Over the weekend a friend and I were discussing childcare and the need (or lack thereof) for government regulation to protect children. Today the friend sent me this article from the BBC. The anecdotal evidence indicates that childcare regulation in the UK is entirely ineffective. I suspect the conditions are the same or worse in the US.
Completely eliminating regulations would lower costs, eliminate parents' overconfidence in meaningless certifications, and eliminate the insulation providers have once they are certified. As a result, childcare would be more affordable and accessible—greatly increasing income opportunities for poor couples and single parents, parents would have much more incentive to take responsibility and pay attention to the quality of service they are receiving, and providers would be more responsive to parent and child needs.
If you still like the idea of oversight, there is every reason to believe that once government is completely eliminated, private "certifiers" would emerge through the market that were far more efficient and meaningful. When you purchase a car do you trust the government or Consumer Reports for safety advice?
Our original conversation evolved from a discussion on the ridiculousness of government regulated certifications and licensures. For example, in many states it is illegal to cut a person’s hair without an authorized license. Can anyone intelligently defend this? The policy, of course, is a result of interest group politics. Limit the supply of people who can cut hair and the business becomes quite lucrative. Our political system is very good at handing out goodies that benefit small groups at the expense of the majority. Childcare is no exception. It’s my understanding that childcare regulation and subsidies are primarily designed to benefit religious groups—a very powerful voting bloc. You could criticize this from many directions. I’ll pick one. Why are we discriminating against individuals who prefer secular childcare?
No comments:
Post a Comment