There is a large set of regulations at all levels of government that aim to prevent incompetent practitioners from harming consumers. These usually take the form of licensing laws: Only if you obtain a license from some unit of government are you allowed to offers your services on the market.

How well does this work? It might seem obvious that such laws are good and ought to be strictly enforced — until you contemplate the hidden damage they can do by restricting entry, innovation, and consumer choice.

In his latest Bastiat’s Window post, Robert Graboyes takes a hard look at the pros and cons.

The issue of licensing brings to mind a controversy that I’ve sometimes written about, namely prohibitions against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). UPL regulations might keep a few incompetents from offering legal services, but they also greatly restrict entry into the field, making legal help much more costly than it would otherwise be and thereby pricing many poorer people out of the market. It’s also very doubtful that government licensure itself does much to guarantee competence, and enforcement tends to be spotty, more attuned to minimizing competition than punishing instances of incompetence or malfeasance.