Hubbry Logo
Occupational licensingOccupational licensingMain
Open search
Occupational licensing
Community hub
Occupational licensing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Occupational licensing
Occupational licensing
Occupational licensing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Competition law
Basic concepts
Anti-competitive practices
Competition regulators

Occupational licensing, also called licensure, is a form of government regulation requiring a license to pursue a particular profession or vocation for compensation. It is related to occupational closure.

Some claim higher public support[citation needed] for the licensing of professions whose activities could be a health or safety threat to the public, such as practicing medicine, and doctors require occupational licenses in most developed countries. However, some jurisdictions also require licenses for a much wider range of professions, such as florists and hairdressers. Some studies find consumers are more responsive to reviews than to occupational licensing status.[1]

Licensing creates a regulatory barrier to entry into licensed occupations. Licensing advocates argue that it protects the public interest by keeping incompetent and unscrupulous individuals from working with the public. However, there is little evidence that it affects the overall quality of services provided to customers by members of the regulated occupation.[2] It can also harm consumers by raising prices and reducing innovation by new market entrants, and may slow overall economic growth.[3][1] Some occupational licensing can violate competition law due to anti-competitive practices.[4][5][1]

Alternatives to individual licensing include only requiring that at least one person on a premises be licensed to oversee unlicensed practitioners, permitting of the business overall, random health and safety inspections, general consumer protection laws, and deregulation in favor of voluntary professional certification schemes or free market mechanisms such as customer review sites.

History

[edit]

Traditionally, occupations in the crafts professions and in the liberal professions organize their respective industries in guilds and chambers in European countries like Germany and Austria. One of the most important changes in licensing has been the 2004 reform in Germany, where workers in 53 of 94 crafts professions were not required to be licensed anymore in order to start a business.[6] In 2020, 12 of these deregulated professions reinstated the licensing requirement.

In the United Kingdom, the Medical Act 1858 established the first countrywide licensing body for doctors.

Types

[edit]

In the United States and Canada, licensing (the term registration is sometimes used) is usually required by law to work in a particular profession or to obtain a privilege such as to drive a car or truck. Many other privileges and professions require a license, generally from the state or provincial government, in order to ensure that the public will not be harmed by the incompetence of the practitioners, and to limit supply to incumbent practitioners and thus increase wages.[7]

Examples of professions that require licensure in some jurisdictions include: actuary, architect, certified public accountant, electrician, engineering, general contractors, financial analyst, geologists, hedge fund manager, insurance agent, interior design, investment banker, licensed professional counselor, nurse, physical therapist, plumber, private investigator, psychologist, landscape architect, lawyer, nutritionist, physician, real estate broker, speech-language pathologist, school counselor, social worker, stockbroker, surveyor, and teacher.

Licensure is similar to professional certification, and sometimes synonymous (such as in the case with teacher licensure/certification); however, certification is an employment qualification and not a legal requirement for practicing a profession. In many cases, an individual must complete certain steps, such as training, acquiring an academic degree in a particular area of study, and/or passing an exam, before becoming eligible to receive their license. There are various resources available to assist professionals with the completion of these steps. Professional associations are often a tremendous resource to individuals looking to obtain a special level of certification or licensure. Upon the successful attainment of a license, individuals append an acronym to their name, such as CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or LPD and PI (Private Detective and Investigator) PE (Professional Engineer).

License renewal

[edit]

In places, licensure may still be a lifelong privilege, but increasingly nowadays, it requires periodic review by peers and renewal. It is very common for license renewal to depend, at least in part, on academia. In the United Kingdom such regular upgrading of skills is often termed continuous professional development, or CPD. In many professions this is fast becoming a standard, mandatory and annual requirement. For example, in the US, educators are subject to state re-certification requirements in order to continue teaching.[8] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, enacted to improve performance in US schools, has led to an intensification of license requirements for both beginning and experienced educators.[9] In the case of UK medical practitioners, the government has recently proposed that they should all be legally required to produce formal proof, every five years, that they are upgrading their standard of practise.[10] This tightening of the UK medical licensing system has largely been a response to public and government unease about a series of recent and well-publicised cases of alleged medical incompetence, including the Harold Shipman case, the Alder Hey organs scandal[11] and those involving David Southall, Rodney Ledward[12] and Richard Neale.[13] Such cases of medical malpractice in the 1990s are widely considered to have inspired the government to tighten professional control of medical practitioners and monitor the quality of their practice for their entire working life. One qualification for life is no longer deemed sufficient.[14] Consequently, medical licenses can now be withdrawn when evidence of serious malpractice emerges. Currently, though such reviews of CPD are entirely voluntary, some form of professional development is already strongly encouraged within the medical profession.[15]

Economic theory

[edit]

One simple theory of occupational licensing envisions a costless supply of unbiased, capable gatekeepers, and enforcers. The gatekeepers screen entrants to the occupation, barring those whose skills or character suggest a tendency toward low-quality output. The enforcers monitor incumbents and discipline those whose performance is below standard with punishments that may include revocation of the license needed to practise. Assuming that entry and performance are controlled in these ways, the quality of service in the profession will almost automatically be maintained at or above standards that are set by the gatekeeper to the profession. Within this approach, only those who have the funds to invest in training and the ability to do the work are able to enter the occupation.

Introducing economics to this otherwise mechanical model by noting that a key discipline on incumbents—the threat of revoking one's license—may not mean much if incumbents can easily re-enter the profession, such as by moving to a new firm, or by shifting to an alternative occupation with little loss of income. Since grandfathering (i.e., allowing current workers to bypass the new requirements) is the norm when occupations seek to become licensed, incumbent workers are usually supportive of the regulation process. In the absence of grandfathering, lower-skilled workers in the occupation may have to seek alternative employment. For example, if sales skills are the key to both providing licensed sales of heart monitors and the non-licensed selling of shoes or cars, then individuals may shift between these lines of work with little loss of income.

Under these circumstances, meaningful discipline for license holders may require deliberate steps to ensure that loss of license entails significant financial loss. Such additional steps could include the imposition of fines, improved screening to prevent expelled practitioners from re-entering the occupation, or requiring all incumbents to put up capital that would be forfeited upon loss of the license. To offset the possibility that incumbents could shift to other occupations with little loss of income, entry requirements could be tightened to limit supply and create monopoly rents within the licensed occupation (rent-seeking). The threat of losing these monopoly rents could, in principle, give incentives to incumbents to maintain quality standards. This may also result in some increases in human capital investments in order to attain additional requirements. The rents could also motivate potential entrants to invest in high levels of training in order to gain admittance. This suggests that licensing can raise quality within an industry by restricting supply, raising labor wages, and raising output prices. Increasing prices may signal either enhanced quality due to perceived or actual skill enhancements or restrictions on the supply of regulated workers.

State-regulated occupations can use political institutions to restrict supply and raise the wages of licensed practitioners. There is assumed to be a once-and-for-all income gain that accrues to current members of the occupation who are "grandfathered" in, and do not have to meet the newly established standard. Generally, workers who are "grandfathered" are not required to ever meet the standards of the new entrants. Individuals who attempt to enter the occupation in the future will need to balance the economic rents of the field's increased monopoly power against the greater difficulty of meeting the entrance requirements.

Once an occupation is regulated, members of that occupation in a geographic or political jurisdiction can implement tougher statutes or examination pass rates and may gain relative to those who have easier requirements by further restricting the supply of labor and obtaining economic rents for incumbents (credentialism and educational inflation). Restrictions would include raising the pass rate on licensing exams, imposing higher general and specific requirements, and implementing tougher residency requirements that limit new arrivals in the area from qualifying for a license. Moreover, individuals who have finished schooling in the occupation may decide not to go to a particular political jurisdiction where the pass rate is low because both the economic and shame costs may be high.

Conversely, efforts can be made at interstate reciprocity, so that a license or a certification earned in one federated state or province qualifies the holder to practice in any of the other states or provinces of the federation, which can lower the overall cost and burden of adequately staffing the profession in all regions. For example, high demand and low supply for nurses or for teachers, in any particular region, can be alleviated if the red tape is reduced, as long as that reduction does not truly harm competence and preparedness.[16]

The effect of not reducing that administrative burden has been measured by a 2017 analysis that found that occupational licensing in different American states reduced between-state migration of individuals in professions with divergent licensing by 36 percent relative to members of other occupations, while workers in nationally licensed occupations showed no evidence of reduced interstate migration.[16] A 2020 follow up study by the same authors found that "the magnitude of the effect can only account for a small part of the overall decline in [interstate migration] seen in recent decades."[17]

Criticism

[edit]

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Historically, in the professionalization process by which trades have transformed themselves into true professions, licensing fast became the method of choice in obtaining the occupational closure required by barring competition from entry to the rites and privileges of a professional group. This was initially the preferred route of regulation whether for physicians, lawyers, the clergy, accountants, bankers, scientists or architects. However, licensing has given way to membership of professional bodies, as a means of excluding competition.[18]

Licensure restricts entry into professional careers in medicine, nursing, law, business, pharmacy, psychology, social work, teaching, engineering, surveying, and architecture. Advocates claim that licensure protects the consumer[citation needed] through the application of professional, educational and/or ethical standards of practice. Economist Milton Friedman opposed this practice, believing that licensure effectively raises professional salary by placing limits on the supply of specific occupations. "It is hard to regard altruistic concern for their customers as the primary motive behind their determined efforts to get legal power to decide who may be a plumber."[19]

Restricting entry by licensing is arguably a convenient and effective method of maintaining the high standards, high status and elite privileges of a profession[citation needed] as well as acting to eliminate competition from those who provide a cheaper but (allegedly) sub-standard service. Organizations such as the American Medical Association were explicitly set up to restrict the number of practitioners. However, libertarians like Milton Friedman have argued that this process is counterproductive as it seriously restricts the number of active professionals working in society and thus unnecessarily inhibits the working of a free enterprise economy.[20] A 2011 U.S. study estimated that occupational licenses result in 2.8 million fewer jobs, and cost the economy $203 billion per year.[21] The number of jobs requiring a professional licensed represents an increasing fraction of the workforce, from 5% in 1950 to 22% in 2010s.[3] Critics say that low-income consumers, who pay higher prices than required for the level of quality they might require, and low-income job seekers, are disproportionately affected.[22]

In the United States, critics have pointed out that (as of 2018) only 60 professions are licensed by all 50 states, but about 1100 by at least one state, including tour guides, bartenders, and interior designers.[3] If many professions are functioning satisfactorily unlicensed in the majority of states, this implies to critics that the licensing is unnecessary for consumer protection.[3] The administrations of both President Obama[23] and President Trump have tried to pressure state and local authorities to reduce overly burdensome licensing requirements.[21] Excessive requirements include requiring hair braiders to have a full cosmetology license and learn about many unrelated tasks,[3] and requiring casket salespersons to be full licensed funeral directors.[21]

Evidence on the effects

[edit]

It is well understood that occupational licensing can serve as a barrier to occupational entry resulting in reduced employment, monopoly rents for workers in the occupation, and higher prices for consumers.[24]

Impact on wages

[edit]

Kleiner and Krueger (2010 and 2013)[25][26] show that after controlling for education, labor market experience, occupation, and other controls, licensing is associated with a 15 to 18 percent wage premium in the labor market. This estimate may partially reflect a premium for higher unmeasured human capital, but it is also consistent and likely in large part due to rents.

