The playbook highlights how excessive occupational licensing, convoluted permitting processes, and outdated zoning laws create significant hurdles for small business owners.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.

The Institute for Justice has identified nine occupations for which Missouri requires a license that are not subject to licensing in at least 15 states. For example, Missouri is one of 22 states that requires a license to work as a sign-language interpreter. Acquiring the license entails $442 in fees, 60 credit hours of education, and two exams. Under current statute, if a sign-language interpreter with three years or more of experience from a state that doesn’t require licensing moved to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here.

SB 817 would not waive licensing requirements for these sign-language interpreters, but it would provide access to a temporary license (if an individual has already worked for three years in the relevant field) while they satisfy Missouri licensing requirements.

Oversight bodies can still require that applicants take license-related exams and charge fees. The goal of this bill does not appear to be reducing licensing requirements, but allowing people who move to Missouri to work during the process of acquiring a license.

I think this bill would improve the status quo. However, I still do not think those who are experienced in their field need to waste time and resources fulfilling licensing requirements. SB 817 has language that says:

Upon expiration [of the temporary license], the individual shall be required to apply for a permanent license in accordance with the license requirements for the occupation . . .

SB 817 has some good qualities, as it makes it easier for people to work in our state. However, we are still left with the question of why Missouri imposes licensing requirements at all when other states do not. Moreover, if a person has three years of work experience in a field, why is Missouri requiring that they jump through additional hoops? Absent a showing of a real health or welfare concern, it looks as if Missouri is just protecting revenue streams to special interests. Shouldn’t lawmakers consider changing this bill to waive these extra bureaucratic hoops and encourage more people to come to work in Missouri?

The post Temporary Licenses for Out-of-state Workers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A bill introduced in the Missouri Legislature, Senate Bill 88, would build on improving past successes in the occupational licensing sphere. It would strengthen prior licensing reciprocity legislation by reducing the maximum wait time for oversight bodies to waive requirements from six months to 45 days. This bill would also make it possible for Missouri licensing requirements to be waived for workers in states without such requirements provided they have at least three-years of applicable experience.

Ness Sandoval, a professor from St. Louis University, has written that Missouri is in a demographic winter—more people are dying in Missouri than are being born. Pair this finding with declining student enrollment in the state, one can see the need for Missouri to attract workers from out of state rather than put barriers in their path.

Against the substantial cost of licensing requirements we need to weigh the potential benefits to the quality and safety of products/services, but evidence of such benefits is underwhelming. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University conducted a meta-analysis of 19 different studies in Florida directly related to licensing and product quality. In 16% of these studies, researchers observed positive relationships between licensing and product quality, in 21% they observed a negative relationship, and in 63% they observed no relationship.

The Institute for Justice has identified nine occupations that Missouri licenses but are not licensed by at least 15 states throughout the country. For example, Missouri is one of 22 states that require a license to work as a sign-language interpreter—which entails $442 in fees, 60 credit hours of education, and two exams. Under current statute, if a sign-language interpreter with three years of experience from Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, or Ohio wanted to move to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here. The same would be true for an experienced veterinary technician from one of the 15 states that don’t require a license.

Occupational licensing increases costs to consumers, limits competition, and by its nature involves government in the free market. In some cases (e.g., physicians), such costs may be justified in order to ensure the safety of the public. But policymakers should look for ways to limit the burden of licensing to cases in which it is absolutely necessary. Embracing the policies embodied in Senate Bill 88 would be a step in this direction,

The post Senate Bill 88 and Licensing Restrictions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Institute for Justice recently released a report that analyzes the barriers to business in cities across the country. The authors used model businesses to demonstrate how difficult it would be to open a restaurant, bookstore, food truck, barbershop, and home-based tutoring business in St. Louis and other cities. The report examines three aspects of the regulatory process to evaluate the cities: cost, delays, and complexity. Here’s how St. Louis fared for each:

Cost: St. Louis doesn’t do well here because of the city’s fee structure. The city uses a graduated fee system based on the number of employees, so fees can become extremely expensive as businesses grow.

