Missouri’s universal reciprocity regime allows most licensed professionals from other states to have licensing requirements waived when they relocate to the Show-Me State. But what happens when a professional moves to Missouri from a state that does not license their occupation at all?

Senate Bill 1233 creates a new pathway for those individuals. Specifically, it offers a temporary license to individuals with at least three years of work experience in an occupation or profession in states that do not require a license.

For example, Missouri is one of 31 states that requires a license to work as a sign-language interpreter. Without SB 1233, if a sign-language interpreter with three years or more of experience from one of the 19 states (and the District of Columbia) that don’t require licensing moved to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here.

This bill would allow experienced professionals to continue working while pursuing a permanent Missouri license.

There are still additional improvements that can be made in occupational licensing. For example, in the licensing reciprocity process, relevant oversight bodies can still wait up to six months to issue a waiver for an applicant. A six-month waiting period is far too long.

Every occupational license carries real costs, including the loss of time and income while waiting for approval. The central question in occupational licensing is whether these costs are justified by clear and demonstrable benefits to public safety or product quality.

SB 1233 lowers the costs for experienced professionals from license-free states. It also lowers barriers to entry, which can increase the supply of professionals in different sectors and place downward pressure on prices for consumers. Missouri policymakers should continue to evaluate which existing licensing requirements function as legitimate safeguards and which function primarily as barriers to entry and work.

The post Missouri Takes Another Step Forward in Occupational Licensing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

As technology companies try to meet the skyrocketing demand for AI-specialized computing capacity, they are dotting the country with data centers to the dismay of some and the delight of others. As is all too often the case in Missouri, many of these companies are being offered taxpayer-supported subsidies or tax exemptions.

For example, Independence, Missouri, is giving Nebius more than $6 billion in tax breaks over the next 20 years for a “hyper-scale” data center, and Montgomery County has offered Amazon hundreds of millions in tax abatements to build a data center near New Florence. But why would subsidies be needed when it seems like data-center developers have money to burn and are desperate for suitable building locations?

Recent actions of data-center developers suggest that it is not the cost of building and operating those facilities that is the barrier; the main problems appear to be finding pathways to secure reliable energy generation and getting their centers online smoothly and quickly (speed-to-operation).

These two obstacles are so serious that the major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc.) recently met with President Trump and signed the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” to supply and pay for their own power for their AI data centers.

Why would these companies agree to take on this expense? Because their constraint is not cash. For these firms, time is money. The costs of delays in permitting and interconnection outweigh the value of a local tax incentive.

The negative effects of economic development subsidies and tax breaks are well known. When local officials offer these incentives, they diminish positive benefits that could come from a new data-center development: increased property-tax revenue to fill in the gaps for local services or be used to lower the overall tax rate of the community.

With all of this in mind, rather than just doing what most other states do (handing out checks or tax exemptions) Missouri should work on policies that actually deliver what these companies need most: pathways to secure and reliable energy generation, regulatory certainty, and speed-to-operation.

For local communities, this means they should not offer taxpayer dollars. Even with big tech agreeing to pay for their own power, many municipalities will still try to lure projects with incentives. No doubt the companies will take whatever money is offered to them, but subsidies are unlikely to significantly drive their decisions about where to locate.

Instead, local communities should offer a stable, predictable permitting environment and a suitable location to build. That would help address the greater desire for certainty and speed-to-operation.

And at the state level we should think even bigger. Policies like consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) could help make Missouri a true hub for data center development—without using unnecessary subsidies.

CRE would enable private electricity providers to serve large, energy-intensive customers independent of the existing, permission-heavy grid structure by allowing them to build their own power plants. Rather than spreading the costs for this infrastructure, CRE would create a “parallel path to energy abundance” —one financed by the large customers who demand the power.

CRE would allow these data centers to work with a private partner to meet their own energy needs, with less red tape, more certainty, more control, and more freedom to innovate. These benefits are likely to be more appealing than subsidies.

Unfortunately, offering subsidies seems to be a reflexive reaction in Missouri when there is an opportunity to attract a new business. But especially in this case, Missouri would be better off focusing on what the data center sector really needs. Efficient regulatory and permitting policies (like CRE), a predictable and stable environment in which to construct, and abundant energy would be far better suited to attracting and improving data center development than taxpayer dollars.

The post Why Hand Out Subsidies to Data-Center Developers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With Kansas City preparing to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill to simplify food truck licensing in Jackson County. The proposal would allow vendors licensed by the county to operate in any municipality without additional city permits.

The change would remove a common barrier: multiple permits just to cross a city boundary.