A 2016 paper studying occupational licensing in the European Union estimated a wage premium of 4%, with significant variation across professions.[27]

A study from the Mercatus Center showed that occupational licensing can lead to greater income inequality, with each step needed to open a business leading to an additional 1.4% of national income going to the top 10% of earners.[28][29]

A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that occupational licensing contributed to an average welfare loss of 12 percent.[30]

Impact on employment

[edit]

The empirical work on the effects of licensing on employment levels or growth rates, but the existing estimates suggest that they could be large. Kleiner (2006)[31] examined employment growth rates in states and occupations with stronger versus weaker occupational licensing requirements. Specifically, he compares employment growth between 1990 and 2000 of occupations that are licensed in some states to the same occupations that are not licensed in other states. In order to account for differential growth rates between states, he also compared the growth rate of occupations that are either fully licensed or fully unlicensed in both sets of states.[32] Using a "difference-in-difference" regression analysis, Kleiner found that partially licensed occupations had a 20 percent lower growth rate in states with licensing relative to states without licensing and relative to the difference in growth rates between these sets of states of fully licensed and fully unlicensed occupations. This estimate implies that a licensed occupation that grew at a 10 percent rate between 1990 and 2000 would have grown at a 12 percent rate if it were unregulated.[33]

For Germany, a study exploits the deregulation of occupational licenses called Meister for 53 occupations in 2004 as a natural experiment. It finds that this policy change increased the propensity to work as self-employed substantially.[6]

Impact on prices

[edit]

Because it restricts employment, licensing can also lead to higher prices for services faced by consumers.[34][35][36][37]

While it is not possible to precisely estimate the effects of substantially reducing occupational licensing at the present time, both theory and the available evidence suggest that such a reduction could translate into significantly higher employment, better job matches, and improved customer satisfaction. Low-income consumers, in particular, would benefit because reduced barriers to entry would reduce the prices of services provided.[38][39]

Impact on quality of service provision

[edit]

Without doing a detailed analysis at the occupation-by-occupation and state level, economists cannot say which occupations can be justified based on quality-consideration, though studies have been conducted they have found at least in a number of cases at different stages of licensing reduces employment, but does not result in better services.[40] For example, Kleiner and Kudrle (2000)[41] find that occupational licensing of dentists does not lead to improved measured dental outcomes of patients, but is associated with higher prices of certain services, likely because there are fewer dentists.[42][43]

In the case of midwifery, the introduction of occupation licensing led to substantial reductions in maternal mortality.[44]

Public safety

[edit]

Many professions involving risk to the public do not require professional licenses. For example, chefs are generally unlicensed, though opening a restaurant may require permits, inspection, and employee training or instructional signage. Becoming a brain surgeon typically only requires a medical license; the substantial additional training and experience required to perform this operation competently is managed by the hospitals who employ the surgeons.[3]

Restrictions to employment without licensure can prevent people with criminal records or severe mental health issues from working in occupations that require public trust.[citation needed] Occupations of or affected by the gambling industry, may be restricted by licensure, such as a racing secretary in horseracing, or people in the boxing, mixed martial arts, and professional wrestling industry. People whose occupations put them in physical contact with the public might also be restricted by licensure, including a barber, cosmetologist, or massage therapist. Occupations that bring a person into the home might also be screened through licensure, including a chauffeur, landscape architect, or arborist.

Labour mobility

[edit]

Occupation licensing contributes to reduced labor mobility by restricting the ability of workers to switch professions.[45]

Individuals practicing a profession in one jurisdiction where no license is required, or where licensing requirements are more lax, face problems with employment when moving to a jurisdiction with more stringent licensing. This can be particularly burdensome on families where one spouse has no choice with regard to location of work (such as military servicemembers), when the second spouse is in a licensed profession. These problems can be avoided by harmonizing laws across jurisdictions, or with reciprocity agreements where licenses from one jurisdiction are recognized in others.[3]

With occupational licensing varying by state, another channel through which licensing can affect employment is through reduced mobility. The patchwork of regulations raises the cost of cross-state mobility for workers in these occupations. This will result in slower adjustment costs to regional economic shocks which can result in higher unemployment.

License portability

[edit]

License portability refers to the legal concept where states (or other subnational certifying jurisdictions) recognize other jurisdictions licenses. Some states have mutual recognition with other states' certification either by their own state law or through interstate compact, however there are limited national standards in the United States for this issue. There has been a recent push by some professional associations to advocate for states to adopt license portability laws. Arguments for tend to rely on the changing interstate market due to remote work, telehealth, and remote therapy.[46] Additionally there are challenges for occupations that rely on traveling for consultant work or for professionals working in branch offices across a metropolitan area that straddles a subnational border.[47]

Impacts on minorities

[edit]

A 1983 study found that some occupational licensing schemes tended to exclude minorities and disadvantaged populations from entering such trades.[48] However, a more recent study from 2009 found the opposite.[49]

Alternatives

[edit]

Government regulation

[edit]

To distinguish various forms of regulation, there are three forms of government regulation of occupations:

  • Licensing: Licensing refers to situations in which it is unlawful to carry out a specified range of activities for pay without first having obtained a license. This confirms that the license holder meets prescribed standards of competence. Workers who require such licenses to practice include doctors, lawyers, nurses, civil engineers, and surveyors.
  • State Certification: is generally necessary in order to obtain a license to practice an occupation. The certification requirements include passing of a standardized, state-administered test and proof of minimum experience working under the supervision of a licensed practitioner. New entrants to the occupation can start working as trainees such as "apprentice electrician". Some workers in an occupation may never get certified and licensed but can continue working under the supervision of a licensed person indefinitely.
  • Registration: Registration refers to situations in which one can register one's name and address and qualifications with the appropriate regulatory body. Registration provides a standard for being on the list, but complaints from consumers or improper listing of credentials can result in removal from the list.

Professional certification

[edit]

In contrast to government regulation, voluntary professional certification can be used to demonstrate competence without the harmful economic effects of legalized occupational barriers. Examples of professional associations and trade associations that provide voluntary professional certification in various fields include:

By country

[edit]

European Union

[edit]

Research funded by the European Commission in 2016 estimated that around 22% of workers in the European Union were affected by occupational licensing. This varied significantly between member states, with Germany having the highest proportion (33%) affected, and Denmark the lowest (14%). The same paper also found the 'Health and Social Work' sector generally had the most licensing, but in general there was "considerably large variation" in which professions were licensed in different member states.[27]

In 2005, the EU enacted Directive 2005/36/EC, which "enables the free movement of professionals" across Member States, by allowing licensed workers to have their professional qualifications recognised by other countries in the bloc.[50] The European Commission records occupational licensing restrictions across the EU on its Regulated Professions Database. The subsequent 'Proportionality Directive' passed in 2018 requires national governments to assess whether new barriers to practice are proportionate to achieve objectives in the public interest.[51]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, licensing has been among the fastest-growing labor market institutions. The figure shows the growth of occupational licensing relative to the decline of union membership since the 1950s.

Comparison of Unions and Licensing over Time in the United States. (The dashed line shows the value from state estimates of licensing based on the Gallup Survey and PDII Survey results. The union membership estimates are from the Current Population Survey (CPS)).

By 2008 occupational licensing in the U.S. had grown to 29 percent of the workforce, up from below five percent in the 1950s.[52] In contrast, unions represented as much as 33 percent of the U.S. workforce in the 1950s, but declined to less than 12 percent of the U.S. workforce by 2008.

In April 2019, Arizona became the first US state to recognize out-of-state occupational licenses.[53][54]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Occupational licensing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Occupational licensing refers to government regulations mandating that individuals obtain a state-issued license, often involving , exams, fees, and requirements, before legally practicing a specified occupation, with the stated purpose of verifying competence and protecting consumers from harm. In the United States, these requirements affect approximately 25 percent of the workforce, a sharp increase from about 5 percent in the , encompassing fields from and to and . Empirical analyses reveal that occupational licensing functions primarily as a barrier to entry, restricting labor supply and interstate mobility while raising wages for incumbents by 10 to 15 percent, though at the cost of reduced overall and elevated prices for services. Studies consistently find scant evidence that licensing enhances in low-risk occupations, such as hair braiding or , where incompetence poses minimal public danger, yet it disproportionately burdens low-income and minority workers seeking entry-level jobs. Proponents defend licensing in high-stakes domains like or , where it may yield marginal safety gains, but broader expansion has drawn criticism for enabling incumbent over consumer welfare, prompting reform efforts to sunset unnecessary rules and adopt universal recognition across states. Overall, quantitative assessments indicate net welfare losses from over-licensing, as higher costs and supply constraints outweigh purported quality benefits in most cases.

