We appraisal the furnishings of removing the authorization claim for bristles braiding in Virginia in 2012. Using Canton Business Patterns and Nonemployer Statistics abstracts from 2004 through 2014, we acquisition affirmation at the accompaniment akin that deregulation has created added opportunities for abate owner-operated adorableness salons (an access in freeholder body of added than 8 percent). A simple statistical assay confirms that Virginia counties accomplished adorableness boutique advance at a bulk about 7 percent college than that in abutting counties in adjoining states. Taken together, our allegation abutment the angle that deregulation of bristles braiding has added bread-and-butter befalling for bristles braiders in Virginia.
Thirteen U.S. states abide to crave bristles braiders to access a cosmetology license. However, the authentic abilities appropriate for traditional, accustomed bristles styles are about not covered in the access requirements for cosmetology licensure. Further, the altered risks to consumers from poor bristles braiding practices (such as bristles accident from braids that are too tight) are not addressed in cosmetology training. The aftereffect is that bristles braiding licensure may not advance customer safety, although it does advance to cogent action bazaar costs.
In this article, we assay Virginia’s deregulation of the bristles braiding action in 2012. Using the states of Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia as able-bodied as adjoining counties, we appraise whether removing authorization requirements had a cogent aftereffect on the cardinal of salons, the cardinal of salon employees, or the akin of salon agent wages. We accept that removing this barrier to access will ultimately access the absolute cardinal of adorableness shops, potentially creating added opportunities for baby adorableness shops by abbreviating the bulk of acceptable a practitioner and accretion the accumulation of braiders. Afore axis to our analysis, we altercate the annual for anatomic licensing and accommodate some accomplishments on adjustment of bristles braiding.
The accepted aegis for anatomic licensing is that it improves the affection of casework delivered to consumers. Some economists accept proposed theories that anatomic licensing improves the animal basic of practitioners and serves as a arresting of aerial affection (Shapiro 1986). If such theories are accurate, afresh although anatomic licensing will access the bulk of services, consumers will annual by accepting higher-quality services. But accurate arguments can be fabricated adjoin such theories. For example, in abounding instances, consumers appeal affidavit of accomplishment on their own back they accept there is reasonable accident of harm. It is appropriately a aberration to accept that, afterwards government-sanctioned licenses, consumers would accept no indicators of annual affection or would accept to avoid such indicators (Thierer et al. 2015). Indeed, advances in technology (e.g., internet appraisement services) accept added consumers’ adeptness to analyze the affection and acceptability of able annual providers.
In several professions, arguments for anatomic licensing are decidedly weak. In the case of florists, for example, the risks associated with actionable florists bulk to far beneath than the costs of licensing for consumers and ambitious florists, and bristles braiding appears to accord to this class (Carpenter 2011). By their nature, licenses do not differentiate practicing professionals aural a accustomed field, but rather alone differentiate those who can convenance from those who cannot practice, alike excluding accountant practitioners from accession state. All authorization holders accommodated the aforementioned minimum access standards, but whether those access standards associate with added affection charcoal unclear. Licensing may instead serve as a barrier to access for the profession and may alike abash hopeful professionals from ambitious to added than the minimum access standards. The access that licensing creates cartel adeptness for professionals by akin access to assertive professions has emerged as the arch annual for anatomic licensing (Friedman 1962).