The idea makes sense. But if it will help entrepreneurs and visitors during the World Cup, why should the same principle not apply across Missouri? As the Squirrel Nut Zippers sang, “If it’s good enough for Grandad, its good enough for me.”

Food truck regulations vary widely by city. Vendors operating across a metro area may face requirements for multiple permits, fees, and regulatory approvals.

Show-Me Institute writers have written about these barriers for years. In 2019, we noted that St. Louis food trucks still faced significant regulatory constraints despite growing demand. Food trucks offer a flexible and relatively low-cost entry into the restaurant business, but local regulations can make that opportunity harder to pursue.

In some places, additional rules beyond health and sanitation standards function as a de facto ban on mobile vendors.

Health and safety regulations would remain under the proposal being considered in Jefferson City. Missouri already regulates food safety through inspections and sanitation standards administered by local health departments.

The real issue is duplication. Requiring vendors who already meet health standards to obtain a license in every municipality adds cost and delay without improving safety.

Every occupational license carries costs: higher prices for consumers, barriers to entry for workers, fewer providers, and lost time and money for licensees. The central policy question is whether those costs are justified by clear benefits to public safety or product quality.

Several Missouri communities have taken steps to loosen food truck restrictions in recent years. Clayton, for example, expanded opportunities for food trucks to operate at events and public gatherings while maintaining basic safety requirements.

Such changes recognize that mobile vendors are part of the broader restaurant ecosystem and often serve as a first step toward larger businesses.

Starting a small business often requires navigating numerous regulatory steps and fees. Reducing unnecessary barriers can make it easier for entrepreneurs to test new ideas and serve customers.

That flexibility helps explain the popularity of food trucks: vendors can move where demand is strongest, serve events, and test new concepts without the overhead of a traditional restaurant.

Major events like the World Cup highlight that advantage. When large numbers of visitors arrive, mobile vendors can help meet the temporary surge in demand for food and entertainment.

But the benefits of reducing unnecessary regulation should not depend on an international sporting event. If getting government out of the way helps vendors serve World Cup visitors in Kansas City, it should also help them serve customers across the rest of Missouri.

The post If Food Truck Reform Is Good for One County, It’s Good for All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a writer, there are moments when someone else articulates an idea so well that rewriting it in my own words would be unnecessary. A recent op-ed in The Hill did exactly that, clearly laying out the energy challenges facing the United States:

The U.S. electricity sector is a slow-moving maze of regulations, shaped by decade-long transmission approvals, time-intensive interconnection studies for new generators and large new customers, and overlapping layers of state, regional and federal bureaucracy. . . . The regulatory thicket surrounding the electricity industry was tolerable when the pace of change was slow. However, with the rise of AI and renewed growth from manufacturing and electrification, we can no longer endure a sclerotic grid.

In addition to reforming our rigid, reluctant-to-adapt grid, there are questions about whether average ratepayers should be on the hook for increased electricity demand being driven by a few large customers.

In the midst of all of these concerns, there is a U.S. Senate bill that could help fix the problem: S.3585 – DATA Act of 2026. The bill was recently referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I have written about consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) for Missouri, which would reduce the number of state-level regulations that off-grid CRE utilities (CREUs) would face. (You can click here if you’re interested in what a CRE policy might look like in practice.) However, even if it were allowed in Missouri, there would still be many federal-level regulations that would diminish the benefits of the new practice.

That is where the DATA Act becomes so vital. The act would exempt certain new CREUs from specific federal regulations that apply to the broader grid. If our state and federal governments approve CRE, there would be a pathway for large electricity users like data centers and aluminum plants to more quickly generate their own electricity without impacting the rates of average Missourians. That would be a win for all of us.

All of this suggests that the DATA Act of 2026 is something to watch in Washington, D.C. But Missouri should not wait until the federal government makes its move. We should be proactive and allow CREs in our state, creating a pathway to address modern energy challenges that would become even more viable if federal reforms under the DATA Act follow.

The post Keep an Eye on the DATA Act in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Needless occupational licensing requirements make it harder for people to work in our state, and wait times for licensing waivers unnecessarily burden applicants.

The Solution

Periodic review of all licensing requirements, elimination of regulations without proven benefits to public safety or product quality, and reduction of the maximum time to receive an out-of-state licensing waiver.

Licenses Should Have Proven Benefits

Occupational licensing is the government giving someone permission to work in a certain field. Obtaining a license typically involves satisfying an educational requirement and paying a fee.

