« John McCain's proposed tax hike | Main | China fact of the day »
Designing Monopoly
In Alabama it is illegal to recommend shades of paint without a license. In Nevada it is illegal to move any large piece of furniture for purposes of design without a license. In fact, hundreds of people have been prosecuted in Alabama and Nevada for practicing "interior design" without a license. Getting a license is no easy task, typically requiring at least 4 years of education and 2 years of apprenticeship. Why do we need licenses laws for interior designers? According to the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) because,
Every decision an interior designer makes in one way or another affects the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
This hardly passes the laugh test. Moreover as Carpenter and Ross point out in an excellent article in Regulation from which I have drawn:
In more than 30 years of advocating for regulation, the ASID and its ilk have yet to identify a single documented incident resulting in harm to anyone from the unlicensed practice of interior design...These laws simply have nothing to do with protecting the public.
Most states do not have license laws for interior designers but the unceasing lobbying efforts of the ASID have expanded such licenses. Fortunately, unlicensed interior designers are fighting back! I love that unlicensed designers in New Hampshire have formed a anti-license league, Live Free and Design. Tuttle Lives!
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 15, 2008 at 07:46 AM in Economics, Law | Permalink
Comments
Some months ago there was an article about this in the Economist. The very next week in the letters section, someone from ASID (or a similar organization) wrote in defending licensing. I don't remember what he said, but I remember that I found his argument was more convincing than you might expect.
Posted by: brian at Aug 15, 2008 8:54:51 AM
"I love that unlicensed designers in New Hampshire have formed a anti-license league,"
Cool! Do you have to take a test to get in?
Posted by: Tom at Aug 15, 2008 8:56:30 AM
ASID: "Every decision an interior designer makes in one way or another affects the health, safety, and welfare of the public."
Sure, that doesn't pass the laugh test, but the real question is whether there is a substantial group of decisions which affect health and safety.
I can imagine some basic electrical and engineering questions: is the wiring sufficient for that lighting? How can the wires be routed so they don't form a trip hazard? Can the floor handle that many loaded bookcases? What should we avoid if there are small children? I can't think of enough to get to licensing, but I can entertain the possibility that there are.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Aug 15, 2008 9:14:17 AM
I found the Lexington article mentioned in comment #1 at http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10024535
However, I had no luck finding the reply, and I am most interested in it? Anyone want to show off their mad Google skills?
Posted by: Micke at Aug 15, 2008 9:17:00 AM
I believe the argument is that an interior decorator should be allowed to do any basic decorating options without a license. An interior designer can redesign building floor plans, like moving non-load bearing walls, suggest where to install an electric outlet, etc. The interior designer is certified to know what he's doing: he knows building codes and knows enough not to remove load bearing walls.
In that sense, having a specific certification for interior designer seems like a good idea. You don't want the county inspector to come in and tell you that all of the work needs to get redone since it isn't up to code. Restricting it so that only interior designers can recommend paint colors, well, that's just silly. I'm not familiar enough with individual state regulations to know which ones have which types of restrictions.
Posted by: Matt at Aug 15, 2008 9:17:07 AM
The very next week in the letters section, someone from ASID (or a similar organization) wrote in defending licensing.
Ask yourself why it's the licensed professionals who write letters to the editor to defend licensing and not, say, clients who write those letters. After all, it is supposedly in the interest of clients that professions are licensed.
Posted by: constant at Aug 15, 2008 9:40:31 AM
I think the problem is that people confuse designers and decorators. The decorators pick out the furniture, etc., while the designers do have to know the building codes, have to take a lot of architecture/drafting coursework, etc.
Agreed with everything Matt said.
My friends are in grad school for interior design, and I never took the profession seriously until I saw the stuff they have to do! I thought it was about picking out pretty curtains and carpets and the only skill necessary was ability to match colors.
I would agree that the Alabama and Nevada laws about picking out paint and moving furniture are stupid. Does that mean Sherwin Williams employees can't make a recommendation if they're not certified designers? Yikes.
Posted by: your mom at Aug 15, 2008 9:41:47 AM
"In more than 30 years of advocating for regulation, the ASID and its ilk have yet to identify a single documented incident resulting in harm to anyone from the unlicensed practice of interior design"
Obviously someone hasn't read Lilek's book Interior Desecrations.
Posted by: jrandomamerican at Aug 15, 2008 9:45:49 AM
A friend of mine joked that interior design programs were for spouses of wealthy professionals. I said I didn't know about that, but I thought that strict licensing of that did seem a bit like other issues I've read about that usually related to professions such as medicine:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/06/24/mo-supreme-court-upholds-midwifery-law/
Posted by: show me at Aug 15, 2008 10:03:40 AM
Well, having seen some truly horrible interior designs, almost all of which were done by licensed professionals, I can safely assert that the license is no guarantee of protecting the public.
The purpose of these laws is to cartelize the business. Our code is chock full of these special interest, rent-seeking licensing laws.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Aug 15, 2008 10:22:23 AM
Hire a licensed designer to do the layout and then hire cheap illegal aliens to build it.
