The Racial Impact of Professional Licensing
In many high-paying occupations, the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities is below their percentage in the population (see, for example, these data on physicians, lawyers, and architects).
One possible reason is ongoing discrimination against these groups, or the impact of lower income, which might itself reflect prior discrimination.
New research, however, suggests that government licensing contributes to these racial disparities:
Our research investigates the 150-hour rule for certified public accountant (CPA) licensure, which requires the equivalent of a fifth year of higher education. Our results suggest that the rule reduced overall entry into the CPA profession, but it caused minority entry to fall 13 percent more than nonminority entry and did not improve the quality of CPAs.
Yet again, licensing fails to generate its alleged benefits while creating significant adverse consequences.
 | A guest post by
|
All valid points. But the larger picture is a tougher sell, and I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
That is, I believe that in Libertarian Land public policy does not take race into account at all, whether "pro" or "con." In fact, I see no need to have any words defining people by race in any federal or state law or regulation. Thus no "affirmative" or other racial action programs by any government entity whatsoever - because, fair or not, people do better when they know they compete on an even playing field.
That is a hard sell at times, but one I commonly make with the people I know. (Which includes a lot of struggling young people of various backgrounds.) I do believe though that it is consistent with the values of Libertarianism, and what Americanism used to mean.