Delays: This report found that a general lack of clarity (and especially a lack of information online) leads to many delays and makes the process more complicated than it seems.

Complexity: The process of starting a business in St. Louis can be very complex, sometimes requiring dozens of steps, numerous forms, and multiple business licenses.

Can we really say that St. Louis has an inviting business environment when the city fares so poorly in all three aspects? Lawmakers say they want more opportunities for entrepreneurs and options for consumers, but actions speak louder than words. St. Louis lawmakers should make the city more appealing for businesses by lowering fees and simplifying processes. Starting a business is expensive enough without the city requiring exorbitant fees. And the fact that there is very little access to information online seems like an outdated problem that unnecessarily complicates the process.

If we want more business in St. Louis, we need to have an environment in which businesses can thrive. If the barriers are too high from the beginning, we’re not going to see entrepreneurs and new businesses coming to our city.

The post The Price of Starting a Business in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A new study from the Institute for Justice finds that even though these things shouldn’t be the case, they are. Institute for Justice researchers studied 397 sunshine reviews (reports used by legislators that evaluate the need for new occupational regulations) from 15 states conducted from 1985 to 2017. They found that occupational licensing lobbies have driven the push for 84 percent of sunrise reviews and about 80 percent of these reviews declined to recommend licensing. What’s problematic is that legislators enacted licensing more often than recommended—twice as often as recommended in the reviews. These stats don’t instill confidence that occupational licenses were enacted to protect consumers, as is often claimed.

Missouri doesn’t require sunrise reviews and therefore wasn’t included in this study, but it does make one question whether Missouri’s occupational licenses were created under similar circumstances. Were Missouri’s various occupational licenses truly created to protect consumers? And are they still serving that purpose? We should have the answers to these questions.

A five-year sunset for all occupational licenses would give lawmakers new opportunities to assess the validity and necessity of occupational licenses. These licenses make it harder to get a job, which reduces supply and raises prices for consumers. Through a sunset process, unnecessary regulations (or even unnecessary licenses) that do not serve the purpose of protecting consumers can be identified and eliminated. A sunset provision would go a long way in supporting workers and consumers.

The post “Sunrise” Study Questions Legitimacy of Occupational Licenses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Institute for Justice’s report examines the debt and dropout rate of cosmetology students across the country, and the numbers are pretty shocking. To receive a cosmetology license in Missouri, one must complete 1,500 educational hours from an accredited cosmetology program. From the 2011–12 school year to the 2016–17 school year, the average cosmetology program cost $14,629 and students took on an average of more than $7,700 in federal student loans.

That’s not pocket change, but it’s even worse when earnings are considered. In Missouri, the median annual wage of a licensed cosmetologist in 2019 was $23,760. That’s slightly lower than the national average of around $26,000 for licensed cosmetologists and slightly higher than yearly earnings from a full-time minimum wage job. (For reference, earning Missouri’s minimum wage of $10.30 for 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year equates to yearly earnings of $21,424.) And more than two thirds of students do not graduate on time, increasing their debt burden even more.

So much money is spent to fulfill a state educational requirement, but is that requirement even necessary? Occupational licensing is intended to protect the health and safety of consumers, but recent research indicates that only 25 percent of cosmetology training is health and safety training.

Occupational licensing increases costs to consumers, but the other side of that coin is often overlooked. Licensing requirements dramatically increase costs for the workers who must obtain that license to earn a living. This is especially true in cosmetology, where the costs are directly tied to licensing requirements, but this is also true no matter the cost or resulting wages. It’s time for legislators to reconsider these requirements, regulations, and boards that have burdened workers and consumers for too long. A sunset provision for occupational licenses would be a great step toward reducing burdens and costs for consumers and workers.

The post Costs of a Cosmetology License appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Watch the recorded program here

PROGRAM AGENDA

 Program Open

Dr. Susan Pendergrass – Director of Research and Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute

 The ABCs of school choice: What types of programs exist, how do they work and which states have them?