Definition and Core Concepts

Definition and Scope

Occupational licensing constitutes a form of regulation whereby individuals must obtain explicit permission, in the form of a state-issued , to legally engage in a specified or . This permission is granted only after satisfying mandatory entry barriers, which may include formal , apprenticeships, competency examinations, fees, , or minimum experience thresholds, as determined by regulatory authorities. Unlike voluntary private certifications, which signal skills but do not prohibit unlicensed practice, occupational licensing renders unauthorized work illegal, subject to civil or criminal penalties enforced by agencies or licensing boards. These boards often include incumbent practitioners who influence standards, potentially embedding protectionist elements alongside public safety aims. The scope of occupational licensing encompasses hundreds of occupations across sectors, ranging from high-stakes fields like , , and —where licensure originated to mitigate asymmetric and ensure baseline competence—to low-risk services such as , , and tour guiding. In the United States, where licensing is predominantly managed at the state level with minimal federal oversight, coverage has broadened dramatically; roughly 5 percent of the workforce required licenses in the , escalating to approximately 22-25 percent by the 2010s and persisting at similar levels into the 2020s. This expansion affects over 1,000 distinct job titles nationwide, with interstate variations: for instance, mandates licenses for over 200 occupations, while states like and cover fewer but still substantial numbers. Empirical data from the U.S. Bureau and indicate that licensing disproportionately impacts women, minorities, and lower-income workers, who are overrepresented in licensed service occupations, while generating annual compliance costs exceeding $200 billion in forgone wages and higher prices due to restricted entry. Globally, analogous systems prevail in and other developed economies, though with varying stringency; for example, the harmonizes some professional qualifications via directives but leaves much to member states, resulting in lower overall prevalence than in the U.S. Licensing's breadth underscores its role as a pervasive labor market , influencing mobility, , and pricing across economies.

Stated Rationales and Justifications

Proponents of occupational licensing primarily justify it as a mechanism to safeguard , safety, and welfare by restricting practice to individuals who demonstrate minimum competence through verified , training, and examinations. This rationale posits that in occupations where errors can cause significant harm—such as , , or electrical work—consumers face information asymmetries that prevent them from distinguishing qualified providers from unqualified ones, necessitating intervention to mitigate market failures and reduce risks of substandard services. Licensing requirements are also defended as tools for standardizing entry criteria across jurisdictions, ensuring educational prerequisites and ethical standards that promote reliability and . State regulators, for example, argue that mandatory credentials filter out practitioners likely to deliver inferior or dangerous work, thereby elevating overall industry quality and consumer confidence without relying solely on post-harm litigation or private certifications. Furthermore, advocates claim licensing fosters professionalism by incentivizing investments in , such as specialized training, which incumbents might otherwise underprovide in unregulated markets due to high mobility costs for workers or free-rider problems among peers. This is said to create structured and self-regulating boards that enforce ongoing compliance, though empirical assessments of these outcomes vary, with some studies indicating limited evidence of superior relative to alternatives.

Historical Development

Origins in Guilds and Early Regulations

Medieval guilds emerged in Europe during the 11th and 12th centuries amid urban revival and economic expansion following the disruptions of Germanic invasions, evolving from earlier Roman collegia into formalized associations of merchants and artisans. Merchant guilds initially focused on regulating long-distance trade and contracts, while craft guilds, proliferating from the 12th century onward in regions like England, Italy, and France, oversaw specific occupations such as weaving, baking, and metalworking. These entities secured charters or letters patent from monarchs, city councils, or lords, which conferred monopolistic privileges to exclude non-members from practicing the trade within their jurisdiction, effectively functioning as early licensing bodies. Entry into guilds was tightly controlled to maintain member privileges and purported quality, requiring candidates to complete apprenticeships lasting 5 to 9 years under a , during which they learned skills through hands-on labor often starting in childhood. Apprentices advanced to status, needing further experience and savings, before submitting a ""—a complex work demonstrating proficiency—to gain full mastership, alongside payment of fees and sometimes a guild banquet. These barriers, which grew stricter over time with added requirements like family sponsorship or wealth thresholds, limited supply in the labor market, enabling guilds to restrict output, influence wages, and extract higher prices from consumers. Guilds enforced occupational standards through internal courts, annual audits, and inspections by appointed "searchers" who examined workshops, goods, and finished products for defects, with penalties including fines, , or expulsion for violations. In cities like , bakers faced seizure of substandard for charitable donation, while broader regulations extended to , working conditions, and bans. Such mechanisms addressed asymmetries in pre-industrial markets by signaling competence to buyers, yet historical indicates they often prioritized cartel-like stability over innovation or consumer welfare, as guilds lobbied against inter-city trade and new entrants across from roughly 1200 to 1800. Early state-backed regulations complemented guild authority, particularly for emerging professions; for example, royal decrees in 13th-century and imposed apprenticeship mandates on various trades, culminating in statutes like 's 1563 Statute of Artificers, which standardized training durations and restricted geographic mobility to protect local guild monopolies. These pre-modern systems laid the groundwork for formalized licensing by blending self-regulation with sovereign enforcement, though their decline began in the with Reformation-era dissolutions in and accelerated in the amid Enlightenment critiques of mercantilist restrictions.

Expansion in the United States and (19th-20th Centuries)

![Title Page of the Medical Register Wellcome L0040962.jpg][float-right] In the United States, the modern framework of occupational licensing emerged in the late , primarily among the and legal professions around 1870. State licensing laws enacted during this period established medical boards to license and discipline physicians, marking a shift from largely unregulated practice to formalized state oversight. This development reflected efforts by established practitioners to restrict entry and elevate standards amid rapid professionalization, with licensing requirements often justified as protecting from unqualified competitors. By the early , licensing extended to additional occupations, including dentists, pharmacists, and trades such as barbers, which in some states demanded up to three years of training by 1900. The expansion accelerated during the of the 1930s, as governments imposed licensing on more trades like embalmers and cosmetologists to limit competition and stabilize for incumbents. Despite this growth, occupational licensing covered only about 4-5 percent of the by the mid-20th century, concentrated in services rather than manufacturing-dominated sectors. Empirical data indicate a gradual increase in regulated occupations from 1870 onward, with states enacting statutes for a wider array of practitioners in response to and pressures. In , occupational regulation during the 19th and early 20th centuries paralleled U.S. trends but was often more deeply rooted in traditions and state-supervised professional bodies, particularly on the continent. In the , professionalization advanced through acts like those regulating and , emphasizing registration and examinations over broad trade licensing. Continental nations such as and enforced stricter state control via mandatory qualifications and oversight for key professions like and , driven by industrialization and national unification efforts from the 1850s to 1914. This period saw licensing expand modestly beyond elite professions, influenced by similar motives of and market protection, though less aggressively than in the U.S. due to entrenched systems and varying degrees of centralization.

Post-WWII Proliferation and Recent Reforms (1950s-2025)

Following , occupational licensing requirements proliferated across the , shifting from coverage of approximately 4.5 percent of the workforce in the late 1940s to over 25 percent by 2015. This expansion accelerated in the and continued through the economic boom, as state legislatures responded to from professional associations seeking to limit and standardize practices in emerging service sectors. By 2008, nearly 30 percent of the workforce faced licensing mandates, encompassing occupations from traditional fields like to lower-risk activities such as and . Economic analyses attribute this growth to by incumbents, who influenced state-level boards to impose , examination, and fee barriers that raised entry costs without commensurate public safety gains. The proliferation extended beyond the U.S. to , where postwar reconstruction and expansions prompted similar regulatory increases, though data comparability is limited; for instance, the noted rising professional qualifications directives amid harmonization efforts from the onward. In the U.S., licensing coverage reached 22 percent of jobs by 2021, surpassing rates and affecting mobility, particularly for low-income and minority workers. Empirical studies, including those by economist , link this trend to wage premiums for licensees (around 15 percent) but also to reduced employment and higher service prices, prompting scrutiny of licensing's net benefits. Reform efforts gained momentum in the amid evidence of overregulation. The 2015 White House report highlighted licensing's role in exacerbating labor shortages and recommended periodic reviews. States introduced "certificate of public necessity" tests and sunset provisions to evaluate requirements' validity. By 2020, 10 states enacted major deregulations, targeting occupations like barbers and cosmetologists. The accelerated changes, with all 50 states issuing temporary waivers for licensing to fill critical shortages in healthcare and other fields, some of which transitioned to permanent policies. Universal licensing recognition laws, allowing out-of-state credentials to expedite interstate mobility, proliferated post-2013; as of 2024, 26 states had adopted such reforms, with eight additions since 2020. Examples include and the District of Columbia's 2021 laws easing barriers for those with criminal records, and Pennsylvania's 2024 regulations under Act 53 removing outdated conviction hurdles. In 2025, indices ranking state burdens—such as the Archbridge Institute's—identified and among the most restrictive, fueling advocacy for further reductions to enhance competition and economic fluidity. Despite these advances, licensing persists in over 1,000 occupations across states, with ongoing debates over balancing against entry barriers.

Types and Mechanisms

Categories of Licensed Occupations

Occupational licensing applies to professions across diverse sectors, with states regulating over 1,000 distinct in aggregate, though only about 100 are commonly licensed nationwide. Major categories include healthcare, personal care services, and skilled trades, legal and , , and transportation. These groupings often align with perceived risks to , safety, or economic integrity, but licensing prevalence varies: several dozen occupations like physicians and barbers require licenses in all 50 states, while others like florists are regulated in three or fewer. Healthcare Professions
This sector encompasses the largest share of universally licensed occupations, focusing on roles with direct patient interaction or diagnostic responsibilities. Physicians, surgeons, and dentists must complete doctoral-level education, clinical training, and pass standardized exams such as the (USMLE) or National Board Dental Examinations before state licensure, which is mandatory in every state. Registered nurses and licensed practical nurses require associate or diploma programs followed by the (NCLEX), with over 3 million nurses licensed as of 2023. Allied health fields, including pharmacists (requiring PharmD degrees and NAPLEX exams), physical therapists, and radiologic technologists, similarly demand accredited training and competency testing, licensed nationwide to mitigate risks of misdiagnosis or procedural errors. Personal Care and Cosmetology Services
Occupations involving aesthetic or body care services are licensed in all states for core roles like barbers and cosmetologists, who typically complete 1,000 to 1,500 hours of vocational training and pass state exams on sanitation and techniques. Massage therapists, regulated in 45 states as of 2024, require 500-1,000 hours of instruction emphasizing anatomy and ethics to prevent injury from improper application. These licenses aim to enforce hygiene standards, though empirical reviews question their necessity given low inherent risks compared to healthcare. Construction and Skilled Trades
Trades affecting building integrity or infrastructure safety, such as electricians, plumbers, and general contractors, require state licenses after apprenticeships (often 4-8 years), trade school, and exams on codes like the . Building contractors and land surveyors, licensed in most states, must demonstrate experience and precision to avoid structural failures; for example, surveyors pass the Fundamentals of Surveying exam for initial certification. These categories emphasize enforcement of safety regulations, with reciprocity agreements in some states facilitating interstate work. Legal and Professional Services
Lawyers constitute a core licensed profession, requiring degrees, passage of state (e.g., the Multistate Bar Examination), and moral character evaluations, with licensure universal across states. Related fields like accountants (certified public accountants via CPA exams) and engineers (Professional Engineer licenses after FE/PE exams) are licensed in most states to uphold standards in financial reporting and design integrity. Education and Child Services
Teachers and school counselors require state certification, involving bachelor's degrees, pedagogy coursework, and exams like the Praxis series, renewed periodically with . Childcare providers and family counselors, licensed in varying degrees across states, often need background checks and training in to ensure child welfare. Additional categories include transportation (e.g., commercial driver's licenses via federal-state CDL programs for hazardous materials haulers) and services (directors licensed in most states after training). Licensing in niche areas like athletic training (most states) or auctioneering (many states) reflects sector-specific rationales, but coverage diminishes for lower-risk pursuits.