Most licensing laws are justified as public safety measures or as necessary to ensure the quality of the relevant service. However, there is little evidence that occupational licensing laws provide any benefit in this regard, as demonstrated by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in a meta-analysis of 19 different studies directly related to licensing and product quality. In only 16% of included studies did researchers observe positive relationships between licensing and product quality.

Occupational licenses raise prices, impose higher barriers to entry, cost licensees time and money, and reduce innovation. Because of these costs, an occupational license should provide a proven benefit to public safety or product quality.

Issuing Waivers Efficiently

2020 marked the establishment of Missouri’s licensing reciprocity regime. Under current law, any person who has held a valid license issued by another state for at least one year can practice in Missouri at the same occupation or level with all Missouri licensing requirements waived.

However, the relevant oversight body can wait up to six months to issue a waiver to an applicant. A worker considering relocation to Missouri might not be able to wait half a year before starting work in the profession in which they’ve been trained. This delay puts applicants in a bind: Either wait for a waiver during this extended period or meet the Missouri licensing requirements so they can work. This reality may dissuade individuals from relocating to Missouri entirely.

Missouri provides an expedited licensing timeline for qualified spouses of law enforcement officers and members of the military. This is a step in the right direction, but all professionals seeking work in Missouri should have their applications reviewed in a timelier manner.

Key Facts

• Five percent of the U.S. workforce was licensed through state laws in 1950. In 2024, 22% are licensed.

• In Missouri, it only takes an estimated 26 days of education and experience to become an EMT, but 175 days to become a makeup artist.

Sunset Reviews for Occupational Licenses

Many licenses are created and then exist for years without scrutiny. Not all licenses justify the costs they impose; in fact, Missouri has eliminated a number of unnecessary licenses, such as licenses for hair braiders. A sunset provision would bring attention to other outdated and unnecessary requirements, helping ensure that only those with proven benefits remain.

Reducing the burden of occupational licensing could create opportunities for workers and consumers, lower prices, and increase economic growth. Licensed occupations should be the exception, not the rule.

Policy Recommendations

• Establish a staggered sunset and review period for all professional licenses and licensing boards.

• Reduce the maximum waiver review time from six months to 45 days.

The post Occupational Licensing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consumer Regulated Electricity and Today’s Economy

CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to generate, store, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity to new, large customers. They would not be permitted to serve the general public and would still be subject to federal regulations and other rules such as permitting and workplace safety. If a CRE utility (CREU) chooses to interconnect with the regulated grid, it would then cease to be a CREU.

While this might sound like a lot of red tape, it still cuts down on the mountain of regulations and permissions for utilities on the regulated grid that serves the general public. CRE enables innovative, profit-driven entrepreneurs to serve energy-hungry clients building things like data centers.

For example, CRE could allow a new aluminum smelting facility that needs a consistent, high-power energy supply to partner with a CREU specializing in small-modular reactors (SMR). Such a partnership would give the aluminum facility a reliable power source tailored to its needs, with a payment structure negotiated privately between both parties. The aluminum facility could even use industrial heat from the SMR for its own high-intensity manufacturing processes.

Another benefit of CRE is increased flexibility. The energy sector is rapidly changing. Forecasting future demand is difficult even under stable conditions, but today’s landscape makes accurate prediction even more challenging.

Consider artificial intelligence. Many projections warn of an immense spike in electricity demand from data centers needed to power artificial intelligence, while others suggest innovation could make these systems far more efficient. Either way, relying on regulators alone to anticipate these trends and build capacity accordingly is risky for ratepayers who need electricity but also end up paying for new construction.

Free-market mechanisms like CRE would distribute that risk. If demand rises sharply, CRE utilities could more quickly deploy new generation to meet some of it, easing pressure on the regulated grid and diminishing rate hikes. If demand falls short, the CREUs and their customers would be responsible for the financial cost of overbuilding, not captive ratepayers.

Illinois’s willingness to explore CRE shows a growing recognition that the traditional utility model may not be the best way handle modern energy challenges. Allowing CRE in Missouri could attract investment, foster innovation, and relieve stress on the regulated grid and ratepayers. This is a policy Missouri should consider.

The post Illinois Explores Free-Market Energy Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The data center discussion is highly nuanced, marked by an interesting mix of not-in-my-backyardism and yes-in-my-backyardism.

This debate has touched down in Platte County in the Kansas City area, where “Project Kestrel” would grant substantial property and sales tax subsidies to support the development of a new, $100 billion data center campus. But is this the right move for Platte County, or for Missouri?

Missouri is in need of investment, and artificial intelligence and associated data centers already play a significant role in our economy.

