Occupational licensing: Reality differs from rhetoric
Occupational licensing is the legal prohibition on anyone without a government-issued license practicing a trade. Such regulation is believed to be necessary to prevent consumers from being harmed by shady or incompetent service providers.
As with most government actions, the reality differs from the rhetoric.
The first hint that the real goal of occupational licensing isn't to protect consumers' health and welfare is that far too many of the professions that are licensed pose practically zero risks to ordinary people. Among the professions that are licensed in various U.S. states are florists, hair braiders and casket sellers. What are the chances that consumers will be wounded by poorly arranged bouquets of flowers or that corpses will be made more dead by defective caskets?
The real goal of occupational licensing is to protect not consumers, but incumbent suppliers. Most occupational-licensing schemes require entrants into a trade to pass exams — exams designed and graded by representatives of incumbent suppliers.
To see the folly of such schemes, ask yourself: If no new restaurant could enter the fast-food industry unless it first got the approval of McDonald's and Burger King, how many new fast-food restaurants would you expect to see? And with incumbent restaurants exercising government-granted power to exclude new rivals, what do you predict would happen to the price of a Big Mac or to the quality of a Whopper?
But what about more “significant” professions, such as doctors and lawyers?
The case for licensing these professions is no stronger than is the case for licensing florists and hair braiders. The reasons are many. Here are just two.
First, precisely because medical care and legal counsel are especially important services, it's especially important that competition to supply these services be as intense as possible. If the price of flowers is unnecessarily high or the quality poor, that's unfortunate but hardly tragic. Not so for the prices and quality of the services of doctors and lawyers.
Too high a price for medical visits will cause too many people to resort to self-diagnosis and self-medication. Too high a price for legal services will cause too many people to write their own wills or negotiate their own divorce settlements. Getting matters wrong on these fronts can be quite serious.
Won't, though, the absence of licensing allow large numbers of unqualified doctors and lawyers to practice? No.
People are not generally stupid when spending their own money on themselves and their loved ones. Without government licensing, people will demand — and other people will supply — information on different physicians and attorneys. Websites and smartphone apps will be created that, for a small fee, collect and distribute unbiased information on doctors and lawyers. People in need of medical care or legal advice will be free to consult this information and to use it as they, rather than some distant bureaucrat, choose.
And competition among physicians and lawyers — made more intense by the absence of government licensing — will drive these professionals to offer high-quality services at affordable prices.
The same open competition that leads supermarkets, restaurants, dry cleaners and department stores to constantly improve their offerings and lower their prices will do the same for all those occupations that are now licensed by government.
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- New Steeler Boykin clarifies remarks about former coach
- Zimbabwe alleges Murrysville doctor illegally killed lion
- Bucs’ starter Burnett says ‘surgery is not an option’
- After early criticism, Haley has Steelers offense poised to be even better
- Rossi: Looking at the next great Steeler
- Former Lincoln Park star Rowan chooses N.C. State
- EPA diktats: Pushing back
- Steelers swap draft pick for Eagles cornerback
- Ability to clog the trenches crucial to Steelers defense
- Penguins not alone in top-heavy approach to salary cap
- Starting 9: Examining Pirates’ deadline decisions