Dr. Michael Q. McShane – Director of National Research at EdChoice

School choice programs: How are they administered and held accountable?

Jason Bedrick  – Director of Policy at EdChoice

What, if any, Constitutional concerns should be considered?

Rachelle Engen – Educational Choice Fellow at Institute for Justice

How could school choice programs be tailored for Missouri and what would it mean for existing school funding?

Dr. James Shuls – Associate Professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis

Question & Answer Session

Moderated by Dr. Susan Pendergrass

Program Close

Panelist Contact Information

Presenter Slides

Tax Credits, ESAs, and School Choice – Dr. Michael Q. McShane

ESAs and Accountability – Jason Bedrick 

What, if any, constitutional concerns should be considered? – Rachelle Engen

Additional Resources

EdChoice Legislator Training Hub

The ABCs of School Choice

What is an Education Savings Account (ESA)?

Commentary: A crisis of trust

New Poll Shows Missouri’s Educational System in Crisis

SMI Podcast

The post Legislator Training Resource Page – Education Choice in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a study released by the Mercatus Center, the Missouri Division of Professional Registration subjects 240 occupations to varying forms of licensure. This means that in Missouri, 21.3 percent of the workforce is licensed (with an additional 5.4 percent requiring certification).  

An earlier study conducted by the Institute for Justice examined 102 low- to moderate-income occupations and noted that Missouri requires a license for 31 of these occupations. Licensing requirements can be costly, both financially and in terms of time, and serve as a barrier to entry for job seekers.

The licensing requirements in Missouri also are not especially well matched with actual safety risks (like consumer health risks). As the Mercatus Center explains, “Occupations that are less likely to involve risk to the public are often more highly controlled than riskier occupations.” For example, Missouri requires emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to undergo 23 days of training while athletic trainers are required to undergo 1,460 days of training.

What can be done about excessive licensing? Show-Me Institute researchers have previously written about license reciprocity, but Missouri could also take a cue from its neighbor, Nebraska.

Nebraska is beginning a legislative review of all the state’s occupational licensing laws. The review will be carried out over the next five years with the ultimate goal of identifying less restrictive options for professional regulation (and identifying which professions need these regulations at all).

Reviewing each license and the options for reducing or eliminating licenses seems like a great place to start in reforming occupational licensing.

Missourians should be able to practice the profession of their choice without excessive barriers to entry. Instead of making it harder for people to work, shouldn’t we be removing unneeded roadblocks?

The post Missouri Should Follow Our Neighbor’s Lead and Review Occupational Licensing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri should take note, since it licenses over 200 professions and does not have a reciprocity law that applies to all workers.

Put simply, an occupational license is the government giving you permission to work for pay. Show-Me Institute analysts have written  about the negative effects of licensing in the past; it can be especially harmful to specific people and industries. An Institute for Justice (IJ) report details the significant negative effects licensing is having on Missourians.

Twenty-one percent of Missouri workers need a license or certificate to do their job—that’s higher than the national average of 19%. Architects, barbers, interior designers, massage therapists, and others all have to pay fees and follow government instructions to do their jobs.

IJ estimates that Missouri has lost 38,556 jobs and $188 million in output due to licensing requirements. To take one example, cosmetology jobs go unfilled because a lot of people can’t pay hundreds in fees, nor can they commit to 1,500 hours of schooling. The same thing happens with  other professions. Unfilled jobs mean missed opportunities for output, including new products and more services, resulting in  less economic activity in Missouri.

Money, time, and human capital could be used more efficiently with less restrictive licensing.  IJ estimated the amount of misallocated resources in Missouri, or resources that were not put to their most efficient use, at $3.55 billion. Workers devote time and money to unnecessary education, consumers pay higher prices to cover the costs of licensing, and people get jobs outside their area of expertise because they cannot meet requirements. All of these burdens on workers hurt our economy.

Occupational licenses have become much more burdensome than helpful. While the reciprocity laws passed by Arizona and Pennsylvania don’t completely eliminate the problem, they do reduce barriers and promote mobility in the workforce. Missouri is bearing substantial costs from occupational licensing. Why is Missouri standing in the way of people trying to earn a living?