However, economic development subsidies enrich individual developers at the expense of taxpayers, schools, and other public services. Using tax subsidies to lure data centers, filmmakers, sports teams, and others into Missouri shrinks the tax base of the region without leading to meaningful economic growth. Opportunity costs are largely ignored, with estimates for economic “boosts” not taking into account what the millions given away in subsidies could have achieved if invested in infrastructure, public safety, education, or tax rebates for Missourians.

Looking at electricity, data centers are enormous consumers that are prompting the buildout of new generation facilities. On a regulated grid, such as Evergy’s in the Kansas City area, building new generation and associated transmission is one of the most expensive processes for average ratepayers, because monopoly utilities are allowed to recoup the cost of their capital investments and typically earn a government-approved profit.

Now, it is true that average Missourians use artificial intelligence, indirectly driving the increased demand for data centers. It is also true that we currently cannot predict with certainty the amount of electricity artificial intelligence and data centers will ultimately require.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5 percent to 8 percent of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in energy usage for AI queries in a single year.

Some legislation has been passed in an attempt to shield average Missourians from bearing “unjust or unreasonable” costs of powering new data centers. However, this does not mean that none of the burden of new power-plant construction will fall on average ratepayers. Furthermore, if utilities overbuild generation capacity based on overly aggressive demand projections, average ratepayers could find themselves footing the bill for underused assets.

Yet, there is risk in veering too far in the other direction as well: An underbuild of new generation would likely lead to Missouri missing out on significant investment.

To navigate this dilemma, policymakers in Missouri should think outside of the box. Instead of solely considering solutions inside the regulated, ratepayer-supported grid, Missouri should follow New Hampshire’s example and consider consumer regulated electricity (CRE). The idea is simple: huge customers like data centers are driving up electricity demand and putting strain on the grid and ratepayers. CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to build and operate generation and transmission facilities whose output would be sold exclusively to these new customers. This approach would help shield Missouri ratepayers from both the rate hikes that would otherwise come with new plant construction and the risk of overbuild. CRE would also provide developers with speed, flexibility, and certainty—attractive qualities that are often lost to red tape and lengthy regulatory approval processes.

Adopting CRE could help ease tensions in Platte County and across the state. Of course, the pressure to offer tax subsidies would remain, but this problem is not exclusive to data center development. Corporate handouts are not the way to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to lure businesses with subsidies, Missouri should have a free market–oriented economic and regulatory environment; for example, one that is conducive to polices like CRE.

The post Data Centers, Subsidies, and Electricity in Platte County and across Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Then, interest rates went up.

In a well-functioning market, the process should have reversed itself. The higher interest rates pushed the total price of purchasing a home back up, which surely lowered demand. At the same time, with house prices still far above the pre-pandemic level, builders should have been building like mad to bring homes to the market. These two forces should have resulted in a housing price correction. But this is not what happened. The higher interest rates have cooled demand, but prices remain high. Below is a chart I created using the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) system. It shows the trend in the median U.S. home price since February 2020, just before the pandemic. The average price of a home in the United States grew by roughly $120,000, or about 38 percent, from the first quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2022. It has declined modestly of late, but not much.

The bizarre thing is that builders haven’t responded to the higher prices. In fact, FRED data show new housing starts today are lower than before the pandemic. Meanwhile, many existing homeowners are “locked in” with low-rate mortgages and reluctant to move, further constraining supply. Even with tempered demand due to the combination of high prices and high interest rates, the lack of supply is keeping prices elevated.

But what are the builders doing? They should be falling all over themselves to bring new houses to the market. Think of it this way: If it was profitable to build homes in Q1-2020, it should have been even more profitable by Q3-2022, continuing until today.

A recent issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) brings together several groups of economists to weigh in on the housing market. I read the issue with great interest. One of the most striking findings is that in many major markets, the price elasticity of housing supply is very low, which means builders barely respond to rising prices with new construction. This is odd. Normally, suppliers should respond strongly to higher prices, which put more money in their pockets. In fact, the invisible hand of the free market depends on it.

The articles discuss several reasons builders have responded so weakly to higher prices. With respect to the recent situation specifically, one might initially blame it on rising construction costs, but the articles suggest this is not the primary explanation. Rather, they emphasize the role of regulations and zoning. Local land-use rules, approval processes, and other restrictions make it slow and costly to build, even when market prices suggest that building more housing should be profitable.

Another interesting finding from the research is that we don’t need to focus on building low-income housing to make housing affordable. If we build higher-end homes, people will move into them from less desirable homes, which will then become more affordable. The effect of building homes at the higher end of the market cascades down.

In short, we just need to get out of the way of the market.

