Fresh Thinking on Occupational Licensing

Occupational licensing started with the idea that jobs with serious consequences – doctors being the prototypical example – require some sort of government certification and oversight. But that rather innocuous motivation has ballooned into a harmful and unsustainable state of affairs.From laws requiring licenses tobraid hair to ones requiring licenses forfloral design andcasket manufacturing, occupational licensure has put barriers in the way of people who wish to do non-dangerous jobs and has done little to protect consumers. Instead, it ’s frequently used as a way for politically well-connected people and state licensing boards tofreeze out their competition, a textbook example of regulatory capture. The end result makes it harder for people to find fruitful employment, particularly low-income workers who often don ’t have the time or money to get licenses.Fortunately, the Supreme Court has offered some hope for those who don ’t want needless barriers thrown their way when they want to make a living. In 2014, the Courtheld inNorth Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that a licensing board that had banned non-dentists from offering teeth-whitening services had violated federal antitrust laws – and that all licensing boards do the same when they engage in anticompetitive practices. (This was incidentally the first and only case in which Cato fileda brief supporting the federal government.) The Court further clarified that licensin...

Source: Cato-at-liberty - August 3, 2017 Category: American Health Authors: Ilya Shapiro Source Type: blogs