Shut Out: How Licensing Can Curb Access to Work.

• Author: Hiltz, Allison
• Position: Critical essay

Dan Leger wanted to be a tour guide in Savannah, Ga. He knew that to walk the storied streets and tell their tales he needed an occupational license from the city, but what was required of him to get it was a bit surprising--and personal. In addition to providing blood and urine samples, Leger was required to share intimate details about his personal life. This type of rigorous hoop-jumping might seem excessive, but it's not uncommon.

Leger's story of how licensing can impede access to work is just one of many highlighted in "Bottleneckers: Gaming the Government for Power and Private Profit," by William Mellor and Dick M. Carpenter II. The authors hold nothing back in their critique of licenses that protect industry but not public health and safety.

Occupational licensing has become a contentious issue in the last five to 10 years. In theory, licenses protect health and safety by preventing harmful practices. There is bipartisan agreement that licensing is appropriate for lines of work in which public harm can be done due to improper practice. But other licensed occupations pose no straightforward risk to the public.

Licensing for these occupations, the authors write, tends to be industry driven, designed to limit competition and benefit existing practitioners. They cite research showing that most new occupational licenses rarely, if ever, improve consumer health and safety.

"Bottleneckers" highlights the stories of coffin-selling monks, food truck owners, taxi drivers...