The Politics of Professionalism: Reappraising Occupational Licensure and Competition Policy

Sandeep Vaheesan, Frank A. Pasquale
{"title":"The Politics of Professionalism: Reappraising Occupational Licensure and Competition Policy","authors":"Sandeep Vaheesan, Frank A. Pasquale","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-112116-014728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Elite economists and lawyers contend that occupational licensure raises consumer prices and unemployment. Billed as a bipartisan boost to market competition, this technocratic policy agenda rests on thin empirical foundations. Studies of the wage effects of licensing rarely couple this analysis of its putative costs with convincing analysis of the benefits of the professional or vocational education validated via licensure. While some licensing rules may be onerous and excessive, licensing rules are inadequate or underenforced in other labor markets. Furthermore, by limiting labor market entry, occupational licensing rules, like minimum wage and labor laws, can help stabilize working- and middle-class wages. Although current antitrust law provides an ideological framework for technocratic attacks on licensing, it is fundamentally unsuited for evaluation of labor markets. Contemporary antitrust law's arcane concept of efficiency reflects neither the legislative objectives animating the antitrust statutes nor popular understanding of what competition policy should do.","PeriodicalId":142664,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-112116-014728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Elite economists and lawyers contend that occupational licensure raises consumer prices and unemployment. Billed as a bipartisan boost to market competition, this technocratic policy agenda rests on thin empirical foundations. Studies of the wage effects of licensing rarely couple this analysis of its putative costs with convincing analysis of the benefits of the professional or vocational education validated via licensure. While some licensing rules may be onerous and excessive, licensing rules are inadequate or underenforced in other labor markets. Furthermore, by limiting labor market entry, occupational licensing rules, like minimum wage and labor laws, can help stabilize working- and middle-class wages. Although current antitrust law provides an ideological framework for technocratic attacks on licensing, it is fundamentally unsuited for evaluation of labor markets. Contemporary antitrust law's arcane concept of efficiency reflects neither the legislative objectives animating the antitrust statutes nor popular understanding of what competition policy should do.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专业主义的政治:重新评估职业执照和竞争政策
精英经济学家和律师认为,职业执照提高了消费价格和失业率。这一技术官僚政策议程被标榜为两党对市场竞争的推动,但它建立在薄弱的经验基础上。关于执照对工资影响的研究很少将其假定成本的分析与通过执照验证的专业或职业教育的效益的令人信服的分析结合起来。虽然一些许可规则可能是繁重和过度的,但在其他劳动力市场,许可规则是不充分的或执行不足的。此外,通过限制劳动力市场准入,职业许可规则,如最低工资和劳动法,可以帮助稳定工薪阶层和中产阶级的工资。尽管目前的反垄断法为技术官僚攻击许可提供了一个意识形态框架,但它从根本上不适合评估劳动力市场。当代反垄断法中关于效率的晦涩概念既没有反映出催生反垄断法的立法目标,也没有反映出大众对竞争政策应该做什么的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Property Law of Tokens Gender in the Competition Law Curriculum? 보험시장에서의 거래구조 문제와 소비자보호제도에 대한 소비자평가 연구(Consumer Evaluation of Transaction Structure and Consumer Protection System on Life and Non-Life Insurance Markets in Korea) Predatory Pricing in India Personalized Choice of Private Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1