The post Pennsylvania is Reducing Licensing Barriers. Why Doesn’t Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A group of Missouri women who specialize in African-style hair braiding say “no.” On Wednesday their case was heard in federal court.

We’ve discussed the problems with Missouri’s occupational licensing policy before, and there’s no better example of the need for reform than the regulations that require hair braiders to undergo 1,500 hours of expensive training, most of it for services (manicures, facials) that have nothing to do with their work.

We caught up with Institute for Justice attorneys Dan Alban and Paul Avelar, who are representing the hair braiders, for a sit-down discussion on the case and on Wednesday’s hearing:

The post Hair Braiders Challenge Regulatory Requirements appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You may never have heard of James G. Blaine. He didn’t win. Yet, for more than a century we have been living with one of Blaine’s legacies—Blaine amendments. While he was a senator, Blaine offered an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prevent the federal government from funding sectarian institutions. It was widely known that the amendment stemmed from anti-Catholic sentiment. In 2000, Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy stated in Mitchell v. Helms that “it was an open secret that ‘sectarian was code for ‘Catholic.’” The federal amendment failed, but similar versions would be installed later in 37 state constitutions.

Many state officials have cited their Blaine amendments as a reason that private school choice programs would be unconstitutional. These amendments have also prevented religious institutions from receiving funds for non-religious activities. For instance, the amendment was used to bar Trinty Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri, from participating in the state’s scrap tire program, which helps nonprofits resurface playground surfaces. Trinity Lutheran appealed this decision all the way to the United States Supreme Court and won.

There is still some debate, as my colleague Mike McShane has noted, as to what impact the Trinity ruling will have on school choice legislation. Our first indication, however, is that the court’s repudiaiton of anti-religious sentiment may bode well for private school choice programs. On June 27, the day after the Trinity Lutheran ruling, the nation’s high court vacated the Supreme Court of Colorodo’s ruling in the Douglas County, Colorado, voucher program, which had been found unconstitutional. The case has been remanded to the state supreme court in light of the Trinity Lutheran ruling.

The Institute for Justice, a group that supports school choice, has long stated that Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was relatively strong and has suggested vouchers may not be feasible in the state. It will be interesting to see if the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Trinity case will further impact Blaine amendments in Missouri and other states. We may never get rid of rancor in politics, but this may be the case that helps us say goodbye to Blaine, Blaine, Amendment Blaine, the school choice barrier from the state of Maine.

The post The School Choice Barrier from the State of Maine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James G. Blaine was the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a Senator from Maine, and the Republican party’s nominee for president in 1884. While historical accounts differ about his personal attitudes toward Catholics, there is no question that he tried to leverage anti-Catholic sentiment to make his way into the White House. He attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to bar aid to the burgeoning Catholic school system that was cropping up around the country in response to the public schools’ emphasis on teaching Protestantism. (Many might be unaware that for a long time, students in public schools would read from the King James Bible and sing Christian hymns). 

While Blaine was unsuccessful in amending the U.S. Constitution, 38 states have so called “anti-aid” provisions in their Constitutions, including Missouri.

Lawyers for Trinity, and for numerous faith groups filing amicus briefs, argue that the application of such provisions violates the First and Fourteenth amendment rights of individuals and organizations. As lawyers for the Institute for Justice put it, “the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, demand neutrality—not hostility—toward religion.” The State of Missouri singled out Trinity, whose application otherwise would have been approved, solely because it is a religious organization even though the “aid” does not advance its religion.

Understandably, many folks reading this might not care about a school resurfacing its playground. But it is important to note that religious organizations provide important social services to members of our community—and to poor and marginalized communities around the nation—with government support. Soldiers use the GI Bill to attend Saint Louis University, and low-income families use Medicaid dollars at Cardinal Glennon hospital. If providing used tires to Trinity Lutheran is unlawfully providing aid to a religion, wouldn’t these other examples of cooperation between government and religious organizations amount to the same thing? 

