By now we have all heard of the disruptive force that is the ridesharing company Uber. The company, which is beating traditional taxi companies at their own game, has caused headaches for competitors and regulators alike. Moreover, as Eduardo Porter argues in his New York Times column, Uber also brings the entire regime of occupational licensing into question.
Porter notes that Uber has made the public much more aware of the anti-consumer inefficiencies in the regulated taxicab industry. The medallion system limits the number of taxis on the roads. Thus, the supply of cabs is much less than demand, which reduces the incentives for taxi owners to innovate and care about consumers. Uber, outside of this licensing regime, has thrived while providing wages that are on par with (or more than) licensed taxi drivers. This is possible because drivers (which are not in short supply) do not benefit from the limited number of medallions; only the medallion owners benefit.
Porter cites the research of University of Minnesota economist and occupational licensing expert Morris Kleiner. Kleiner’s work describes how the labor market has changed since the early 1950s from blue collar and unionized to white collar and licensed. Protectionism has not declined. It has been transformed.
The mischief created by occupational licensing appears to be a concern even for Democrats. The Obama administration has sought to streamline the licensing process nationwide, and the president’s Council of Economic Advisors seeks to subject licensure to cost-benefit analysis.