Over time, state and local governments have passed regulations that limit entry into certain markets. For example, in most locations beauty shops and barber shops must obtain a license to do business
The usual justification for such licensing requirements is to better ensure that only qualified people are offering such services. Considering the efficiency implications of having more or less firms serve a particular market, and the fact that consumers can "vote with their feet" (i.e., buy from a different if they aren't satisfied), is such regulation justified from an economic perspective? Why or why not?
Considering the service, hair care, and the fact that consumers can vote with their feet, the answer is No. The primary effect of such regulation is to restrict supply relative to market demand. This in turn pushes market price higher than it would be without such entry restrictions. Note that in the case where a firm does not do a good job, consumers will quit purchasing from that particular supplier. In addition, it is likely that word of mouth will discourage potential new customers as well. Overall, consumers benefit from increased supply and lower prices when restrictions on entry into this market are not present.
You might also like to view...
If a country is net exporter, free trade will hurt the ________.
A. poor citizens of the country B. domestic consumers C. domestic producers D. rich citizens of the country
Figure 15.2 depicts a one-mile stretch of beach with 100 swimmers distributed evenly along the beach. There are two ice cream vendors - 1 and 2 - on the beach selling an identical product. Assume that each swimmer buys only one ice cream cone and that they prefer to buy ice cream from the nearest vendor. If vendor 1 is at A, and vendor 2 is at E, vendor 2 will gain the most customers by moving to:
A. a spot between A and B. B. B. C. C. D. D.