Commentary
When regulating interior designers, less is more
by Lee McGrathOccupational licensing laws cost Minnesotans dearly. Every year, consumers unnecessarily pay an estimated $2 billion extra for services because the state Legislature and city councils have enacted licensing laws that needlessly limit entry into field after field. This government-imposed restriction on competition allows those licensed to charge extra for their services, adding to the costs Minnesotans must pay to providers for everything from animal chiropractors to wild rice dealers.
Some try to argue that licensing is designed to protect consumers, but the truth is that the higher costs don't lead to higher quality. As Prof. Morris Kleiner of the Humphrey Institute wrote, "From the evidence I was able to gather, there is no overall quality benefit ... of licensing to consumers." So what do we get for all the extra money we are forced to spend because of government-created scarcity in various occupations? Little more than higher prices and the reallocation of income from consumers to practitioners of licensed occupations.
And be warned: Licensing is growing. Today, 29 percent of the workforce is required to hold a license. That's up from 3 percent in the 1950s. In at least one state, more than 800 occupations require a license to enter.
Few trade associations have been more determined to get lawmakers to squelch their competitors than the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), which began lobbying legislatures in the late 1970s for restrictions on who could work as an interior designer. Those efforts were motivated by a desire to establish interior design as a "profession" distinct from and not subordinate to architects, and to suppress competition within the interior design industry by erecting substantial barriers to entry.
Despite its zealous pursuit of additional licensing laws, the ASID-led pro-regulation faction has thus far met with limited success. Only three states -- Florida, Louisiana and Nevada, plus the District of Columbia -- regulate who may perform interior design work.
Those who advocate for more such regulation have consistently failed to produce any credible evidence of public harm resulting from the unregulated practice of interior design. For example, in October 2000, Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies concluded that it was "difficult to see a benefit to the public in regulating interior designers." At least eight other states have reached the same conclusion in rejecting efforts by ASID and others to enact protectionist legislation designed to eliminate competition and maintain high barriers to entry into the interior design field. More recently, Prof. Kleiner's students published findings that showed no health or safety benefit from regulating interior designers.
Since 2003, ASID-Minnesota has tried four times to get the state Legislature to fence out its competitors by enacting a licensing regime. The first three times, legislators saw no merit to even granting the bills a hearing. Last year, ASID-Minnesota's bill was heard for the first time and went down to a near-unanimous defeat in the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee.
Not deterred, ASID-Minnesota is back at the Legislature this year with a nearly identical bill that requires all those working in commercial design to go back to school, pass examinations, submit exhibits and pay unnecessary fees -- or else stop practicing. If enacted, this bill would shut down Minnesotans throughout the state who have extraordinary creativity, skills, experience and satisfied clients.
Businesses throughout Minnesota will also be harmed if this bill passes. It will leave purchasers of design services with fewer options, and undoubtedly higher fees. The bottom line is that would-be entrepreneurs shouldn't be blocked from pursuing an honest enterprise because of the whims of a senseless government-imposed cartel. And customers should not be forced to give up their right to choose the interior designers who meet their qualifications for a project.
In the coming years, good-government DFLers and pro-market Republicans have $2 billion worth of annual reasons to overhaul Minnesota's anti-competitive licensing laws. For now, voting down this bill would be a good start.
----
Lee McGrath is the executive director of the Minnesota Chapter of the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that describes itself as the nation's only libertarian public interest law firm.
Comments (7)
Thank you Lee (again!) for valuable information! Voting the bill down is a good start, voting these legislators out of office should be next!
Key point- the proposed legislation resticts "all those working in commercial design". This is no longer a debate over who is a residential interior decorator or an interior designer but who is qualified to design spaces that may affect the life safety, health and welfare of literally thousands of users including you Mr. McGrath. There is a quantum leap in knowledge and skills required to practice at this level. Be careful what you wish for.
I agree with Sue & the article of voting down.
but surely there would be a downside of it, right.
Therefore someone should carefully think this over.
Perhaps some sort of Seal of recognition or point system should be implemented.
regards.
My response:
To JS' comment, certification exists in Minnesota.
Graduates of interior design program may gain state-sponsored recognition by becoming a certified interior designer. That certification signals to consumers that students have met the certification's requirements.
To Professor Dudek's comment, the ASID has not proven that there is a market failure so great that the State of Minnesota should change from its signaling mechanism to a system of restricting entry into the profession.
There are many benefits of graduating from a design school but one of them should never be that the State of Minnesota uses its coercive powers to restrict competitors.
Fortunately, the Senate Commerce & Consumer Protection saw the rent-seeking that was inherent in SF 2591 and rejected the bill.
An inherent problem with the interior design industry is lack of public understanding of the difference between a professionally trained interior designer and anyone who decides they enjoy decorating and decide to hang out shingle to provide decorating services. The professional interior designer who provides full scope-of-services from space planning through documentation for construction, fully developed specifications for architectural finish materials and furniture, and project management services, is not the same person who enjoys shopping for furniture and decorative items. How is the consumer protected when the distinction is unclear? If both of these service providers have the 'right' to call themselves by the same title, then isn't the state significantly at fault for failing to regulate the profession? Why is it that Minnesota required a locksmith to be licensed, but a person potentially responsible for the design of the space where individuals work, pray, live and learn is not held to a minimum standard? When licensed, the service provider is held to a higher expectation of professional practice and as such, liability for the safety of the user of a space. Why should we license architects? Structural engineers provide the documentation for the structure, mechanical engineers for the mechanical systems, and so the list goes. At one point not that long ago, anyone could declare themselves and architect without any formal education or professional experience. Shall we return to that, too, or is that an exception?
If an interior designer has the qualifications to become licensed through education, practice experience and examination, I would certainly expect to pay them more than someone who services did not meet these qualifications. Does this mean that the unlicensed decorator is run out of town, never to work again? Of course not, that is a ridiculous claim. That person may continue to provide the services they are qualified to provide and the interior designer can provide the services they are qualified to provide.
O melhor sistema para a sua Smart TV www.smarttvhd.com.br
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