Empirical affirmation supports the appearance that licensing exists because creating a barrier to access allowances individuals already alive in a accustomed acreage — not because it enhances customer welfare. Studies about acquisition that, although licensing is activated with college accomplishment for professionals, it has cryptic furnishings on the affection of casework provided (White House 2015). Added studies on anatomic licensing focus on application furnishings in the acreage all-embracing and on alone workers. Using civic abstracts from the Survey of Assets and Program Participation and authoritative for appreciable characteristics (including occupation), advisers acquisition that accountant workers are added acceptable to be active than are agnate workers afterwards licenses or acceptance (Gittleman, Klee, and Kleiner 2018). The aforementioned abstraction additionally finds that those with federally issued accreditation may acquire 8.9 percent added than those without, while those with state-issued accreditation may acquire 6.1 percent more. An beforehand abstraction allegory the furnishings of licensing and acceptance finds that accountant workers acquire about 18 percent college accomplishment than do actionable workers (Kleiner and Krueger 2013). Licensing may additionally bind mobility. A contempo abstraction finds that state-specific licensing assay requirements are associated with a 36 percent abridgement in advancement (Johnson and Kleiner 2017). Licenses are about not communicable from accompaniment to accompaniment and as a aftereffect may aftereffect in professionals experiencing “job lock.” Anatomic licensing becomes decidedly crushing in the case of bristles braiding because the annual avalanche beneath the awning of cosmetology. The absorbed of policymakers is to ensure able sanitation training in an accomplishment to assure consumers, but an assay of the abilities activated in the action of accepting a authorization tells a altered story. We now about-face to a altercation of adjustment of the bristles braiding occupation.
Table 1 and Figure 1 accommodate a snapshot of adjustment of bristles braiding beyond the United States as of October 2017. Thirteen states and Puerto Rico crave ambitious bristles braiders to access a cosmetology license. Fourteen states accept specific bristles braiding licensing requirements that are about beneath crushing than are the requirements for cosmetology licensing. The actual 23 states and Washington, D.C., currently do not crave bristles braiders to access a authorization to work. Florida stands out as an absorbing case — although a 2011 statute created a audible bristles braider license, the law prohibits bristles braiders from accouterment bristles extensions — an capital annual for abounding braided hairstyles (Florida Department of Business and Able Regulation). As a result, bristles braiders in Florida are about still appropriate to access a cosmetology license.
Significant changes in adjustment of bristles braiding accept arise about as a aftereffect of both legislation and litigation. The Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit, public-interest law firm, has championed abounding of the acknowledged challenges to licensure. In these cases taken on by IJ, alone bristles stylists sue states for the appropriate to convenance afterwards a license. IJ lawsuits accept led to Arizona, California, Mississippi, Utah, and Washington absolutely deregulating bristles braiding (Avelar and Sibilla 2014). Maryland, however, is an archetype of the adverse case: in 2015, a stylist absolutely petitioned the accompaniment to try to appoint licensing requirements on new bristles braiders (Maryland House Bill 1124 of 2015). The bill bootless but was accurate by accustomed bristles stylists who were accountant cosmetologists and who were adverse bargain business because of antagonism from new bristles braiding businesses. One practitioner advocating for the authorization claim said, “At atomic it will edger out those [stylists] who are absolutely absolutely bad” (DePhillis 2015).
A cardinal of states accept afresh deregulated bristles braiding. Arkansas, Colorado, and Washington removed licensing requirements for bristles braiders in 2015, and Iowa and Kentucky followed anon afterwards in 2016. A cardinal of states (South Dakota and Indiana, for example) exempted bristles braiders from cosmetology licensing requirements in 2017. Texas had a decidedly absorbing case that focused on the requirements for teaching bristles braiding. That case, brought by IJ (Institute for Justice 2015), challenged a aphorism that appropriate a bristles braiding adviser to accommodate beautician chairs and sinks, alike admitting bristles braiding courses addressed neither bristles abrasion nor bristles treatment.
Before 2012, individuals alms bristles braiding casework in Virginia were appropriate to access a abounding cosmetology license. Accepting a authorization appropriate an alone to arise training for 170 hours, canyon an exam, and pay anniversary ante to Virginia’s Lath for Barbers and Cosmetology. To be acceptable to sit for the cosmetology licensing exam, an appellant would be appropriate to arise training at a state-approved cosmetology or bristles braiding school.1 Antecedent acquaintance could not be commissioned for the training claim for an antecedent cosmetology license. Table 2 contains a complete annual of the fees appropriate to access a cosmetology authorization in Virginia afore 2012, including those associated with training.
Following a annual by the Virginia Lath of Barbers and Cosmetology, a law alien in 2012 absolutely removed the cosmetology authorization claim for bristles braiders. The annual cited the low cardinal of interventions the lath had had to accomplish in instances of break accomplished bristles braiding during a five-year aeon from 2007 to 2011. These included two fines for bristles braiders, one authorization revocation, and one accomplished for a bristles braiding salon with bearding infractions (Virginia Governor’s Executive Reorganization Plan 2012).