So, the next time you hear complaints about high home prices or a shortage of low-income housing, remember the biggest obstacle is the rules we’ve chosen for ourselves. Deregulating housing construction, and thereby expanding supply, offers the clearest path to putting homeownership in reach for more Americans.

The post What’s Wrong with the Housing Market? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

• How accurate are current energy demand forecasts?
• Will technological advancements from artificial intelligence significantly reduce energy consumption, and if so, how soon?
• What is the trajectory of electric vehicle adoption?
• How will the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms, such as recent changes at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), impact the coal industry?
• Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enact needed reform?

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

The post Retail Competition in the Energy Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Managing this problem in the current system that is dominated by monopolies is difficult. But what if market forces could be infused into our current system to help address new demand?

An Introduction to Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE)

One potential policy solution that could complement Missouri’s current system is consumer regulated electricity (CRE). While still a developing idea, CRE is worth considering as Missouri navigates an uncertain and potentially very costly energy future.

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to specifically meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CREs would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new industrial and large commercial customers.

It should be noted that these CRE entities would still be subject to federal regulations, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear projects. These entities would still need to meet federal safety standards.

Considering the Benefits of CRE in Missouri

Travis Fisher of the CATO Institute argues that these private grids—partly free of the massive regulatory red tape for utilities—could be developed more quickly, infusing needed competition and innovation into the energy sector. As “private energy islands” for new, large energy consumers, CREs could potentially relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising industrial demand, the market could provide that solution.

This idea aligns with growing momentum in the private sector to pair small modular reactors with corporations (Google, Microsoft, Meta) urgently seeking energy sources tailored to their needs. CRE could allow the free market to guide this practice, and potentially, more quickly match demand with supply as companies would not be subject to current MPSC regulations that limit competition. This could be a boon for economic development in Missouri.

In theory, CRE would not tear down Missouri’s existing framework, but rather, complement it and allow private developers to target growing energy demand from the largest consumers, which are causing the most concern about reliability.

How Could We Potentially Bring this to Missouri?

Bringing CRE to the Show-Me State would likely require a modification of state statute to declare that CRE entities—if they are not connected to existing infrastructure and only serve large, industrial customers—are not subject to state regulation. New Hampshire is one state considering this concept. While further study is needed, CRE is a compelling idea that our lawmakers ought to consider.

The post Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Addendum:

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:

Since the submission of this testimony, a substitute version of Board Bill 14 has been introduced that places several restrictions on food truck operations. Specifically, the substitute:

• Establishes restrictions on where food trucks can operate by confining them to an expanded vending district, rather than originally eliminating vending districts
• Reintroduces a 100-foot restriction between food trucks and existing vendors selling comparable goods, whereas the buffer had initially been eliminated.

These changes diminish the bill’s effectiveness in reducing regulatory barriers for mobile food vendors. Expanding the vending zone and establishing a map of eligible locations does provide some relief. However, continuing to restrict food trucks to specific areas undermines their ability to serve customers where demand exists. Likewise, the reintroduction of a foot-buffer arbitrarily limits competition and consumer choice.

Board Bill 14 still represents a step forward in fostering a more business- and consumer-friendly environment, but these new provisions hinder the flexibility and innovation that make food trucks valuable contributors to St. Louis’s food scene. These changes should be reconsidered to ensure that the legislation truly supports entrepreneurs and consumers alike.

Avery Frank

February 5, 2025

The post Food Trucks in the City of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These moves are a win for local entrepreneurs and a sign that St. Louis is serious about economic development through deregulation.

For too long, starting a bar or restaurant in the city meant navigating a confusing maze of fees, delays, and arbitrary requirements. The plat petition, for instance, required business owners to collect signatures from nearby property owners before getting a liquor license. This often turned into a nightmare, particularly for small businesses in lower-income neighborhoods, where support can be harder to gather. Ordinance 71819 eliminated this burdensome step, replacing it with a more straightforward hearing process. This, along with provisions allowing for easier license transfers and extending opportunities to people with criminal histories, could be a game-changer for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Yes, there is a lot more St. Louis must do to recapture its economic vibrancy, But leaders deserve credit for listening to the community, acknowledging that heavy-handed regulations do more harm than good, and taking action.

Show-Me Institute writers have long argued that cutting red tape is essential for fostering a vibrant local economy. St. Louis, with its layers of outdated regulations, has been a case study in how excessive government interference can choke off innovation and growth. By reducing these barriers, the city is empowering local residents to build businesses that create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods.

