Editorial Staff

New Study: Excessive Occupational Licensing Hurts State Economy, Reduces Tax Revenue

/in , , , /by Editorial Staff
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Read media coverage of this report in The Boston Globe and MassLive.

BOSTON — Overly burdensome occupational licensing requirements not only slow down the Massachusetts economy and cost the state tens of thousands of jobs, but also reduce state and local tax revenue, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

“Onerous occupational licensing laws in Massachusetts not only create unnecessary barriers to finding a job, they also impact state and municipal resources,” said Alex Muresianu, author of “How Occupational Licensing Laws Reduce State and Local Tax Revenues: The Public Finance Case for Occupational Licensing Reform.”

Occupational licensing laws have expanded greatly in the past half-century.  In 1950, only 5 percent of the U.S. workforce needed a license to do their jobs. Now, between 25 and 30 percent of workers need a license.

Get Updates on Our Economic Opportunity Research

Occupational licensing laws are usually justified on the grounds that they improve public health, safety, or service quality. But the existing literature on occupational licensing laws finds that these licenses do not always improve public health or consumer welfare.

Instead, overly broad occupational licensing regulations serve to protect those who currently work in an industry from competition by keeping new workers out. Licensing boards impose large fees and expansive education and training requirements inconsistent with the health and safety implications of the job.

As the public interest law firm Institute for Justice noted, Massachusetts requires cosmetologists to undergo 1,000 hours of training and accrue two years of experience to obtain a license. Meanwhile, becoming a state-licensed EMT, a job with a much clearer tie to public health implications, requires just 150 hours of education.

Licensing laws also have numerous indirect economic consequences. They make it harder for ex-convicts to re-enter the workforce, thus increasing crime and recidivism rates. Many states do not recognize licenses granted in other states, which reduces labor mobility, making the labor market less competitive and slowing down wage growth. Several studies have found that these laws increase economic inequality by keeping lower-income people out of these career paths, and have disparate, negative impacts on young people, ethnic minorities, and military spouses.

One of the roadblocks to reforming these regulations is that state governments are often unwilling to give up the revenue stream generated from fees for occupational licenses. However, licensing laws actually reduce state and local tax revenue by preventing more people from working. Slower economic growth means lower income and sales tax revenue.

“By reducing economic growth, occupational licensing laws reduce state and local tax revenues,” said Muresianu. The report found that in 29 of 36 states studied, state and local governments lose more tax revenue from reduced growth than they gain from occupational licensing fees.

There are several policies Massachusetts and other states can implement to reduce licensing burdens. Repealing licensing laws that most other states don’t have, requiring that any new licensing law address a specific public health concern, automatically recognizing all licenses earned in other states, and replacing licenses with voluntary certification programs are all effective approaches the Bay State legislature could consider to reduce the state’s licensing burden.

About the Author

Alex Muresianu was a Pioneer Institute Akin Fellow of Digi­tal Media. He is a Consumer Freedom Fellow at Young Voices, and his writing has appeared in publications such as National Review Online, The Orange County Register, The Kansas City Star, The Detroit News, and The Springfield Republican. He is currently a junior studying economics at Tufts University.

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Related Posts

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proposal Fails to Protect Taxpayers from Bracket Creep

The state constitutional amendment proposed by the Service Employees International Union and the Massachusetts Teachers Association to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual income above $1 million purports to use cost-of-living-based bracket adjustments as a safeguard that will ensure only millionaires will pay. But historic income growth trends suggest that bracket creep will cause many non-millionaires to be subject to the surtax over time, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Pioneer Institute, The Immigrant Learning Center Co-Produce New Weekly Podcast

Pioneer Institute is pleased to announce the launch of JobMakers, a new weekly podcast that explores the world of risk-taking immigrants who create new products, services, and jobs in New England and across the United States. JobMakers is produced in collaboration with The Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) of Malden, MA.

New Study Warns Graduated Income Tax Will Harm Many Massachusetts Retirees

If passed, a constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax would raid the retirement plans of Massachusetts residents by pushing their owners into higher tax brackets on the sales of homes and businesses, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, entitled “The Graduated Income Tax Trap: A retirement tax on small business owners,” aims to help the public fully understand the impact of the proposed new tax.

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proponents Rely on Analyses That Exclude the Vast Majority Of “Millionaires” to Argue Their Case

Advocates for a state constitutional amendment that would apply a 4 percent surtax to households with annual earnings of more than $1 million rely heavily on the assumption that these proposed taxes will have little impact on the mobility of high earners. They cite analyses by Cornell University Associate Professor Cristobal Young, which exclude the vast majority of millionaires, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Report Contrasts State Government and Private Sector Employment Changes During Pandemic

Massachusetts state government employment has been virtually flat during COVID-19 even as employment in the state’s private sector workforce remains nearly 10 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, “Public vs. Private Employment in Massachusetts: A Tale of Two Pandemics,” questions whether it makes sense to shield public agencies from last year’s recession at the expense of taxpayers.

Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a “Blank Check” and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities

Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted spending, according to a new policy brief published by Pioneer Institute. That same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to these purposes.