Licensing Requirements and Processes

Occupational licensing requirements in the United States generally mandate that applicants demonstrate minimum levels of , training, or experience, pass competency inations, submit to background checks, and pay associated fees before practicing in a regulated occupation. These elements vary significantly by state and occupation, with state governments overseeing the process through professional boards or departments of labor and affairs. For instance, among 102 lower-income occupations analyzed across states, requirements include approximately 281 days of or , passage of one , and fees exceeding $260, though some fields like or barbering demand up to 1,500 hours of training. The application process typically begins with submission of forms to the relevant state licensing authority, often online via portals like Pennsylvania's system or New Jersey's Division of Consumer Affairs platforms, where applicants verify eligibility through plain-language questions and documentation. Required proofs include transcripts for educational credentials, affidavits or employer letters for work experience, and sometimes evidence of or absence of criminal history via fingerprint-based checks. Examinations, administered by state boards or third-party providers, assess technical knowledge and are mandatory for most professions; failure often necessitates reapplication and additional fees after a waiting period or retake limit. Fees cover application processing, exam administration, and initial licensure, ranging from $50 for basic renewals in some New York professions to over $1,000 cumulatively for fields like opticians in certain states, excluding preparation costs. Processing times can extend several months due to verification steps, during which applicants may obtain limited permits for supervised practice in select like . State-specific databases, such as those maintained by the , catalog these details for over 40 , highlighting interstate inconsistencies that complicate compliance.

Renewal, Fees, and Enforcement

Renewal of occupational licenses typically occurs every one to two years, depending on the state and profession, with state licensing boards mandating submission of renewal applications, payment of fees, and often proof of (CE) completion. For instance, occupational therapists in many states must renew biennially and complete 20 hours of CE, while nurses in require 15 contact hours every two years. CE requirements aim to ensure ongoing competency but vary widely; professions like , , and commonly mandate 20-30 hours per renewal cycle, sourced from approved providers such as accredited universities or professional associations. Failure to meet renewal criteria results in license expiration or lapse, potentially barring practice until reinstatement, which may involve additional fees or exams. Renewal fees are collected by state boards or departments and range from $25 to $500 or more, averaging 100−100-300 annually across when adjusted for , though exact amounts differ by and type. For health-related s, a of select states found average annual renewal fees as low as $24 for certain categories, but higher for others like at $110-$150 biennially. These fees fund board operations, including inspections and administration, but critics argue they impose ongoing financial burdens without proportional benefits in , as evidenced by stagnant or minimal CE mandates in low-risk fields. Enforcement of licensing laws is handled by state regulatory boards, which investigate complaints, conduct audits, and impose penalties for unlicensed practice or violations such as inadequate CE or ethical breaches. Penalties include civil fines—often $500 to $5,000 per violation—license suspension, , or injunctions against practice, as seen in where boards can levy up to $1,000 fines for infractions warranting criminal penalties. Enforcement relies on , routine compliance checks, and inter-agency coordination, but data indicate uneven application, with some boards prioritizing revenue over public protection due to self-funding models. In cases of repeated non-compliance, practitioners face charges in certain states for unauthorized practice, underscoring the coercive nature of these regimes.

Theoretical Foundations

Economic Justifications: Market Failures and Public Protection

Proponents of occupational licensing invoke , positing that government intervention corrects market failures where unregulated competition fails to ensure adequate or . Under this framework, licensing establishes mandatory minimum competency standards to filter out unqualified practitioners, thereby reducing consumer uncertainty and potential harm in occupations involving complex or high-stakes services. This rationale draws from economic models addressing , such as Hayne Leland's 1979 theory of minimum quality standards, which demonstrates that in markets with asymmetric information, appropriately set licensing thresholds can enhance welfare by preventing a "lemons" problem where low-quality providers dominate and drive out higher-quality ones. A failure cited is asymmetric information, where consumers lack the expertise or opportunity to evaluate providers' skills prior to or even after service delivery, particularly in fields like or . Licensing mitigates this by serving as a credible signal of competence, lowering search costs and encouraging in , as low-quality entrants are barred from competing on price alone. For instance, in healthcare—where approximately 73% of occupations require licensing—consumers cannot readily assess diagnostic accuracy or treatment efficacy, justifying standardized entry requirements to foster trust and expertise. Licensing is also defended on grounds of negative externalities, where incompetent practice imposes costs on third parties beyond the direct consumer, such as public health risks from faulty electrical work or transportation accidents caused by unskilled drivers. By enforcing competence thresholds, licensing internalizes these externalities, protecting societal welfare from diffuse harms that markets might under-address due to dispersed costs. In high-risk domains like or trucking, this public protection argument holds that unregulated entry could amplify systemic risks, with licensing boards certifying skills to avert broader damages like structural failures or roadway hazards.

Critiques: Barriers to Entry and Rent-Seeking from First Principles

Occupational licensing requirements, such as mandatory education, examinations, and fees, elevate the fixed costs of entering a profession, thereby restricting the supply of labor in licensed fields. These barriers deter potential entrants who lack the resources or time to comply, shifting the labor supply curve leftward and diminishing overall . Empirical analysis indicates that licensing reduces labor supply by 17-27% in affected , with licensed sectors expanding 20% slower than unlicensed ones over time. From a foundational economic viewpoint, such restrictions artificially constrain the number of service providers, leading to higher equilibrium prices and wages without corresponding increases in or output. The elevated wages accruing to licensed practitioners represent economic rents—supernormal profits derived from limited rather than marginal gains. Incumbents, having already incurred compliance costs, gain disproportionately from these barriers, as new entrants face the same hurdles amid reduced . attributes 15% wage premiums in licensed occupations partly to these rents, which redistribute income from consumers (via higher prices) to workers without enhancing service quality commensurately. This dynamic incentivizes self-interested behavior, where existing professionals advocate for expanded licensing scopes to perpetuate exclusivity, exemplifying where resources are expended on influencing regulation rather than value creation. Causally, absent demonstrable market failures like widespread asymmetries or externalities that licensing effectively mitigates, these barriers impose deadweight losses by underallocating labor and stifling . Practitioners' for stringent rules—often through associations—transforms licensing boards into mechanisms of enforcement, prioritizing incumbent protection over public welfare. Studies confirm that such regulations correlate with diminished labor mobility and fewer entrepreneurial opportunities, as entry costs compound across states with non-portable credentials. Reforms targeting unjustified barriers, such as substituting for licensing, could restore competitive pressures and align incentives toward efficiency.

Empirical Evidence on Economic Impacts

Effects on Wages and Employment

Empirical studies using cross-state variation in licensing requirements consistently find that occupational licensing increases for incumbents by limiting entry into the occupation, functioning as a supply restriction that elevates labor prices. and Evan Soltas, analyzing U.S. Census Bureau data from 2015-2018 via two-way fixed effects regressions on state-occupation licensing shares, estimate a 15% wage premium in fully licensed occupations relative to unlicensed benchmarks, with premiums ranging 15-20% after controlling for worker characteristics. Earlier work by Kleiner and , based on a 2008 national labor force survey, similarly reports an average 15% wage markup attributable to licensing coverage. These effects stem from reduced , as licensing requirements—such as exams, fees, and training hours—deter potential entrants, allowing licensed workers to capture rents akin to in labor markets. On , the evidence points to net reductions, as the gains reflect fewer total jobs rather than productivity-driven expansion. Kleiner and Soltas document 18-27% lower in licensed state-occupation cells, with a baseline 29% drop in fully licensed cases, offset partially by 3-5% higher hours per worker among those employed. This aligns with theoretical expectations: barriers raise marginal costs of entry, contracting overall labor supply and quantity demanded at higher , though demand may shift outward if licensing signals quality. Other analyses, including replications of prior claims of positive effects for licensed workers, show that expansions in licensing stringency—measured by added requirements across states from 2017-2022—correlate with declining rates, contradicting earlier findings like Gittleman et al. () that did not isolate regulatory changes. losses are pronounced for low-skilled or mobile workers, as licensing delays market entry by 1-2 years on average and hampers occupational switching. Heterogeneity exists across occupations and demographics: wage premiums are larger in low-skill fields like (up to 20%), where barriers exceed quality rationales, while employment contractions hit entrants hardest, reducing fluidity by 5-10% in licensed sectors. Meta-analyses confirm near-universal elevation but ambiguous or negative aggregate impacts, with no robust of net job creation. These patterns hold after addressing endogeneity via instrumental variables on historical licensing adoption, underscoring causal barriers over selection effects alone. Overall, licensing reallocates income toward licensed incumbents at the expense of broader access, yielding deadweight losses estimated at 12% of occupational surplus.