The post St. Louis Making the Right Moves on Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The origins of these restrictions date back to the Progressive Era of American history, a time when occupational licensing was implemented to prevent the spread of barber’s itch (a contagious staph infection of the hair follicles). At the time, it was believed that the additional step of a license to operate a barbershop, emphasizing standards such as sterilization and sanitation, would combat the spread of barber’s itch. Then, in the 1940s, more restrictions were placed on barbers, resulting in a law that restricted the hours of operation.

Despite the good intentions behind requiring barbers to obtain an occupational license, a multitude of studies suggest that occupational licensing laws have a minute effect on quality and simultaneously eliminate cheaper options for consumers. Additionally, restrictions on hours of operation prevent barbers from servicing all their clients. As Beverly Smith, owner of Artichely Hair Academy, noted:

And the reason why is because it would not allow us to do as many clients as we need to, because people work from nine to five. . . . And we can’t fit all the clients in on a Saturday.

Thankfully, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen passed Board Bill 103 12–0, repealing the mandatory 6:30 closing time and the prohibition on operating on Sundays and certain holidays.

While the bill does not repeal statewide occupational licensing for barbers (nor does the city have that power), it is a significant step in the right direction. If the board of aldermen chooses to pursue this path further, it should consider reviewing the licensing requirements for other occupations too and evaluate whether the local occupational regulations genuinely serves as a quality marker, given that studies indicate otherwise. As is often the case, the market is better at ensuring the quality of a shave or haircut or signaling the appropriate hours of operation for barbers. By continuing to reevaluate these regulations, the city can foster a more competitive environment that benefits both barbers and consumers alike.

The post Good News for Men’s Hair in the City of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The fundamental issue here is supply and demand. There is a tight housing market in many places in the country where supply is already constrained—though that is generally not the case in Kansas City or St. Louis. Housing policies that focus on boosting demand rather than increasing supply tend to backfire. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy both drove temporary housing booms followed by market crashes. These policies didn’t solve affordability; they exacerbated it.

The same flawed logic has shaped housing markets in Kansas City and St. Louis, where misguided interventions have made housing less affordable. Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) stifled new home construction by inflating costs. Builders, facing steep regulatory burdens, simply stopped building. In St. Louis, a reliance on tax credits and incentives for flashy developments has left vast swaths of the city with vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. In both cities, the results are clear: policies that ignore basic market principles fail to deliver desired results.

Kansas City and St. Louis offer cautionary tales. We don’t need more interventions that drive prices higher. We need policies that foster more housing construction, deregulate land use, and let the market work. Housing affordability won’t improve with more government spending—it will improve when we stop putting obstacles in the way.

The post Missouri Shows that More Government Doesn’t Equal More Housing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The playbook highlights how excessive occupational licensing, convoluted permitting processes, and outdated zoning laws create significant hurdles for small business owners. For instance, starting a barbershop often involves not only obtaining city permits but also navigating state-mandated requirements such as barbering school and licensing fees, adding unnecessary time and cost. Punitive late fees, illogical license renewal cycles, and restrictive home-based business rules further complicate the landscape for aspiring entrepreneurs.

One major recommendation is the establishment of one-stop shops for business registration, such as KC BizCare, which can streamline the process by allowing entrepreneurs to complete all necessary steps in one place. This approach reduces confusion and inefficiencies, helping business owners navigate regulatory requirements more easily. Additionally, the playbook suggests cities adopt more flexible licensing terms and graduated fee schedules to lower initial costs for new businesses, particularly those started by lower-income residents.

A separate policy report written exclusively for Kansas City, Missouri, included conversations with a number of local entrepreneurs to determine the most significant barriers facing business start-ups. The report made several recommendations—including improving the KC BizCare program—and the IJ Cities Work team pledged to remain involved in Kansas City’s efforts, including collecting feedback on the success of reforms and even drafting ordinances.

The playbook underscores the importance of reducing regulatory barriers to foster a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem. By adopting its recommendations, cities in Missouri and elsewhere can create more dynamic environments for small businesses to flourish, ultimately contributing to stronger local and state economies.

The post How Missouri and Other States Can Foster Entrepreneurship by Reforming Local Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For example, why do all food truck employees have to wear an ID badge with a passport-quality photo on it? Restaurant employees don’t have to do that. That regulation seems insane, and at least some members of the board of aldermen appear to agree. As a Riverfront Times (RIP) reporter described it:

Committee members were shocked. When it was time for questions, Ward 8 Alderwoman Cara Spencer began with this: “My first question is, are you — and then there’s an expletive — kidding me.”