A decision in favor of Trinity would reinforce a commitment to treat religious organizations neutrally (neither privileging them nor discriminating against them) and would help close the door on a sad time in American history.

The post The Supreme Court Can Put a Nail in the Anti-Catholic Coffin appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That unnecessary inteference by government is the basis for a lawsuit filed in 2014 by the Institute for Justice against Missouri's Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners and on behalf of two St. Louis-based hair braiders. As IJ explains on its website,

The post Hair Braiders Continue Missouri Licensing Fight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

African-style hair braiding, or natural hair care, is a traditional hair care practice where hair is twisted, braided, and weaved without the use of chemicals or heating. It’s often practiced by Africans, African-Americans, and immigrants. In Missouri, anyone who handles hair is required to get a cosmetology license from the government. This license requires thousands of dollars and at least 1,500 hours of cosmetology training—and teaches you nothing about African hair braiding.  

The Institute for Justice has helped Joba and Tameka file a lawsuit to allow them to continue practicing their trade without government interference. “The U.S. Constitution protects every individual’s right to earn an honest living in their chosen occupation free from pointless government interference,” says Greg Reed, an Institute for Justice attorney.

African-style hair braiding is just one example of government overreach through occupational licensing and regulation. I’ve written before about the state’s interference with yoga teacher training. We’ve also commented on proposals to license street performers, landlords, and of course the regulation of taxicabs to keep competitors like Lyft and Uber out of the market.

For further information, the Institute for Justice’s video on the licensing of African hair braiders is available here.

The post Hair Braiders’ Hands Tied by Missouri’s Twisted Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! No More Tangles For Hair Braiders? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Watch a clip from today’s press conference about the issue, and check out some of the Show-Me Institute’s prior work. I applaud IJ for taking up this cause in Missouri. More importantly, I applaud the two plaintiffs, Tameka Stigers and Joba Niang, for standing up for their chance to pursue their dream of owning their own business without unnecessary government interference.

The post Hairbrained Licensing Of Hair Braiders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St. Louis resident Jim Roos, in front of the offending sign. Photo by the Institute for Justice.

Good news for Saint Louisans: That “End Eminent Domain Abuse” sign that you can see at the intersection of Hwys. 44 and 55 is here to stay. In a partial free speech victory, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a circuit court ruling that struck down portions of Saint Louis City’s sign code for violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

For those of us in the Midwest, this is great news. This means that government cannot regulate signs and murals based on their content. And, as a result, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the offending portion of the city’s zoning code may have to be rewritten.

This is also a meaningful victory for anti-eminent domain activists in Saint Louis. Jim Roos, the plaintiff (pictured above), has had more than his fair share of struggles with city government. Using eminent domain, the city took 24 different properties from Sanctuary in the Ordinary, or managed by Neighborhood Enterprises, a nonprofit that provides low-income housing that Roos founded.

In protest, Roos painted the large “End Eminent Domain Abuse” sign on another property threatened with eminent domain. As a result, the city hit Roos with a citation, and said that a permit was required. He applied for a permit, only to be denied.  We wrote about this issue in 2011, in a post aptly titled, “Using Your Property to Criticize Us for Taking Your Property? You’d Better Believe That’s Illegal.”

Fortunately, Roos  and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian public interest law firm, continued to challenge the city’s zoning code, leading to the partial free speech victory today.

Those of us in the 8th Circuit (Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) can take solace in knowing that our First Amendment rights are a little more secure. However, as Michael Bindas, the Institute for Justice attorney who represents Roos, pointed out, “Unfortunately, citizens in some other federal circuits do not enjoy the same protections that Jim’s case secured.”

Hopefully this case will help give victims of eminent domain abuse the courage to stand up and complain about it. Of course, the best victory for property owners would be for laws that allow eminent domain abuse to be repealed.

You can learn more about Jim Roos and the Institute for Justice here.

