- New report estimates state and national economic costs of occupational licensing [Morris Kleiner and Evgeny Vorotnikov, Institute for Justice] Reform efforts proceed at both state and federal levels [Angela Erickson, Cato Policy Report] Another study: licensing reduces labor supply significantly [Peter Blair and Bobby Chung, NBER]
- Cosmetology schools serve as lobbying force behind high prerequisites before newcomers can practice in field [Meredith Kolodner and Sarah Butrymowicz, New York Times]
- “Occupational Licensing and Accountant Quality: Evidence from the 150-Hour Rule” [John M. Barrios, Cato Research Briefs in Economic Policy]
- “At public meeting, hydrogeologist criticizes Albuquerque, N.M.-based water district for fortifying ditch roads with rock rubble. District employee complains to the state professional engineer board, claiming that hydrogeologist’s critique amounted to the unlicensed practice of engineering. Correct, says the board. New Mexico Court of Appeals (2013): Actually, the First Amendment is pretty clear that state agencies can’t punish folks for talking at public meetings without a license. Tenth Circuit (2018): Sadly, though, the hydrogeologist is now time-barred from seeking damages over this contretemps.” [John K. Ross, Short Circuit on Turner v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, see related Oregon case of Mats Järlström covered earlier here and here, and an update] On the other hand, New Mexico making genuine progress on licensing thanks to executive order signed by outgoing Gov. Susana Martinez [Cato podcast with Paul Gessing]
- Opening up new practitioner categories could help reach underserved dentistry markets [Cato podcast with Sal Nuzzo] Letting the feds get involved in licensing issues is fraught with risk [Cato Daily Podcast with Caleb Brown and Lee McGrath]
- 1758 pamphlet on Edinburgh barbers’ exclusive right to cut hair sheds light on issues that are still with us [Daniel Klein]
Filed under: accounting, First Amendment, New Mexico, occupational licensure, Scotland
6 Comments
In medieval times, the Guilds in Europe controlled the trades. They had a license from the King and others could not practice those trades (masonry, etc). Current occup lic is simply this Medieval idea in continued existence. They always use public safety as an excuse but that is almost always fake.In the cosmetology case MAYBE you could hurt someone dieing their hair but simply cutting hair? No way. If my barber does a bad job I’m not going back. There is simply no excuse for lic requirements for interior decorators or hair braiders or dieticians. It is all just job protection.
I’m not so sure about dieticians. Dieticians need to know a good deal about nutrition, both what the body needs and what different foods prepared in different ways supply. There are all sorts of folk beliefs about such things and lots of quacks pushing ideas about diet that are often ineffective and sometimes dangerous. People can of course follow whatever diet they like, but it is desirable for people to be able to distinguish reliable, scientific information from claptrap and for institutions such as hospitals to employ people who actually know what they are talking about.
RE: NM case.
What should have happened is that each of the NM trial court and the NM court of appeals should have ordered the board (and the attorneys for the board) to pay Turner’s costs. There does not seem to be a good faith argument that the punishment was consonant with First Amendment principles.
It is too bad his claim was time-barred. Bankrupting type damages should have been ordered against the “public servants” responsible for the outrage.
If a dietitian, or anyone else, wants to advertised as “State Licensed”, that should be a plus, if licensing really means anything. Except in real safety issues (Professional Engineer), the license shouldn’t be required.
I’m not so sure about dieticians. Dieticians need to know a good deal about nutrition, both what the body needs and what different foods prepared in different ways supply. There are all sorts of folk beliefs about such things and lots of quacks pushing ideas about diet that are often ineffective and sometimes dangerous. People can of course follow whatever diet they like, but it is desirable for people to be able to distinguish reliable, scientific information from claptrap and for institutions such as hospitals to employ people who actually know what they are talking about.
You need only read “Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It” to understand that a dietician may not have any idea what they are talking about – particularly if they believe what governments have been promoting regarding “healthy eating” over the last 50 years.
I’m not so sure about dieticians. Dieticians need to know a good deal about nutrition, both what the body needs and what different foods prepared in different ways supply. There are all sorts of folk beliefs about such things and lots of quacks pushing ideas about diet that are often ineffective and sometimes dangerous. People can of course follow whatever diet they like, but it is desirable for people to be able to distinguish reliable, scientific information from claptrap and for institutions such as hospitals to employ people who actually know what they are talking about.
You need only read “Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It” to understand that a dietician may not have any idea what they are talking about – particularly if they believe what governments have been promoting regarding “healthy eating” over the last 50 years.