Effects on Prices and Consumer Welfare

Occupational licensing restricts entry into professions, thereby reducing the supply of services and elevating prices for . Empirical analyses across multiple occupations, including healthcare and , consistently demonstrate that stricter licensing regimes correlate with price increases ranging from 3% to 16%. For example, in fields like and , licensing barriers have been shown to raise service costs by limiting practitioner numbers, with no commensurate gains in justifying the hikes. These price elevations impose direct costs on consumer welfare by decreasing affordability and access, particularly for routine services demanded by lower-income households. A structural model of U.S. state-level licensing estimates an average welfare loss equivalent to 12% of total occupational surplus, with consumers bearing approximately 30% of the incidence through higher expenditures. While some consumers exhibit higher willingness to pay—offsetting up to 80% of price rises via perceived value—the net effect remains a deadweight loss from reduced consumption and competition. Federal assessments reinforce that licensing-induced supply constraints yield fewer service options and elevated costs without proportional benefits in or , exacerbating inefficiencies in markets like childcare and veterinary care. Cross-state comparisons further indicate that in select occupations lowers prices by enhancing labor mobility and entry, thereby boosting overall consumer surplus.

Effects on Service Quality and Public Safety

Empirical research on the effects of occupational licensing on reveals limited of positive impacts, with many studies indicating no measurable improvements or even reductions in due to decreased . Proponents argue that licensing addresses asymmetric between providers and , ensuring higher standards, yet a comprehensive of U.S. found that stricter licensing requirements do not consistently correlate with better outcomes in consumer satisfaction or performance metrics. For instance, analyses of online platforms like , which provide direct consumer feedback on , show that licensed providers in regulated occupations such as and home services receive ratings comparable to or lower than unlicensed competitors, suggesting that market signals like reviews serve as effective substitutes for licensing in informing consumer choices. In specific low-risk occupations, licensing has demonstrated negligible effects on quality proxies such as error rates or customer outcomes. A study of agents in found that mandatory —a core licensing mechanism—did not improve transaction success rates, client retention, or overall service performance, as measured by sales volume and repeat business. Similarly, in fields like and , where risks are minimal, empirical comparisons across states with varying licensing stringency reveal no differences in reported service defects or complaints attributable to . These findings align with broader economic analyses indicating that licensing often elevates entry barriers without commensurate gains, potentially leading to complacency among incumbents and reduced in service delivery. Regarding public safety, evidence similarly underscores a lack of causal benefits from licensing in most occupations, particularly those not involving high-stakes interventions. Cross-state studies of and barbering, for example, report no increase in or incidents in jurisdictions without licensing, challenging claims of enhancements through mandatory training and exams. In higher-risk areas like , some identifies correlations between stringent licensing and lower malpractice rates, but these are confounded by underlying education and standards, with no isolated effect from state-specific licensing variations. Overall, a synthesis of peer-reviewed work concludes that while licensing may marginally signal competence in professions with inherent information asymmetries, it fails to deliver verifiable improvements across the spectrum of regulated occupations, often at the expense of access to services.

Effects on Labor Mobility and Interstate Portability

Occupational licensing requirements often lack interstate portability, necessitating workers to meet new state-specific criteria such as exams, fees, or additional training upon relocation, which raises the effective cost of moving and discourages interstate migration. Empirical analyses indicate that this non-portability acts as a barrier, with the between-state migration rate for individuals in occupations requiring state-specific licensing exams being 36 percent lower than for unlicensed occupations, controlling for factors like occupation type and demographics. Similarly, occupations with stringent state-unique requirements exhibit the largest reductions in interstate mobility compared to those with more standardized or reciprocal arrangements. Reciprocity agreements, where states mutually recognize licenses, partially mitigate these effects by facilitating smoother transitions and correlating with higher interstate migration rates in licensed fields relative to non-reciprocal licensed occupations. For instance, data from the show that licensed workers in reciprocal professions migrate across states at rates exceeding those in non-reciprocal ones, though overall migration remains suppressed compared to unlicensed workers. However, reciprocity coverage is limited—applying to fewer than 20 percent of licensed occupations in many states—and does not eliminate barriers like disparities or administrative hurdles. Broader trends link the expansion of licensing to declining U.S. interstate migration rates, which fell from about 3.5 percent of the population annually in the to under 2 percent by the , coinciding with licensing coverage rising to affect over 25 percent of the . Licensing also constrains job-to-job transitions across state lines, with studies finding negative associations between licensing stringency and cross-state labor flows, particularly in high-regulation sectors like healthcare and . While some evidence on aggregate migration effects is mixed due to factors like economic cycles, causal estimates from occupation-level variations consistently demonstrate licensing's role in reducing mobility, especially for mid-skilled workers facing relicensing costs averaging $200–$1,000 per state plus time delays of months.

Social and Demographic Impacts

Impacts on Minorities, Low-Income Workers, and Entrants

Occupational licensing requirements, including fees, training hours, and exams, disproportionately burden racial and ethnic minorities by erecting barriers that correlate with lower representation in licensed professions. Empirical analyses indicate that occupations with stringent licensing—such as those mandating extensive or —reduce the share of and workers, as these groups often face higher costs and fewer resources to comply. For example, in , the 150-hour rule implemented in the 1980s significantly curtailed entry by minority candidates into the profession without commensurate improvements in quality. Such regulations favor incumbents with established networks, limiting upward mobility for underrepresented groups. Immigrants, particularly skilled foreign-born workers, encounter amplified obstacles from non-recognition of overseas credentials and mandatory retraining, which stifles their labor market integration. A 2023 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis study estimated that licensing decreases foreign-born employment in affected state-occupation pairs by approximately 20 percent compared to native-born workers, even after controlling for and skills. This effect persists across racial lines, with persistent gaps in licensing attainment for non-white immigrants, exacerbating in fields like healthcare and trades where they hold relevant qualifications. Low-income workers face heightened exclusion due to —such as application fees averaging $200–$1,000 per occupation—and indirect burdens like lost wages during mandatory apprenticeships or , which deter transitions from low-skill jobs. links expanded licensing to widened earnings inequality, with states having more regulations showing greater income dispersion from 1983 to 2019, as low-wage unlicensed workers struggle to access higher-paying licensed roles. These barriers compound for the , who lack the capital or time flexibility of higher-income applicants, effectively opportunities along socioeconomic lines. New labor market entrants, including young workers and recent graduates, experience reduced mobility as licensing mandates prior experience or prolonged , hindering job switching and experimentation across occupations. Licensing correlates with diminished cross-occupation mobility, explaining up to 8 percent of declines in overall labor market fluidity, which delays skill acquisition and wage growth for novices without incumbent advantages. Entrants in unlicensed sectors may also suffer spillover effects, as licensing in complementary fields redirects labor supply, suppressing and employment prospects for unregulated entry-level positions. While some studies posit licensing aids entrants via quality signaling, evidence of net barriers predominates, particularly for those from backgrounds lacking or financial buffers.

Evidence on Inequality and Opportunity Barriers

Occupational licensing imposes significant that disproportionately affect low-income individuals, racial minorities, and other disadvantaged groups by requiring substantial upfront costs in time, , and fees, which incumbents—often higher-income and established—can more easily meet. These requirements, such as 372 days of for cosmetologists or exams for teachers, exclude those without resources for compliance, reducing access to stable, licensed jobs that offer higher wages and security. For instance, licensing has been shown to decrease employment among barbers by 17.3% and among new Hispanic teachers by 2%, partly due to barriers like English proficiency mandates and residency rules. Racial and ethnic minorities face underrepresentation in licensed occupations despite comparable education levels, with workers of color substantially less likely to hold licenses than white non-Latino/a workers. Nationally, Latino/a workers are 11 percentage points less likely to be licensed, black workers 5 points less, and Asian workers 6 points less, leading to overrepresentation of white workers in high-licensing fields like law (83.3% white) and secondary teaching (82.1% white). Foreign-born workers, who comprise 82.4% of people of color in some datasets, encounter additional hurdles from unrecognized credentials and criminal record prohibitions, which disproportionately impact black and Latino/a men. Licensing contributes to earnings inequality by creating wage premiums for incumbents while restricting supply in low-skill sectors accessible to the disadvantaged, widening gaps over time. From 1983 to 2019, the licensing premium grew, particularly in high-paying occupations, increasing overall U.S. earnings inequality, with larger premiums observed for racial/ethnic minorities, younger workers, and those without college degrees—though minorities and non-college-educated workers are overrepresented in lower-wage licensed roles like personal care. At the county level, growth in licensed occupations correlates with a 3.9% to 15.4% rise in income inequality (measured by Gini coefficients). These regulations also hinder by limiting labor market fluidity, particularly cross-occupation and geographic movement essential for low-income advancement. Empirical analysis indicates that licensing growth reduces absolute upward mobility by 1.7% to 6.7% at mean county levels, with states like experiencing up to a 6.7% drop from adding 59 new licensed occupations between 1993 and 2012. By impeding job transitions and interstate relocation, licensing entrenches opportunity barriers for entrants, including immigrants and ex-offenders, who face amplified exclusion from licensed workforces.

Criticisms, Defenses, and Controversies

Primary Criticisms: Regulatory Capture and Overreach

in occupational licensing occurs when licensing boards, dominated by industry incumbents, prioritize the interests of existing practitioners over welfare by imposing stringent entry barriers that restrict and inflate earnings. Empirical analyses indicate that such boards, often composed primarily of licensees with limited or consumer representation, systematically favor supply restrictions; for instance, economist Morris Kleiner's research demonstrates that licensing correlates with wage premiums of up to 18% across occupations, a pattern consistent with rather than safety imperatives, as higher barriers reduce labor supply without commensurate quality gains. This dynamic aligns with George Stigler's theory of economic regulation, where regulated entities capture agencies to secure economic rents, evidenced in licensing expansions driven by trade associations rather than legislative or demand. A prominent case illustrating capture is the State Board of Dental Examiners' enforcement actions against non-dentists providing teeth-whitening services, which the U.S. in 2015 ruled constituted anticompetitive conduct exempt from federal antitrust immunity due to insufficient state oversight, highlighting how practitioner-led boards suppress in adjacent markets. Studies on cosmetology boards further quantify capture through indices measuring licensee dominance in board composition and rulemaking, revealing that states with higher capture scores impose more onerous requirements, such as 1,000-2,000 hours of training for hair braiders despite low risk profiles, correlating with reduced entry and elevated prices without improved outcomes. Overreach is evident in the proliferation of licensing to low-risk occupations lacking plausible public safety rationales, where boards extend requirements beyond empirical necessities, stifling entrepreneurship and innovation. For example, until deregulation efforts in the 2010s, Louisiana mandated florists complete 300 hours of coursework for a license, a barrier affecting a field with negligible health hazards, as documented in de-licensing case studies showing no subsequent decline in service quality post-reform. Similarly, hairdressers in some states face training durations exceeding those for emergency medical technicians—up to 1,500 hours versus 120-150 hours—despite comparable or lower risks, an asymmetry critiqued in policy analyses as indicative of incumbent-driven expansion rather than evidence-based protection. Kleiner's longitudinal data across U.S. states confirms that such overregulation, covering over 1,000 occupations in aggregate, yields minimal verifiable benefits in quality or safety metrics while imposing compliance costs estimated at billions annually, underscoring causal links from board autonomy to unwarranted restrictions.

