New IJ Research Makes Case For A Clean Cut From Licensing

Des Moines, Iowa, barber Craig Hunt started cutting hair very young. He grew up in a community where family, friends, and neighbors cut one another’s hair out of necessity—they wanted to look good but couldn’t always afford a trip to the barbershop. When Craig got older, he decided to make it his career. But first he had to get the government’s permission. Among several other requirements, Iowa required Craig to spend thousands of hours in school before it would allow him to work as a barber.

So Craig went to school. But after completing nearly 75% of the required hours, he threw in the towel. School was too frustrating, and he had to earn a living. He didn’t give up on his dream of being a barber entirely, however. Over a decade later, he returned to school and, despite having to do everything again, he did it—he finished school and became a legitimate barber in the eyes of the state. Finally, he had a license to cut.

Barbering is among the many lower-income occupations in the United States that require a license to practice. And the purported reason that stamp of approval is necessary is to protect your health and safety. A new IJ study, titled Clean Cut, puts that logic to the test with real-world evidence. The study compares the outcomes of thousands of health inspections for barbershops, as well as nail salons, in neighboring states with different licensing requirements. 

The results of the study show that barbershops and nail salons are overwhelmingly compliant with health and safety standards regardless of licensing requirements for workers. During the study period, Mississippi required 50% more training hours for barbers than Alabama, but comparable barbershops in both states passed health inspections over 95% of the time. Similarly, although New York required a license for manicurists and Connecticut did not, comparable nail salons in both states met at least 95% of health and safety standards in inspections. 

To Liberty & Law readers, the results of the study may not be surprising. Previous research, from IJ and others, has demonstrated that licensing—and licensing requirements—have no measurable impact on service quality. Previous research has also shown that most people are on the losing side of the licensing racket. The evidence is weak that licensing achieves its goals, but the evidence is strong that consumers pay more and that the people who do put themselves through the licensing rigamarole often see a negative return on their investment.

Licensing shouldn’t prevent people from making an honest living, especially when it doesn’t make us any safer. Our intrepid legislative and activism teams are already using Clean Cut to show state lawmakers that they can give barber and beauty licenses a haircut without risking public health and safety. 

The special interests behind barber and beauty licenses are mighty. But facts are mightier. And they are on our side.

Matthew P. West is an IJ senior research analyst.