The post A Free Speech Win In Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Roos painted the mural to protest the city’s decision to use eminent domain to seize numerous properties from his low-income housing nonprofit organization, Sanctuary in the Ordinary. After Roos completed the mural in 2007, the city cited him for violating its sign code and ordered Roos to remove the mural. Roos refused, and fought the case in federal court on First Amendment grounds. Last March, a U.S. District Court ruled against Roos, remarkably claiming that the mural would be legal if it were devoid of political content, like a fleur-de-lis or a Cardinals logo. This turns the First Amendment on its head, because it was explicitly added to the Constitution with the intent of protecting political speech.

The case also illustrates the unity of property rights and civil rights. If the government can legally regulate away Roos’ most effective platform, it will have the same chilling effect on free speech as direct censorship. Similarly, freedom of religion is useless if zoning laws prevent groups from building places of worship; freedom from search and seizure only applies if your home is your castle; and freedom of the press will not get you very far if the government can block access to all the presses. Many people think of property rights and civil rights as fundamentally different things, but if the government places enough restrictions on how you can use your property, it must necessarily interfere with our fundamental political rights. Let us hope that the appeals court will understand this connection and allow Roos to speak his mind.

Headline allusion here.

The post Using Your Property to Criticize Us for Taking Your Property? You’d Better Believe That’s Illegal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I recently highlighted how government can get in the way of a person and her pizza slice. A couple of Show-Me Daily commenters said that the food truck wasn’t banned from Edwardsville — its operators simply failed to apply for a permit.

According to a Riverfront Times article about the incident:

Reached for comment, Pi co-owner Chris Sommers forwarded us along to Fond owner and chef Amy Zupanci, who’d invited the pizza truck to park outside her restaurant. In return for her Welcome Wagon treatment, Zupanci received a call from the health department yesterday, and an in-person visit from an Edwardsville police captain.

“The Madison County Health Department says they don’t allow trucks of any kind to serve food,” Zupanci writes in an e-mail. “However, they also have a policy of no inspection necessary as long as you have a health certificate for ‘non-consecutive food events.’ This would include festivals, farmers’ markets, etc., which may happen once a week, but not back-to-back days.”

Reasoning that under that definition the Pi truck is an “event,” Zupanci inquired about a so-called Transient Merchant permit but hit a dead end: The health department directed her to the police department, which informed her that permits involving food must be approved by…the health department.

This doesn’t tell us that the truck is de jure banned, but it can be interpreted as a de facto bureaucratic ban if public officials refuse to award the certificate required to conduct business.

Enforcing food safety is the ostensible goal of requiring permits. Nobody’s arguing against food safety — I’m certainly not. I’ve contracted food poisoning before, and I felt like I was going to die. I wouldn’t wish food poisoning on anyone — not even on a Keynesian.

However, excessive permit requirements can create a barrier to entry in the market, and keeping a number of competitors out of the market may be the unstated goal of the regulation. My friend and colleague Josh Smith explains the negative effects of this in a comment on my previous blog post:

When a local government requires some level of oversight for vendors, can it be called a “ban”? Perhaps not. If it is the case, however, that the Pi truck is not allowed to sell food in Edwardsville without the approval (through a form, or some other process) of the government, this constitutes an infringement on the right of the Pi truck to sell and the Edwardsville pizza customers to buy.

Even if this layer of bureaucracy seems small, it’s often small changes that have unfortunate marginal effects on markets. What seems like a simple matter to some may be not worth it to others.

Reputation capital can serve as an alternative (and perhaps more reliable) means of signaling quality and safety than a certificate from a local health board — a certificate that likely doesn’t signal much of anything in the way of rigorous investigation of potential health hazards. Dan Klein at the Cato Institute has published a good piece on the subject, “How Trust Is Achieved in Free Markets.”

The post Which Is Government Protecting: Consumers From Food Poisoning, or Existing Businesses From Competition? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These kinds of red tape are unfortunately omnipresent in Missouri, and they increase the cost of doing business in this state. If the state and local government in Missouri reduced these restrictions (e.g., professional licensing, industry regulation), its economic health would improve as a consequence.

The post IJ Video: “Why Can’t Chuck Get His Business Off the Ground?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.