Show-Me Institute analysts have been writing about food regulation issues for years. In fact, we may have done more videos on food trucks than any other topic. It’s a great topic for us because it perfectly encapsulates how entrenched interests (in this case, restaurants) and their allies in government have worked together to stop a popular new way of doing business.

But back to the city. I think one of the reasons why the aldermen were so surprised by the level of red tape food trucks deal with is that they didn’t intend for it to be this difficult. But when you read the current legislation, one thing jumps out at you. The current ordinance governing food trucks gives the street director, the parks director, and the license collector authority to institute further rules they deem necessary. Here is one example from the ordinance (section 5.M):

The Director of Streets shall formulate any additional rules and regulations necessary for the proper administration of this chapter. Rules and regulations shall be maintained in the office of the Director of Streets and shall be available for public inspection during ordinary business hours.

This isn’t a hypothetical issue. The question of how legislators grant authority to regulators to set law is the subject of a major supreme court case right now. President Eisenhower stated that engineers went far beyond his original intentions with the Interstate Highway System by including intra-city highways without his knowledge, as just one example of this problem.

It may sometimes be necessary for elected officials to trust regulators to set rules under wide authority. However, there is serious risk to this approach. The idea that regulators are setting these rules fairly outside of their own system of pressure, bias or favoritism is hard to believe.

I hope the city will address the overregulation of food trucks with this excellent, newly proposed bill. After, all, it’s probably time for us to make another video . . .

The post Why Exactly Do Food Truck Workers Need a Passport Photo? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 2070: Competition in Electricity Generation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Occupational licensing increases costs to consumers and people entering the workforce, favors politically influential groups, and serves, in most cases, as a protectionist measure designed to benefit incumbent practitioners of the licensed occupation at the expense of future practitioners and the public. Show-Me Institute analysts have long written about the harms of occupational licensing in Missouri.

While we may finally be moving in the proper direction of less licensing, there remains a bureaucratic minefield of licensing apparatchiks who have to justify their positions on the public payroll. They do so by filing absurd cases like this one involving dentistry in Bridgeton. (For the record, one study found that dentists’ incomes and dental prices were 12 to 15 percent higher in states with more restrictive dental licensing rules.)

In Bridgeton, we have someone replacing rubber bands on braces—which many people simply do themselves. My son does it with his braces every day. You don’t need a dentist to replace a rubber band any more than you need an orthopedic surgeon to autograph an arm cast.

The second part of the case is, I admit, more complex. This person being sued has also apparently been applying cosmetic veneers to teeth.  They are, as the link describes, entirely cosmetic procedures. Why can’t this person apply veneer to a willing customer? Provided that her customers are fully informed that she is not a dentist, I see no problem with any of this. The article gives zero indication that anyone has been harmed. It simply appears that someone—possibly a dentist with nothing better to do—came across the ads and filed a complaint.

There could also be a middle ground here. Perhaps a basic license similar to those required for nail salon technicians could be required for cosmetic veneer sales instead of a full dentist license. That is another thing about occupational licensing: even in cases where it may be beneficial, the government goes way beyond what it needs to do in order to get the other aspects (usually protectionism), into the mix. Taxi cab licensing is a perfect example of this.

This lawsuit seems to me to be another overreach of licensing boards in Missouri. I hope the lawsuit gets tossed, but I also hope this goes the way of hair braiding laws and the legislature fixes the licensing rules here.

The post A Thin Veneer of Protectionism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri passed universal licensing reciprocity in 2020, meaning licenses from all other states can be used in Missouri. For example, 37 states across the country require licensure to be a makeup artist. Licensing reciprocity means that anyone who has a license in one of the 37 states can have Missouri licensing requirements waived when they move to Missouri to be a makeup artist. This policy lowers barriers to entry for professionals and in turn, increases the supply of workers and services. With increased supply and competition, quality increases while prices decrease.

However, Missouri legislators have taken the DeLorean and gone back in time by sending two bills (Senate Bill (SB) 157 and SB 70) to the governor’s desk. The bills would create a new licensing compact and also have Missouri join two other existing compacts. Licensing compacts allow workers with licenses in one state to practice without additional licensing requirements in other states in the compact. These compacts are essentially a less inclusive version of licensing reciprocity. Former Show-Me Institute Analyst Corianna Baier explained the harm licensing compacts can cause:

[T]he current licensing reciprocity statute states that licensing reciprocity “shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered into a licensing compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.” On its face, this language indicates that the license compact would overrule licensing reciprocity to the injury of Missouri consumers.