In contrast, few changes accept been fabricated in the states surrounding Virginia amid 2004 and 2014. In 2011, North Carolina alien a specialized bristles braiding authorization that requires 300 hours of training (Burrows 2010). West Virginia appropriate a abounding cosmetology authorization for bristles braiders until 2017. H. B. 2131, a allotment of legislation alien in 2015 that would accept removed the authorization requirement, bootless to get anesthetized into law. Kentucky alone its authorization claim in 2016 (Powers 2016). For the present article’s aeon of abstraction (2004 to 2014), both Kentucky and West Virginia appropriate bristles braiders to accept a abounding cosmetology license. We accordingly use Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia, as able-bodied as adjoining counties, as a ascendancy accumulation to appraise the application furnishings of Virginia’s abatement of bristles braiding regulation.2
Few studies accept been conducted on licensing for bristles braiders. A contempo abstraction performed by IJ explores whether bristles braiding presents risks to consumers (Erickson 2016). A assay of abstracts for nine states and Washington, D.C., from 2006 to 2012 adumbrated that aloof 95 complaints were filed adjoin bristles braiders (approximately 1 percent of the citizenry of accountant bristles braiders). In addition, around all of those complaints (94 of the 95) were filed by aggressive cosmetologists as adjoin to consumers. The abstraction additionally addendum cogent differences amid Mississippi and Louisiana with annual to the cardinal of able bristles braiders. Mississippi (no licensing requirements for bristles braiders) had 1,200 bristles braiders in 2012, admitting Louisiana (licensing requirements for bristles braiders) had alone 32 bristles braiders.
As approved by Maryland’s 2015 attack to assure currently accountant bristles stylists, there is some barter amid braiders and added cosmetology establishments. Cosmetology and barbering establishments baby to a broader clientele, and there are added kinds of establishments (Timmons and Thornton 2010). The bazaar has additionally acclimatized to amuse capricious customer preferences. Consumers can now common barbers committed to bristles styling, blow-dry bars, unisex salons, acceptable salons that action adulatory alcoholic beverages with the acquirement of a service, or bristles braiding salons. Some barter adopt acceptable salon casework arranged with bristles braiding. Added consumers adopt (and should be able to visit) salons that specialize alone in bristles braiding — and that action their casework at a bargain bulk because they accept to neither accouterments their adeptness for bristles abrasion nor pay for cosmetology licenses for their stylists. Virginia’s deregulation of bristles braiding allows for this actual blazon of salon, and we seek to aggrandize the absolute abstract by ciphering the bread-and-butter furnishings of the 2012 authoritative change on bristles braiding in Virginia. Afore discussing the after-effects of our investigation, we about-face to a altercation of the data.
We accede contempo changes to Virginia law to empirically assay the furnishings of deregulation of the bristles braiding occupation. The assay is disconnected into two parts: the aboriginal allotment is a state-level allegory of Virginia with abutting states with altered levels of bristles braiding regulation; the added allotment discusses a simple statistical assay to affirm the acceptation of our allegory in the antecedent section.3 Aural these parts, we differentiate amid trends in freeholder establishments that are run by the buyer and trends in employer establishments with assorted employees.
Our assay is based on abstracts retrieved from the Canton Business Patterns (CBP) address and the Nonemployer Statistics (NES) letters arise by the U.S. Demography Bureau. Both are burst bottomward by NAICS code: we focus on cipher 812112 — adorableness salons. Adorableness salons (also referred to as “beauty shops” in this article) accommodate all establishments affianced in “(1) cutting, trimming, shampooing, coloring, waving, or administration hair; (2) accouterment facials; and (3) applying architecture (except abiding makeup).” Afar from this class are establishments accouterment to men specifically, which are classified beneath NAICS 812111 — beautician shops. Although it would be ideal to focus alone on bristles braiding, we are not acquainted of any abstracts that focus alone on that specialization. Instead, we await on the broader adorableness salon class while acknowledging the limitations of this access — best notably, that we may be anecdotic exogenous changes in the cosmetology bazaar that are altered to bristles braiding.4 To our knowledge, there were no changes in the requirements for cosmetology licenses in our sample areas, but there may be exogenous changes to appeal that are contrarily unaccounted for. We use four outcomes from the CBP address at the accompaniment level: cardinal of establishments, cardinal of employees, cardinal of advisers per establishment, and anniversary balance per employee. Measures were adapted for aggrandizement and adapted into 2009 U.S. dollars. At the canton level, because of bound data, we are able to beam alone the cardinal of establishments. The NES letters beneath variables, and we can clue alone the cardinal of sole proprietors of adorableness salons.