Defenses: Quality Assurance and Asymmetric Information

Proponents of occupational licensing maintain that it serves as a mechanism to assure by enforcing minimum standards of competence, such as required , examinations, and continuing , thereby protecting consumers from incompetent practitioners who could cause harm, particularly in fields involving , , or complex technical knowledge. This defense posits that without such barriers, low-quality providers would proliferate, eroding public trust and market , as governments can aggregate expertise to set thresholds that individual consumers cannot reliably assess. A core theoretical justification centers on asymmetric information, where consumers possess limited ability to evaluate practitioner skills ex ante, leading to potential akin to Akerlof's "," in which high- providers are driven out by uncertified low- entrants willing to undercut prices. Licensing mitigates this by functioning as a credible signal of , reducing search costs and gaps; for instance, empirical models indicate it can resolve inefficiencies in markets where is opaque, potentially yielding gains in output for consumers who value reliability over the lowest price. Some targeted empirical evidence supports quality enhancements in specific contexts, such as a study of midwifery licensing reforms showing long-term reductions in infant mortality and pregnancy complications due to improved practitioner standards, suggesting causal benefits from heightened oversight in high-stakes services. However, defenders emphasize that even absent universal proof of quality uplift across occupations, the precautionary role of licensing in preventing rare but severe failures—evident in licensed professions like dentistry or engineering where malpractice rates correlate with regulatory stringency—justifies its persistence over unregulated alternatives prone to externalities.

Major Debates and Case Studies

A central debate in occupational licensing concerns its purported role in assuring quality and mitigating asymmetric information between providers and consumers, weighed against evidence of supply restrictions and elevated costs without commensurate benefits. Proponents argue that licensing screens out unqualified entrants, potentially reducing incompetence-related harms, yet empirical analyses often find scant support for quality improvements; for instance, cross-state comparisons of licensed versus unlicensed practitioners in fields like dentistry reveal no significant differences in patient outcomes or complaint rates, while prices rise 10-12% due to restricted entry. Critics, drawing on public choice theory, contend that licensing frequently enables regulatory capture by incumbents, as boards dominated by licensees impose barriers unrelated to safety, such as excessive training hours, yielding wage premiums akin to union effects—around 15% on average—but at the expense of employment and mobility. Recent data from 2017-2022 across U.S. states indicate that stricter licensing correlates with 2-5% lower employment rates in affected occupations, challenging claims of net public benefit absent rigorous cost-benefit scrutiny. Another debate focuses on licensing's labor market distortions, including reduced interstate mobility and barriers for low-skilled or immigrant workers, versus defenses emphasizing standardized competence in high-stakes fields. While asymmetric information rationales hold in or —where empirical reviews affirm licensing's role in averting errors—application to low-risk trades yields inefficiencies; a BLS found licensing reduces migration by 20-30% for licensed workers, as reciprocity varies widely, yet quality metrics show no proportional gains in non-health occupations. This tension underscores causal realism: licensing may causally inflate wages via cartel-like effects but empirically hampers opportunity, with meta-analyses estimating 2.8 million fewer jobs nationwide from overbroad requirements. The florist licensing regime exemplifies unnecessary regulation in a low-risk occupation, where until 2024, aspiring florists faced a subjective practical and 90-day apprenticeship, despite no evidence of harm from unlicensed arrangements; a by the Institute for Justice found consumers indifferent to licensed status and unable to distinguish quality, leading to a federal challenge in 2003 that highlighted arbitrary barriers, with reform finally eliminating the test in favor of a fee-only system on May 30, 2024. This case illustrates capture dynamics, as the board—composed largely of licensees—maintained rules benefiting established firms, costing entrants thousands in compliance while poses negligible risks compared to or . Hair braiding licensing provides a of disproportionate impacts on minority and immigrant entrepreneurs, particularly African women whose traditional skills require 1,000-1,500 hours of training covering irrelevant topics like manicuring and chemical processing; in states like and , pre-reform mandates excluded skilled braiders lacking formal education, reducing market entry and earnings potential, with litigation since 1997 prompting deregulation in 17 states by 2019 via specialty certifications or exemptions that preserved cultural practices without safety lapses. Empirical outcomes post-reform show increased practitioner numbers and no rise in consumer complaints, underscoring how licensing erects causal barriers to for low-income groups, often justified by boards despite braiding's non-invasive nature. Arizona's 2019 universal license recognition law, enacted via HB 2569, serves as a reform testing portability's effects, automatically accepting out-of-state licenses for most occupations if held for one year, resulting in over 1,000 additional endorsements issued by 2022 and heightened worker inflows without documented quality declines, as monitored by the state board; this contrasts with Tennessee's targeted deregulations, such as 2012-2020 reductions for 19 occupations via sunset reviews, which correlated with 5-10% employment gains in deregulated fields per Mercatus analyses, though broader adoption lags due to incumbent resistance. These examples empirically validate deregulation's potential to boost supply and mobility—evidenced by Montana's similar 2021 universal recognition yielding 15% more license applications—while debates persist on safeguards for public-facing roles.

Reforms, Alternatives, and Policy Responses

Deregulation and Reduction Efforts

Efforts to deregulate have centered on state-level initiatives to eliminate requirements for low-risk occupations and enhance interstate portability through universal recognition laws, driven by evidence that excessive licensing restricts and raises prices without commensurate gains. Between 2015 and 2020, seven states enacted deregulation bills that removed licensing for 35 professions, including barbers, interior designers, and hair braiders. These reforms often target occupations where empirical studies show minimal risks from unlicensed practice, such as cosmetology services or egg candling. Arizona pioneered comprehensive reforms in May 2016, when Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation streamlining entry for over a dozen occupations, including reducing training hours for barbers and eliminating exams for certain appraisers, resulting in measurable increases in workforce participation. Florida followed with a 2020 law deregulating interior designers, hair braiders, nail polishers, and body wrappers, exempting these from state exams and fees previously deemed unnecessary for consumer protection. Similar de-licensing occurred in states like Tennessee and Nebraska, where legislatures sunsetted boards or shifted to voluntary certification for low-stakes fields, yielding faster market entry for practitioners. During the COVID-19 pandemic, over 30 states temporarily waived renewal fees and expedited approvals for healthcare and service roles, demonstrating feasibility without safety incidents. Universal license recognition laws represent a parallel deregulation strategy, allowing practitioners licensed in one state to obtain credentials in another via expedited processes rather than restarting requirements. As of 2024, 26 states, including , , , , and , have adopted such reforms since 2013, often applying to all licensed occupations with provisions for active practice experience and background checks. Montana's 2021 law, for instance, boosted applications from out-of-state nurses and electricians by waiving redundant training, increasing labor supply in rural areas. These policies address interstate migration barriers, where licensing differentials previously deterred 20-30% of potential movers in regulated fields. Empirical evaluations of these efforts indicate expanded and reduced prices, with no of diminished or . A review of de-licensing in multiple states found entry barriers fell by up to 50%, correlating with 5-10% gains in affected occupations, as new workers faced fewer hours of mandatory or exams. Universal recognition in early adopters like led to a 15% rise in licensed professionals within two years, lowering costs for services like childcare by enhancing . Studies attribute these outcomes to causal reductions in , though entrenched interests, such as trade associations, have mounted legal challenges to block further rollbacks.

Alternatives: Certification, Registration, and Market Signals

involves a voluntary process where individuals or organizations verify competence through exams, training, or standards set by private bodies or government entities, without prohibiting unlicensed practice. Unlike licensing, allows free market entry while enabling certified practitioners to signal quality to consumers, potentially increasing earnings for those who obtain it without imposing barriers on uncertified workers. For instance, the National Institute for (ASE) certification for mechanics operates nationwide as a private, voluntary credential that demonstrates skills but does not restrict non-certified individuals from performing repairs. Empirical analysis from the U.S. indicates that professional certifications, issued by nongovernmental bodies, correlate with higher wages and employment in fields like and aides, suggesting they effectively signal abilities without the exclusionary effects of licensing. Registration represents a minimal regulatory approach, typically requiring only notification to a authority of intent to practice an occupation, often with basic identification but no substantive exams, education, or performance standards. This method facilitates tracking for or without creating entry barriers, contrasting with licensing's mandatory approvals. In , for example, registration for interior designers involves simple filing without exams, allowing broader participation while maintaining a directory for verification. Proponents argue it supports through disclosure without inflating costs, as evidenced by lower compliance burdens in registered versus licensed professions, though direct comparative studies on outcomes remain limited. Market signals encompass decentralized mechanisms such as via reviews, warranties, , , and repeat , which incentivize through rather than mandates. In unregulated or lightly regulated occupations like personal trainers or event planners, platforms enabling easy access to reviews—such as or —allow to assess providers based on feedback, reducing asymmetries without restricting supply. from the highlights how voluntary or in fields like construction substitutes for licensing by providing financial recourse for errors, fostering trust and entry; for example, plumbers in unlicensed markets often carry liability coverage to signal reliability. These signals promote efficiency, as low- providers face reputational penalties and exit, with studies showing no widespread quality decline in deregulated services compared to licensed ones.