Essentially, a compact would partially cancel out licensing reciprocity. Missouri, like Mrs. McFly, is obsessing over the wrong thing. To use the makeup artist example: with reciprocity, anyone from any state (which has a license) can work in Missouri without having to get a new license; under a compact, only makeup artists from states included in the compact reap the benefits.

As Institute analysts have noted repeatedly, this glitch needs to be ironed out with a language change. If we remove the “compact exception” then Missouri can “restore the timeline” and Missouri will once again have full licensing reciprocity.

At this point you may be wondering: what is the benefit of compacts? The benefit of keeping compacts is that many other states don’t have reciprocity. For example, to practice telehealth in another state, one needs to be eligible in that state. While Missouri lets any license apply to our own state, suppose Arkansas does not have the same rules. Therefore, with the passage of the compact, a doctor in Cape Girardeau could now practice telehealth in Little Rock if Arkansas became a member of the same compact.

State regulatory boards are certainly satisfied with the expansion of compacts in our state, but our policymakers need to look out for the interests of Missouri consumers. Fixing the language that puts compacts and reciprocity in conflict would be a win for everyone in Missouri. Hopefully we will not need two more sequels to solve our issues.

The post Back to the Future on Licensing in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First with the Volunteer Health Services Act in 2014 and then with a raft of licensing reforms in recent years—including unilateral license reciprocity/universal license recognition (ULR) in 2020—Missouri has been on a solid policy trajectory on licensing reform in the last decade. Just last week, in fact, the Archbridge Institute announced that by its metrics, Missouri has the second lowest burdens for licensure in the United States behind only Kansas.

Clearly, the Show-Me State can’t allow itself to be second fiddle to the Sunflower State, so the legislature. must. act. now.

And while my grammar here is intentionally overdramatic, my point is unironic: Missouri can and should make its licensing system better. I was reminded of this when I heard that the House was debating adoption of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC,) which deals with physician licensing and which I even wrote about in my 2016 paper “Demand Supply: Why Licensing Reform Matters to Improving American Health Care.” There, I noted:

[U]nder the Compact . . . the status quo licensing restrictions remain largely the same, harming physicians and patients alike. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has concerns similar to [researcher Shirley] Svorny’s, cautioning that the Compact will “[increase] the power of a private bureaucratic organization to intervene in, define, and control the practice of medicine.” The Compact would preserve the 50-State licensing regime physicians and patients currently live under, with the wide variety of requirements to not just earn but also maintain a physician’s license in each jurisdiction.

As I’ve long argued, licensing reciprocity statutes are superior to “compacts.” A “compact” that allows physicians and other professionals to practice in other states that they otherwise couldn’t has the potential to be a good thing, but in a state with license reciprocity on the books, a “compact” has the potential to actually harm consumers.

That’s because in a state like Missouri, if the legislature passes a compact law for a profession, it could actually supersede the state’s better reciprocity statute. As my former colleague Corianna Baier observed last year:

[T]he current licensing reciprocity statute states that licensing reciprocity “shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered into a licensing compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.” On its face, this language indicates that the license compact would overrule licensing reciprocity to the injury of Missouri consumers.

Here’s another way to think about it. With Missouri’s current licensing reciprocity, Missouri consumers have access to professionals in 50 states and Missouri licensees have access to 1 state (Missouri). (Of course, they may have access to other states with reciprocity, but that is not controlled by Missouri lawmakers.) If Missouri were to enter the Audiology and Speech-Pathology Interstate Compact, it seems that consumers seeking audiology or speech pathology services would have access to professionals from only 16 states (the 15 in the compact plus Missouri), and Missouri licensees would have access to customers in 16 states. While this change gives a small benefit to licensees, Missouri consumers lose out. [Emphasis mine]

This is an important point and explains why we have seen redoubled efforts to pass “compact” language for some professions in Missouri recently. A compact would take power from the market and give it to powerful, entrenched leaders in various professions and allow them to regulate members and competition for that field.

The simple fix (and one that you might have surmised from the title of this post) is to remove the “compact exception” to license reciprocity. Clearly, the adoption of the IMLC for physicians may be advantageous to physicians and the medical bureaucracy, but Missouri’s reciprocity statute must supersede such agreements to be in the interest of consumers. Striking language in the current statute to the contrary would be a major advancement that, I think, would catapult Missouri into an unambiguous position as the national leader in licensing reform, ahead of that state-that-shall-not-be-named to the west.

If the IMLC bill continues through the legislative process, it may be the best vehicle for compact-excising reform to come, but we’ll see what the remainder of the session brings on this policy front. Stay tuned.

The post Legislature Must Remove the “Compact Exception” to License Reciprocity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.