Figures 2 through 5 artifice trends in the cardinal of adorableness boutique establishments, the cardinal of adorableness boutique employees, the cardinal of adorableness boutique proprietors, the cardinal of advisers per adorableness shop, and the boilerplate balance per adorableness boutique agent from 2004 to 2014 in Virginia (which absolutely deregulated bristles braiding in 2012) and in Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia (which maintained some anatomy of adjustment of bristles braiding throughout that time period). The numbers of adorableness boutique establishments, employees, and proprietors are abounding by the accompaniment population. In Figure 2, we beam little change in the cardinal of adorableness shops with advisers (per 10,000 residents) in Kentucky and North Carolina in 2012. Both Virginia and West Virginia accomplished added notable decreases. Best bristles braiding salons are abate adorableness shops; thus, we may not apprehend to beam abundant aberration with annual to the cardinal of adorableness shops with advisers afterward the deregulation of bristles braiding. Axis to Figure 3A, the cardinal of adorableness boutique advisers (per 1,000 residents) avalanche hardly in Virginia and West Virginia afterward deregulation and stays mostly connected in North Carolina and Kentucky. In allotment terms, the abatement in the cardinal of adorableness boutique advisers is 3.19 percent from 2012 to 2014, while the cardinal of agent establishments increases by a bashful 0.04 percent. Abounding bristles braiding establishments are baby and may not accept employees, so conceivably it is not hasty to see little affirmation of a absolute trend in the cardinal of advisers afterward deregulation. In fact, the bead in the cardinal of advisers in Virginia may be a aftereffect of an all-embracing abatement in the admeasurement of adorableness shops afterward deregulation. In Figure 3B, we artifice trends in the cardinal of sole proprietors/owners of adorableness shops (per 1,000 residents) in anniversary state. Already again, these abstracts are acquired from the NES (as adjoin to the CBP). Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina acquaintance increases in the cardinal of adorableness boutique sole proprietors, and in West Virginia the cardinal charcoal about flat. In allotment terms, the cardinal of adorableness boutique proprietors added by 8.2 percent from 2012 to 2014 in Virginia.
Figure 4 displays raw trends in the cardinal of advisers per adorableness boutique in anniversary state. Three of the four states (all but West Virginia) acquaintance a abatement in the cardinal of advisers per boutique afore Virginia’s deregulation in 2012. Afterward deregulation, the cardinal of advisers per boutique avalanche acutely in West Virginia (by about a abounding agent from 2012 to 2014) and increases abundantly in both North Carolina and Kentucky. In Virginia, the primary accompaniment of interest, the cardinal of advisers per adorableness boutique declines abundantly afterward deregulation in 2012 afterwards several years of blockage about constant. This trend seems to abutment added bread-and-butter opportunities for bristles braiders, as new salon proprietors may accept already been salon employees. Bristles braiding establishments are about abate than are salons alms added corrective services; thus, the bead in the cardinal of advisers per boutique in Virginia may reflect either an access in the cardinal of new baby adorableness shops with few advisers or an access in the cardinal of owner-operated salons (with no employees) aperture in the accompaniment afterward deregulation.
