September 3, 2025 9:43AM # Bootleggers and Baptists: Protective Labor Laws Edition By [Jeffrey Miron](https://www.cato.org/people/jeffrey-miron) --- SHARE Listen to this article Generated with [ ElevenLabs](https://elevenlabs.io/) AI technology. Loading the [Elevenlabs Text to Speech](https://elevenlabs.io/text-to-speech) AudioNative Player... ![Prohibition](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2025-09/Prohibition.jpg?itok=-4wxHNYN) Do government policies result from good intentions or from the self-interest of those who expect to benefit? Often, the answer is “both.” The classic illustration is US alcohol prohibition. Baptists thought it saved souls; Bootleggers believed it generated excess profits for those willing to break the law. New [research](https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/protection-whom-origins-protective-labor-laws-women) applies this perspective to > the rise and fall of gender-specific, so-called protective labor laws between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries. These laws imposed work restrictions on women that did not apply to men, and they were presented as measures to protect women’s health and well-being. And yet, these laws > often curtailed women’s access to employment, thereby increasing the income of households that depended primarily on male earnings. … \[S\]tates were more likely to pass restrictive labor laws when a larger share of their voting population consisted of households that would economically benefit from limiting women’s employment. Intervening in markets empowers both good and bad intentions. ##### Related Tags [Regulation](https://www.cato.org/regulatory-studies), [Politics and Society](https://www.cato.org/politics-society) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).