Universal Recognition Laws and Portability Reforms

Universal recognition laws permit a state to grant occupational licenses to applicants who hold valid, in-good-standing licenses from another , typically requiring a minimum period of licensure (often one to five years) and absence of disciplinary actions, thereby bypassing duplicative exams, , or requirements. These reforms address interstate barriers created by disparate state licensing standards, which affect over 20% of U.S. workers in licensed occupations and hinder mobility, particularly for military spouses and relocating professionals. As of July 2024, 21 states have implemented such laws, with pioneering the approach in 2017 through legislation covering more than 20 professions, including barbers, contractors, and agents. joined as the 21st state in 2024, extending recognition to a broad array of occupations while imposing modest fees and experience thresholds. Portability reforms extend beyond universal recognition to include reciprocal agreements and , which standardize licensing criteria across participating states to enable practice in multiple jurisdictions under a single credential. By 2023, 45 states had enacted at least one , spanning nine professions such as (via the Nurse Licensure Compact, active since 2000 with 41 member states), , and , facilitating over 230 compact-related laws. These mechanisms reduce administrative burdens; for instance, compacts often require uniform background checks and verification, allowing professionals to obtain multi-state privileges without full relicensing. States like , which adopted universal recognition in 2015 for select trades and expanded it, reported an 82.4% increase (1.31 percentage points) in licensed worker migration rates post-reform. Empirical outcomes demonstrate enhanced labor mobility and service access under these reforms. In , following 2023 universal recognition implementation, new license issuances rose significantly for professions like electricians and cosmetologists, with showing accelerated and higher out-of-state applicant volumes. A 2025 analysis of physician licensing found that universal recognition policies increased interstate practice, correlating with improved healthcare access in underserved areas by expanding the supply of providers without compromising quality metrics. However, variations persist: some states limit universal laws to specific occupations or add probationary periods, while compacts face challenges in uniform enforcement across non-member states. Overall, these reforms have proliferated amid evidence that licensing portability lowers entry costs—estimated at $1,000–$5,000 per in fees and delays—boosting employment in mobile workforces.

Comparative Analysis by Jurisdiction

United States: State Variations and Federal Influences

Occupational licensing in the United States is regulated primarily at the state level, resulting in wide variations in the scope, stringency, and number of licensed occupations across jurisdictions. States license over 800 distinct occupations in at least one location, with requirements encompassing education, training hours, examinations, fees, and continuing education mandates that differ significantly. The 2025 State Occupational Licensing Index, which evaluates burdens across 254 occupations based on the total number of regulatory barriers such as entry prerequisites and renewal conditions, ranks Oregon as having the highest overall licensing burden, followed by Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, and Florida. In contrast, Kansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Indiana, and New York impose the lowest burdens, reflecting fewer or less onerous requirements in these states. Nationally, these regulations affect more than 20 percent of the workforce, though the prevalence varies by state depending on the economic reliance on licensed professions like healthcare and construction. These state-level differences influence labor mobility, as workers face barriers when relocating; for example, empirical studies indicate that stricter licensing in destination states can reduce interstate migration for licensed professionals. In response to such variations, 28 states have enacted universal licensing recognition laws by 2025, allowing practitioners with valid out-of-state licenses to transfer credentials upon meeting conditions like residency or substantial equivalence, thereby mitigating some portability issues. Reforms in states with high burdens, such as Texas's recent reductions in certain licensing prerequisites, demonstrate ongoing efforts to align regulations with public safety needs rather than expansive entry controls. Federal influence on occupational licensing remains limited, as the Tenth Amendment reserves primary authority to states, but executive actions and agency advocacy have encouraged reforms by highlighting anticompetitive effects. In June 2016, the Obama administration released guidance promoting best practices for states to eliminate unnecessary licensing requirements, estimating that excessive barriers cost consumers billions annually through higher prices and reduced service availability. President Trump's December 2020 directed federal agencies to reduce occupational mobility barriers and urged states to review licensing for alignment with essential health and safety protections. Similarly, President Biden's July 2021 on promoting identified occupational licensing restrictions as potential labor market impediments, prompting federal reports and state-level initiatives. The has conducted multiple workshops and advocated against state licensing practices that unduly restrict , influencing policy without direct preemption. In limited federal domains, such as interstate transportation, agencies like the impose uniform licensing standards that supersede state rules. These efforts have correlated with increased state reforms, including procedural changes in over a dozen states since to streamline approvals and reduce training mandates.

European Union: Harmonization and National Differences

The European Union has pursued harmonization of occupational licensing through mutual recognition of professional qualifications, primarily via Directive 2005/36/EC, adopted on September 7, 2005, which establishes a framework for recognizing qualifications obtained in one member state for practice in another, facilitating labor mobility within the single market. This directive applies to regulated professions—those requiring specific qualifications for access—and includes automatic recognition for seven sectoral professions (e.g., doctors, architects) and a general system for others involving compensatory measures if substantial differences exist. Complementing this, the Services Directive 2006/123/EC seeks to eliminate barriers to cross-border service provision, including restrictions like economic needs tests and excessive licensing requirements, though implementation has been uneven. A 2024 European Court of Auditors report noted persistent administrative hurdles and proportionality issues in recognition processes, despite these efforts. Member states retain significant autonomy in designating regulated professions and setting qualification standards, leading to substantial national variations despite EU-wide principles. The EU's Regulated Professions Database identifies over 5,500 regulated professions across member states, but only about 600 are regulated consistently EU-wide, with the remainder subject to divergent national rules. Occupational licensing covers approximately 22% of the EU workforce, equivalent to around 47 million workers, concentrated in sectors like healthcare, crafts, and legal services. Stringency differs markedly: exhibits the highest coverage at 33% of workers, followed by (31%) and (29%), often due to stringent craft and professional guild traditions; in contrast, , , and have lower rates of 14-15%, reflecting more market-oriented approaches with fewer entry barriers. These differences manifest in varying regulatory scopes and impacts on mobility. Central and Eastern European countries like the show high regulation in crafts (up to 39% of workers), while Southern states such as and emphasize liberal professions (e.g., lawyers, notaries) with 36-54% coverage among professionals. immigrants face reduced access to regulated occupations compared to natives, with licensing contributing to 17-27% lower labor supply in affected fields and elevated prices (e.g., 11% higher for dental services). Recent reforms, including Directive () 2018/958 mandating proportionality tests for new regulations, aim to curb overreach by requiring evidence of necessity and less restrictive alternatives, yet relies on national compliance, perpetuating fragmentation.

Other Regions: Examples from Canada, Australia, and Developing Economies

In , occupational licensing is decentralized and regulated primarily at the provincial and territorial levels, encompassing about 20% of the workforce across professions such as , , and skilled trades like . These requirements, enforced by over 400 regulatory bodies, mandate education, exams, and experience for entry, ostensibly to protect public safety, but they frequently impede labor mobility; for example, a licensed from one may face requalification or additional assessments to practice elsewhere, despite federal labor mobility provisions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement since 2017. In 2023, certifications for trades reached 42,021, a 3% increase from prior years, yet persistent shortages in fields like healthcare and persist partly due to these barriers, which disproportionately affect immigrants whose foreign credentials are often unrecognized. Australia's occupational entry regulations (OER) apply to numerous fields including electricians, builders, and practitioners, setting mandatory qualifications, training hours, and sometimes exams that exceed baseline competency needs, thereby elevating entry costs and reducing workforce supply. Empirical analysis indicates these rules curb dynamism, suppress in regulated sectors, and inflate prices without commensurate quality gains, with macroeconomic modeling suggesting potential output losses from restricted adaptation to technological shifts. Reforms have accelerated, including a national licensing scheme for electrical trades implemented in March 2025 to enable seamless interstate practice without reapplication, alongside a Productivity Commission inquiry into broader harmonization projected to yield up to $10.3 billion in annual economic gains through reduced duplication. In developing economies, occupational licensing frequently adopts stringent entry controls for formal professions like , , and , often inherited from colonial frameworks or international standards, but varies widely, fostering dual markets where informal, unlicensed work dominates to bypass barriers. These regulations, when rigorously applied, limit labor supply and exacerbate service shortages in high-need areas such as healthcare and , mirroring developed-world patterns of reduced and elevated wages for incumbents, though empirical data remains limited compared to contexts. In regions like and parts of , licensing bodies prioritize credential verification over practical skills, contributing to skill mismatches and informal sector reliance, where up to 60-80% of evades formal regulation, underscoring how such rules can hinder poverty alleviation by constraining low-skilled entry. Reforms in countries like have sporadically eased requirements for trades, yet entrenched interests often sustain barriers that prioritize rent extraction over consumer access.