In Figure 6A, we artifice the administration of adorableness shops in the accompaniment of Virginia. Added than 65 percent of counties in the accompaniment accept beneath than 13 adorableness shops with employees. And, as apparent in Figure 6B, best Virginia counties (a few added than half) accept a about baby cardinal of adorableness shops (fewer than 35) afterwards advisers (owner-operated shops). Although a state-level allegory is interesting, a county-level assay allows for an befalling to bigger abstract the furnishings of deregulation by absorption on geographic areas that may be economically agnate admitting actuality in altered states — and that are appropriately accountable to altered regulation. We about-face to a county-level assay in the abutting section.
To added investigate the aftereffect of Virginia’s deregulation of bristles braiders, we present six simple tests, three testing agent establishments and three testing nonemployee (proprietor) establishments. To facilitate interpretation, we appraise the cardinal of proprietorships per 1,000 bodies and agent establishments per 10,000 people. No Virginia counties with advertisement adorableness shops are afar in the regressions — the absolute sample includes 147 counties from 2005 to 2014. The blueprint that we appraisal is:
ln(Beauty Boutique Density) = α β1 (DID) β2 (county ascendancy variables) β3 (county anchored effects) ε
We ascendancy for canton unemployment bulk and absolute claimed assets per capita to annual for accessible county-level differences in appeal for bristles braiding services. In addition, all regressions accommodate canton anchored furnishings and accepted errors that are adapted for absorption at the canton level.
We booty the accustomed log of anniversary adorableness boutique body (the cardinal of proprietorships and agent establishments per capita) to facilitate estimation of anniversary accessory as a bulk of change. A arbitrary of anniversary assay is presented below:
Our primary capricious of absorption in anniversary corruption is a simple alternation appellation of copy variables. In tests (columns) 1 and 4 of Table 3, we collaborate a copy capricious for deregulation of bristles braiding (equal to 1 afterwards 2012) with a copy capricious cogent Virginia bound counties. The consistent capricious is labeled “Dereg|Border.”5 In addition, the bristles braiding deregulation and Virginia bound canton copy variables are both included alone as added absolute variables — absolutely allegorical the difference-in-difference (DID) coefficients. Both alternation appellation coefficients are abrogating (the accessory on proprietors is statistically significant), suggesting that deregulation resulted in added advance in the cardinal of freeholder adorableness shops aural the close counties of Virginia than in the bound counties. Best important, it does not arise that the cardinal of adorableness boutique establishments grew added bound in Virginia bound counties about to close counties.
For the butt of the tests (columns 2, 3, 5, and 6), we analyze Virginia counties to abutting counties in Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Our capital capricious of absorption is additionally a simple alternation of copy variables — in this case, a copy capricious cogent a Virginia canton interacted with the aforementioned copy capricious from tests 1 and 4 cogent the aeon of bristles braiding deregulation. This capricious is labeled “Dereg|VA.” As in the antecedent tests, we additionally accommodate anniversary copy capricious from the alternation appellation separately. Tests 2 and 5 focus alone on Virginia bound and abutting out-of-state counties (resulting in the acutely abate sample size). Although we do appraisal that Virginia bound counties had a college bulk of advance in the cardinal of adorableness shops (particularly for the agent shops in assay 5), neither of the coefficients is statistically significant. Considering our after-effects from tests 1 and 4, we reran this assay including all Virginia (border and inner) counties. The after-effects from this final assay are appear in columns 3 and 6. In this case, we consistently appraisal that Virginia counties had added advance in the cardinal of adorableness shops (approximately 7 percent) than did abutting counties in adjoining states afterwards deregulation. This aftereffect is actual agnate to the aberration we acclaimed in our state-level allegory in the above-mentioned section.
In the above-mentioned sections, we acquisition that deregulation has broadcast befalling for abate adorableness salons (measured by as abundant as an 8 percent advance bulk in owner-operated salons afterwards deregulation). A county-level corruption assay produces agnate after-effects that the cardinal of adorableness shops grew about 7 percent faster in Virginia about to abutting counties in adjoining states. In short, the affirmation presented seems to abutment the antecedent that deregulation of bristles braiding has resulted in added befalling for bristles braiders in Virginia about to adjoining states. We should agenda that there are limitations to our analysis. First, there are several cases of missing abstracts that accomplish it difficult to present a added complete comparison. The CBP advertisement generally does not address abstracts because either the abstracts are redacted to assure the aloofness of businesses or the abstracts accept not met assertive standards. Such advertisement irregularities aftereffect in abounding gaps in the data, with some counties accepting to be afar from the archetypal because too abounding years of abstracts were missing. The NES is added able-bodied with annual to the cardinal of observations but includes alone counts of establishments.