Priceless.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Aug 15, 2008 10:22:25 AM
Hire a licensed designer to do the layout and then hire cheap illegal aliens to build it.
Priceless.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Aug 15, 2008 10:23:18 AM
I like the idea, but I found the "Live Free and Design" site scarily ill-designed, which actually increased my fear of unlicensed designers.
Posted by: o at Aug 15, 2008 10:28:45 AM
A response letter, presumably the one mentioned in comment #1:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10097589
Posted by: at Aug 15, 2008 11:10:47 AM
"I believe the argument is that an interior decorator should be allowed to do any basic decorating options without a license. "
It is worth reading the article. Some states actually forbid moving a chair on contract without a license.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 15, 2008 11:51:01 AM
In 2003 Louisiana enacted a law requiring a license to create floral arrangements. I don't know the current status of this law, but it may still exist.
http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/la_florists/5_1_06pr.html
Posted by: micah at Aug 15, 2008 12:01:58 PM
Why didn't you mention that the restriction is only for those doing business as an Interior Designer? Nor did you mention the difference between Interior Design and Interior Decoration.
Posted by: Matt Silb at Aug 15, 2008 12:13:28 PM
People like this must have just hated the development of the Apple Macintosh and the software explosion that followed. Anyone could do layout and publish anything, whether it looked like a ransom not or not. Over the past 25 years the democratization of software and design development has opened up so many opportunities outside of 'traditional' licensed professions. I wonder when the lobbying will grow to an orchestrated outcry for regulating 'quality' in open source software. I can imagine an badge for 'Licensed Open Source' professionals sometime in the future.
Posted by: The other Eric at Aug 15, 2008 12:17:17 PM
I'm not buying the argument.
>They design spaces in a manner that can, among other things, reduce the likelihood of the spread of germs and disease in hospitals; increase productivity in commercial offices; and encourage learning in schools. Most important, they understand buildings from the users' perspective.
Let's say you're building a hospital in Backwater, Arkansas. Who would you rather do the interior design: the best licensed designer in the state (who has never designed anything bigger than a clinic) or a company from a major urban area (NYC, DC, LA) that has designed and built several metropolitan hospitals, but isn't licensed in Arkansas?
There exists a system for policing against harm to the public - it's called the lawsuit. If an unlicensed interior designer puts a chair in the wrong place and someone trips over it, the customer can sue them. Problem solved.
Posted by: Philo at Aug 15, 2008 12:19:42 PM
Yes, the "Live Free and Design" site is so awful that it makes a pro-regulation argument itself.
I'm free-market minded, but when I see some actually terrible architectural or interior designs, very often it springs to my mind that some professions should indeed be licensed. It hurts to see bad designs.
Posted by: Pavel from Prague at Aug 15, 2008 12:24:50 PM
"Most important, [interior designers] understand buildings from the users' perspective."
Wow--they know what it's like to be in a building. That is indeed a special skill.
Posted by: efp at Aug 15, 2008 1:06:39 PM
"Let's say you're building a hospital in Backwater, Arkansas. Who would you rather do the interior design: the best licensed designer in the state (who has never designed anything bigger than a clinic) or a company from a major urban area (NYC, DC, LA) that has designed and built several metropolitan hospitals, but isn't licensed in Arkansas?"
Why would you want someone who isn't licensed to know the codes in your state/locality?
That's a ridiculous example anyway. Finding an interior designer isn't like finding the very best pediatric cardiologist for a rare, newly discovered heart disease, for example. Many similar projects have been undertaken in the state.
Posted by: your mom at Aug 15, 2008 1:14:50 PM
Matt Silb,
Once again: Read the article! In some states they make that distinction and it only applies to "interior designers" and not decorators, in others, the actual actions are forbidden without a license, regardless of what you call yourself, and those actions don't only include "hazardous" ones like determining where an outlet can go. They include things like moving furniture.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 15, 2008 1:25:50 PM
Thanks to Micke and blank/anon person for finding those links to the Economist article and letter. I re-read each, and feel that the designer makes an interesting point, distinguishing interior design from interior decorating, suggesting that licensing is better for the former than the latter because of the relatively larger risks associated with bad design (examples abound above: bad wiring, knocking down a load-bearing wall vs. the wrong color drapes or paint). Thus, the case against licensing decorators is strong, but the case against licensing designers is weaker.
Still, I'm not convinced that licensing designers is a good idea. Well publicized certifications would keep the upsides of minimizing risk while avoiding the downside of inflated prices for consumers.
Posted by: brian at Aug 15, 2008 2:34:09 PM
Matt's comments about load-bearing walls/wiring/etc. are completely beside the point. The interior designer, unless I'm badly mistaken, gives the client a PLAN for the new interior. The client then hires a contractor (licensed, bonded, regulated) who files for a building permit (regulated), subcontracts safety-relevant work to electricians and plumbers (regulated), and when the job is done gets inspected for code compliance (more regulation).
Posted by: Ben M at Aug 15, 2008 2:46:06 PM
