the problems alleged to be market failure are actually government failure. For example if a factory dumps polluted water in a river, that's a government failure, because government owns the river and fails to protect it. Factories don't dump polluted water in private home-owners' loungerooms because private property owners will aggressively defend their property. Government officials get paid the same whether they do a good or a bad job, or no job, and *that's* why people dump their rubbish onto pubic land. It's not a market failure, it's a government failure.
And this is the double standard of the whole body of theory. Anything they don't like, they call a market failure, and call for government intervention, even though there's no reason
a) to blame the market for its failure to provide what the clever know-it-alls think other people should be forced to provide, and
b) to think that government can do any better, when the downsides of government action are taken into account, which they never are.
Here is an article which refutes the entire "market failure" body of theory: https://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf "The Privatisation of Roads" by Walter Block.
It shows that *every single one* of the arguments advanced for so-called public goods are fallacious and cannot be rationally defended.