State Licenses Hurt Entrepreneurs
Too many occupational licenses required, creating barriers to startup businesses.
Many elements make up a thriving entrepreneurial economy. Among them are cultures that reward risk and don’t penalize honest failure; workers who are diverse in terms of skills and training; clusters of innovation in cities or universities; and access to capital.
Just as high on the list is a regulatory climate that encourages the free flow of talent and that lowers barriers to entry into the startup economy.
A proposal by Gov. Scott Walker to create commissions to scrutinize proposed and existing occupational licenses is a welcome step toward lowering those hurdles for thousands of workers in Wisconsin. It deserves bipartisan support in the Wisconsin Legislature.
The institute estimated the steady rise in occupational regulation costs Wisconsin thousands of jobs each year and costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars due to reduced competition for goods and services.
National organizations have a similar take on the hidden costs of fencing out new entrants to the job market.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri, has long cited over-regulation of occupations – mainly by state and local governments – as a deterrent to entrepreneurism. Numerous academic studies have reached the same conclusion as Kauffman, which has said the proliferation of occupational licensing “creates barriers for would-be entrepreneurs and strengthens incumbent businesses.”
“These barriers often go unnoticed until the entrepreneur runs up against them,” noted one Kauffman report.
The President’s Council on Economic Advisors issued a report in 2015 urging states to adjust their licensing policies to spur growth. Liberal think-tanks such as the Progressive Policy Institute have also called for occupational license reform, noting “there is mounting evidence that professional and occupational licensing is blocking innovation and entrepreneurship across large swathes of the American economy.”
The U.S. Treasury and Defense departments have issued a joint report noting the negative effects of occupational licensing on the job prospects of military families, who often move from state to state and encounter different barriers in each.
If so many experts agree over-regulation is costing the economy and making it harder for entrepreneurs to start businesses, why are so many licensure requirements in place?
In most instances, however, it’s the professions themselves that ask for regulation. That’s in part due to a sense of internal credibility, but it’s also due to an unspoken desire to limit competition by fencing out new players.
There are alternatives to full licensure, which is the most limiting form of occupational regulation. Certification has fewer restrictions than licensing, allowing any person to perform the service but recognizing those who have attained a certain level of experience or education. The least restrictive form of occupational regulation is registration, which simply requires professionals in a field to record their qualifications with the state or another regulatory body.
Wisconsin is not alone in trying to rein in licensing creep. Ten states have formal “sunrise” and “sunset” commissions to take a hard look at new and existing worker licenses. States such as Colorado, Arizona, Vermont, Washington and Georgia have recommended against licensing interior designers, art therapists, music therapists, dietitians, landscape architects, massage therapists and behavior analysts – occupations all licensed or regulated in Wisconsin, according to the Institute for Law and Liberty.
Wisconsin’s below-average startup numbers may be dragged down by a number of factors, and excessive licensing is one of them. The state should seize on the opportunity to begin tearing down unnecessary fences to entrepreneurism.
This column was originally published by the Wisconsin State Journal.