Another limitation of our assay is that the adorableness boutique class is broad. Ideally, we would accept specific abstracts on bristles braiding salons. Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, such abstracts are not available. Finally, accepting abstracts that end in 2014 banned our adeptness to analyze longer-term furnishings of deregulation. It is accessible that there is a lag in seeing the furnishings of deregulation. Bristles braiders who action their casework unofficially in the underground abridgement may abide to not address their activity, which may absolute our adeptness to abstract the furnishings of deregulation.
In this article, we accept estimated the furnishings of Virginia’s deregulation of the bristles braiding profession in 2012. Our after-effects advance that adorableness shops in Virginia at the canton akin accomplished about 7 percent college advance ante than did those in abutting counties in adjoining states. State-level assay confirms this aftereffect and is additionally admiring of the appearance that deregulation has broadcast befalling for abate adorableness salons (measured by as abundant as an 8 percent advance bulk in owner-operated salons afterwards deregulation).
As policymakers amend adjustment of bristles braiding, our after-effects should accommodate actual bright guidelines. Accepting no adjustment of the profession seems to accommodate added opportunities for business development than crushing adjustment (as in Kentucky and West Virginia, area bristles braiders were ahead appropriate to access a cosmetology license) and slighlty beneath crushing adjustment (as in North Carolina, area bristles braiders and cosmetologists access abstracted licenses) improves business outcomes. The accomplished several years accept accepted to be fruitful, with abounding states allotment to deregulate the bristles braiding profession. Nevertheless, 13 states abide to crave bristles braiders to access a cosmetology authorization — a action that seems unnecessarily arduous to ambitious practitioners and may not be breeding allowances for consumers.
Avelar, P., and Sibilla, N. (2014) “Untangling Regulations: Accustomed Bristles Braiders Fight adjoin Irrational Licensing.” Washington: Institute for Justice Address (July). Accessible at www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/untangling-regulations.pdf.
Burrows, S. (2010) “African Bristles Braiders Say New Regulations Threaten Craft.” Carolina Journal (May 26).
Carpenter, D. M. (2011) “Blooming Nonsense: Do Claims about the Customer Annual of Licensure Withstand Empirical Scrutiny?” Adjustment 34 (1): 44-47.
DePhillis, L. (2015) “In Taking on Cosmetologists — and Added Accountant Professions — the White House May Accept Picked a Fight It Can’t Win.” Washington Post (November 9).
Erickson, A. (2016) “Barriers to Braiding: How Job-Killing Licensing Laws Tangle Accustomed Bristles Care in Needless Red Tape.” Washington: Institute for Justice Address (July). Accessible at http://ij.org/report/barriers-to-braiding.
Florida Department of Business and Able Adjustment (n.d.) “Hair Braider Registration (COSMO 5).” Accessible at https://www.myfloridalicense.com/CheckListDetail.asp?SID=&xactCode=1030&clientCode=0506&XACT_DEFN_ID=5312.
Friedman, M. (1962) “Occupational Licensing.” In Capitalism and Freedom, chap. 9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gittleman, M.; Klee, M.; and Kleiner, M. (2018) “Analyzing the Action Bazaar Outcomes of Anatomic Licensing.” Industrial Relations 57 (1): 57-100.
Institute for Justice (2015) “Texas Hairbraiding Instruction.” Washington: Institute for Justice Report. Accessible at http://ij.org/case/txbraiding.
__________ (2017) “Braiding Freedom: A Project of the Institute for Justice.” Washington: Institute for Justice. Accessible at http://braidingfree.wpengine.com.
Johnson, J., and Kleiner, M. M. (2017) “Is Anatomic Licensing a Barrier to Interstate Migration.” NBER Alive Paper No. 24107. Accessible at www.nber.org/papers/w24107.