The myth of professional licensing.

Abstract

The public and most professionals believe that occupational licensing protects service consumers against charlatans and incompetents. This review of historical, economic, and sociological research indicates a specious association between licensing and the competence of practitioners. Rather, the evidence reveals licensing to be a mystifying arrangement that promises protection of the public but that actually institutionalizes a lack of accountability to the public. The collusion between the state and the professions is maintained by myth. Acknowledging the failure of licensing is preparatory to defining the problem of how to protect the public. . . . and anyone who does not have a license is not authorized to practice and is subject to a fine or a jail sentence if he does engage in practice" (p. 145).

The Case for an Independent Licensing Board for Psychology

“…Gross (1978) traces this pattern back to ancient Egypt, and notes that from the middle ages, university trained physicians served the ruling class and sought to prohibit medical practice to all but this elite (p. 1010).…”

Clinical Psychology: Individual Methods

“…Third-party payment policies and the prospects for national health insurance have enormous implications, ranging from who will receive care to the qualifications of providers and the range of services attracted by or permitted in this newly lucrative marketplace (Meltzer 1975, Gross 1978, Edwards et al 1979. Nowhere is the link between funding and pressures on research more clear than in the monitoring of care by professional standards review organizations whose charts will perforce define "proper" treatment, whatever data may or may not be available.…”

A literature review of approaches to the professionalism of journalists

“…Similarly, licensing is viewed as a means to restrict public power and to keep professionals from having to account for their actions to the public (Gross, 1978). It is seen by power advocates as first and foremost in service of the professional group, and often in opposition to public interest.…”