Nevada’s expansive regulatory framework, encompassing 200 boards and commissions, has come under scrutiny by Nevada Policy, Nevada’s premier conservative think tank, for its economic impact and inefficiencies.
These boards, 84% of which are regulatory, have grown substantially, with 35% established in the 21st century alone. This proliferation has raised concerns about the unintended consequences for low-income residents, small businesses, and practitioners in key professions.
The Licensing Challenge
Nevada ranks second in the nation for the most burdensome licensing requirements, with steep fees and restrictive reciprocity policies.
For instance, dental hygienists in Nevada face the highest licensing fees in the U.S. at $600, compared to just $60 in Utah. Such costs contribute to a practitioner-to-population ratio below the national average in professions like physical therapy and veterinary medicine, inflating consumer prices and limiting service availability.
These regulatory hurdles disproportionately affect small businesses, which make up 99.2% of all businesses in Nevada.
With 42.2% of the state's workforce employed by these businesses, the economic ripple effects of high compliance costs are far-reaching. Licensing burdens not only deter entrepreneurship but also amplify the cost of services, disproportionately impacting middle- and low-income households.
Historical Context and Reform Opportunities
The growth of regulatory boards mirrors trends seen across the United States, where federal and state-level regulations have expanded over the decades.
Nobel laureate George Stigler’s “The Theory of Economic Regulation” suggests that such frameworks often serve entrenched industry interests rather than the public good.
This perspective aligns with Nevada's experience, where regulatory boards may inadvertently create barriers for new entrants, limiting competition and innovation.
In contrast, states like Nebraska and Pennsylvania demonstrate how less burdensome regulations can yield better outcomes. Both states consistently outperform Nevada in unemployment metrics and workforce availability.
Similarly, the European Union’s approach to occupational reciprocity offers a compelling model for reform, emphasizing mobility and access across jurisdictions.
The Path Forward
Governors in other states have initiated reforms to streamline boards and reduce regulatory burdens.
For example, Virginia consolidated several boards in 2012, while Connecticut targeted duplicative and outdated commissions.
Nevada could adopt similar strategies, leveraging gubernatorial leadership to advocate for consolidation, reciprocity agreements, and fee reductions.
Legislative initiatives, citizen referenda, and interstate compacts could also be instrumental in modernizing Nevada’s regulatory environment. Such reforms would support workforce development, reduce costs for consumers, and enhance economic competitiveness.
Conclusion
Nevada’s boards and commissions, while established to serve public interests, have created a regulatory environment that hinders growth and disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations.
By adopting lessons from other states and pursuing targeted reforms, Nevada has an opportunity to foster a more dynamic and inclusive economy.
