In this January 2012 article about licenses for Indiana barbers, we observe a classic case of industry seeking regulation as a means of excluding potential competitors. The Indiana state legislature, hoping to boost employment by removing noxious regulations, proposed the removal of the licensing requirement for barbers. Unsurprisingly, the loudest objections have come from the cosmetology industry, which has argued that "safety and health issues may arise without regulation."
Although Stigler's analysis of licensing focused on obtaining regulation, the same principles hold true for protecting regulation. The presence of a cohesive opposition to the removal of licensing will weaken, delay, or prevent the legislation. Stigler notes that membership in licensed occupations is more stable, that licensed occupations are less employed by business enterprises, and that licensed occupants operate locally. All of these are true of barbers, who are organized and protected by the Indiana Cosmetology and Barbering Association, generally employed by either themselves or small business owners, and provide their services locally.
Furthermore, the article includes an example of regulations favoring a complement industry: barber academies. As the Indiana regulations require, a potential barber must complete 1500 hours of instruction in a barber school. Sure enough, Greg Kenny, Sr., of Kenny's Academy of Barbering also spoke out in opposition to the removal of the regulation. Although he noted that its removal would put him out of business, he emphasized the inherent risks of a de-regulated barber industry. "You're using razors and sharp instruments. With all the noise about health and safety, it's crazy that anybody could open a barber shop and disseminate diseases throughout the community." Casting the issue in terms of public safety allows the barbering industry and its complements to go on excluding potential competitors from the market. It seems that regulation lasts even longer than a bad haircut.
No comments:
Post a Comment