References

  1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04497-5
  2. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2023/who-has-an-occupational-license-in-the-united-states
  3. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/occupational-licensing-final-report
  4. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/occupational-licensing-and-the-american-worker/
  5. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.14.4.189
  6. https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-influence-of-occupational-licensing-and-regulation/long
  7. https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/392/pdfs/the-influence-of-occupational-licensing-and-regulation.pdf
  8. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-explains-occupational-licensing/
  9. https://www.cato.org/publications/facilitating-personal-improvement-occupational-licensing
  10. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26383/w26383.pdf
  11. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/policy-proposal/reforming-occupational-licensing-policies/
  12. https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/90/5/2481/7049987
  13. https://evansoltas.com/papers/KleinerSoltas_LicensingWelfare.pdf
  14. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.14.4.189
  15. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OccupationalLicensing.html
  16. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-occupational-licensing-matters-for-wages-and-careers/
  17. https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/
  18. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/paper/occupational-licensing-and-american-workers/
  19. https://www.thecgo.org/research/how-does-occupational-licensing-affect-u-s-consumers-and-workers/
  20. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/06/17/new-data-show-roughly-one-quarter-us-workers-hold-occupational-license
  21. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/professional-certifications-and-occupational-licenses.htm
  22. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/12/occupational-licensing-and-job-mobility-in-the-united-states_18e2fb48/4cc19056-en.pdf
  23. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf
  24. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/the-national-occupational-licensing-database
  25. https://www.abcop.org/publication/section/abc-state-licensure-handbook/rationale-for-state-licensure
  26. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/context/wlr/article/4082/viewcontent/Robinson.pdf
  27. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol93/iss4/7/
  28. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/medieval-guilds/
  29. https://www.worldhistory.org/Medieval_Guilds/
  30. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jep.28.4.169
  31. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2023/program/paper/356kQYiG
  32. https://www.fsmb.org/about-fsmb/history/
  33. https://cdn.mises.org/3_1_5_0.pdf
  34. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/origins-evolution-occupational-licensing-united-states
  35. https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/brief-history-occupational-licensing
  36. https://digitalcommons.carleton.edu/context/econ_repec/article/1016/viewcontent/The_efficiency_of_occupational_licensing_during_the_Gilded_and_Pr_ReDistilled.pdf
  37. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=hist_fsp
  38. https://www.lhlt.mpg.de/1923514/rg-caglar-professionalizing-legal-professions-in-england-and-germany
  39. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/5157_en.pdf
  40. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14308/w14308.pdf
  41. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_KleinerDiscPaper_final.pdf
  42. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=up_policypapers
  43. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33580/w33580.pdf
  44. https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/174krueger.pdf
  45. https://www.americanexperiment.org/10-states-have-enacted-major-occupational-licensing-reforms-since-2019/
  46. https://csorwvu.com/policy-brief-survey-of-universal-licensing-reforms-in-the-united-states-2024/
  47. https://ccresourcecenter.org/2021/02/04/two-significant-new-occupational-licensing-laws-enacted-in-2021/
  48. https://clsphila.org/employment/state-finalizes-regulations-to-implement-occupational-licensing-reform/
  49. https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/state-occupational-licensing-index/
  50. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2025/08/29/new-report-reveals-states-with-heaviest-occupational-licensing-burdens/
  51. https://www.econlib.org/library/enc/occupationallicensing.html
  52. https://www.careeronestop.org/ExploreCareers/Plan/licensed-occupations.aspx
  53. https://ij.org/report/at-what-cost/costs-of-occupational-licensing/
  54. https://www.pa.gov/services/dos/apply-for-or-renew-professional-licensing
  55. https://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/Pages/Applying-For-A-License.aspx
  56. https://www.csg.org/category/policy/occupational-licensing/
  57. https://www.op.nysed.gov/fees-chart-html-test-page
  58. https://occupationallicensing.com/state/new-york/
  59. https://www.op.nysed.gov/professions/occupational-therapists/license-requirements
  60. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/occupational-licensing-legislation-database
  61. https://otpotential.com/ot-continuing-education-requirements
  62. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mandatory-continuing-education-for-nurses
  63. https://ascend.thentia.com/united-states/continuing-education-requirements-us/
  64. https://www.aota.org/career/state-licensure/maintain-your-license
  65. https://glsolutions.com/regulatory-agency-software-blog/occupational-licensing-requirements-by-state/
  66. https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ce9dac43-36c9-4e26-84a2-9e8ffc99a444/content
  67. https://www.myotspot.com/occupational-therapy-license/
  68. https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-State-Occupational-Licensing-Index.pdf
  69. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/sum/2007SUM00188-R02HB-06983-SUM.htm
  70. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/03-19-2021-Occupational-Licensing-Review-Act.pdf
  71. https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/public-choice-analysis-occupational-licensing
  72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1833335
  73. https://www.mercatus.org/students/research/journal-articles/occupational-licensing-and-asymmetric-information
  74. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25262/w25262.pdf
  75. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151102_occupational_licensing_and_economic_rents.pdf
  76. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20961/w20961.pdf
  77. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_KleinerBrief_final.pdf
  78. https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/191krueger.pdf
  79. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27568/w27568.pdf
  80. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730120
  81. https://www.ncarollo.net/s/occupational-licensing.pdf
  82. https://knee.wvu.edu/publications/does-continuing-education-improve-the-quality-of-services-evidence-from-illinois-real-estate-agents
  83. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26383
  84. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2017/11/effects-occupational-licensure-competition-consumers-workforce-empirical-research-results
  85. https://www.mercatus.org/research/public-interest-comments/effects-occupational-licensure-competition-consumers-and
  86. https://ij.org/report/raising-barriers-not-quality/
  87. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2017/preliminary/paper/efy2hraQ
  88. https://www.thecgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/how-does-occupational-licensing-afect-US-consumers-and-workers.pdf
  89. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/up_press/article/1034/&path_info=up06mklo00_r.pdf
  90. https://www.american.edu/spa/peer/upload/2022-2-17-peer-occupationa-licensing-final.pdf
  91. https://ij.org/report/clean-cut/across-occupations-research-finds-licensing-benefits-few-but-costs-many/evidence-is-scarce-that-licensing-improves-quality-or-safety/
  92. https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v55y2019i1d10.1007_s11151-019-09711-8.html
  93. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24107
  94. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170704
  95. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/occupational-licensing-barrier-interstate-migration
  96. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/occupational-licensing-and-interstate-migration-in-the-united-states.htm
  97. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/options-enhance-occupational-license-portability/license_portability_policy_paper_0.pdf
  98. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=empl_research
  99. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/occupational-licensing-has-sizeable-impact-job-mobility-us
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537121000622
  101. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/occupational-licensing-minority-certified-public-accountants
  102. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-spotlights/occupational-licensing-and-poor-and-disadvantaged
  103. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/community-development-working-papers/occupational-licensing-as-a-barrier-to-entry-for-immigrants
  104. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/709834
  105. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/effect-occupational-licensing-earnings-inequality-united-states
  106. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pam.22660
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272723001299
  108. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/spillover-effects-occupational-licensing
  109. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/107/2/338/113779/Job-Market-Signaling-through-Occupational
  110. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/how-occupational-licensing-limits-access-to-jobs-among-workers-of-color
  111. https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/too-much-license/
  112. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27568
  113. https://ij.org/ll/with-professor-morris-kleiner/
  114. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3074&context=faculty_scholarship
  115. https://csel.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz1671/files/2020-12/CSEL-2020-02-A-Cosmetology-Board-Capture-Index-11_02_20-v2.pdf
  116. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/the-de-licensing-of-occupations-in-the-united-states.htm
  117. https://bakerinstituteblog.blogs.rice.edu/2019/08/29/occupational-licensing-why-a-hairdresser-trains-longer-than-an-emt/
  118. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=empl_research
  119. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/cato/v28i1/f_0001672_884.pdf
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10841694/
  121. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/costs-benefits-occupational-regulation/cox_foster_-_occupational_licensing.pdf
  122. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2022number1/new-frontiers-occupational-licensing-research
  123. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/uneasy-case-occupational-licensing-part-1
  124. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1750&context=fac_articles
  125. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CarpenterDM_Web13_2_.pdf
  126. https://reason.com/2024/05/30/louisiana-finally-fixes-americas-dumbest-licensing-requirement/
  127. https://ij.org/case/meadows-v-odom/
  128. https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/braiding/
  129. https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/20/texas-hairs-breadth-away-cutting-braiding-laws/
  130. https://www.independentwomen.com/2021/02/05/loosening-hair-braiders-from-the-knots-of-red-tape/
  131. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2021/preliminary/paper/6AGniDti
  132. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/universal-licensure-recognition-a-case-study-of-montana
  133. https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/tennessee/
  134. https://www.tba.org/?pg=Articles&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=80664
  135. https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/advocacy/economic-liberty/state-based-initiatives-selected-examples
  136. https://reason.org/commentary/florida-passes-major-occupational-licensing-reform/
  137. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/occupational-licensing-final-report/maptype/tile
  138. https://www.cagw.org/licensing-barriers/
  139. https://ij.org/legislative-advocacy/states-reforms-for-universal-recognition-of-occupational-licensing/
  140. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2025/program/paper/GZisZYEF
  141. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2022/06/205_Klein.pdf
  142. https://www.mercatus.org/students/research/policy-briefs/private-certification-alternative-occupational-licensing
  143. https://mspolicy.org/there-are-alternatives-to-occupational-licensing/
  144. https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Occupational-Licensing-Win-Win-Final.pdf
  145. https://policyinterns.com/2025/03/26/rethinking-occupational-licensing-breaking-barriers/
  146. https://www.thecgo.org/books/regulation-and-economic-opportunity-blueprints-for-reform/occupational-licensing-a-barrier-to-opportunity-and-prosperity/
  147. https://ij.org/report/license-to-work-3/report/alternatives-to-licensing/
  148. https://libertas.institute/free-market/five-alternatives-to-occupational-licensing/
  149. https://empowerms.org/alternatives-to-occupational-licensing/
  150. https://spn.org/what-is-universal-licensing-recognition/
  151. https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2024/07/17/florida-becomes-twenty-first-state-with-universal-licensure/
  152. https://ij.org/legislation/universal-recognition-of-occupational-licenses-act/
  153. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/2023-occupational-licensing-trends
  154. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/2022-occupational-licensing-trends
  155. https://compacts.csg.org/tag/portability/
  156. https://virginiamercury.com/2024/04/09/how-virginias-occupational-licensing-reform-has-expanded-worker-freedom/
  157. https://www.nber.org/digest/202510/universal-occupational-licensing-recognition-and-healthcare-access
  158. https://www.clearhq.org/news/issue-brief-on-state-approaches-to-universal-licensing-recognition
  159. https://glsolutions.com/regulatory-agency-software-blog/2025-state-occupational-licensing-rankings/
  160. https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-among-the-worst-states-for-occupational-licensing/
  161. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/17/fact-sheet-new-steps-reduce-unnecessary-occupation-licenses-are-limiting
  162. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-increasing-economic-geographic-mobility/
  163. https://ascend.thentia.com/insight/executive-order-on-competition-occupational-licensing/
  164. https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/advocacy/economic-liberty/selected-advocacy-relating-occupational-licensing
  165. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/ftc-set-to-examine-occupational-licensing/
  166. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF
  167. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02005L0036-20240620
  168. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2024-10
  169. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/home
  170. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/05/competition-and-regulation-in-professions-and-occupations_a35fd2e6/218869f5-en.pdf
  171. https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/no.525.pdf
  172. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e31b840f0b62305b81676/bis-14-999-occupational-regulation-in-the-EU-and-UK.pdf
  173. https://ascend.thentia.com/insight/regulators-101-introduction-occupational-regulation/
  174. https://www.cicic.ca/928/find_out_if_your_occupation_is_regulated_or_not.canada
  175. https://www.gov.nl.ca/jig/fair-registration/provincially-regulated-jobs/
  176. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/241211/dq241211c-eng.htm
  177. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2024/2024-06/full.html
  178. https://oecdecoscope.blog/2020/03/31/occupational-licensing-how-much-and-what-effects/
  179. https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/20240917_NSW-Productivity-Equality-Commission-Better-occupational-entry-regulations.pdf
  180. https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/national-licensing-electrical-trades
  181. https://www.smallbusiness.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/Submission%2520to%2520the%2520Productivity%2520Commission%2520-%2520National%2520Competition%2520Policy%2520Analysis%25202025.pdf
  182. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596708000887
  183. https://publications.iadb.org/en/occupational-safety-and-health-latin-america-and-caribbean-overview-issues-and-policy
  184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11638030/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.