This Blog doesn't aim to be a partisan vehicle that relentlessly defends one side of the political spectrum. Its' more an economics blog than a political one. As we've been giving leftist journalists a hard-time lately, lets even the tables and now give rightist ones a run for their money.
On that note, why are there so many restrictions, regulations & requirements to work in so many different professions? You can't start-up as a pharmacist, a builder, a real estate agent, a financial adviser, and many more in NZ, even if you're very knowledgeable & skilled at doing those occupations. Why? Because you need to get "licensed" - you need to jump through a whole bunch of hoops. One reason could be to ensure there is a higher quality of service and stop cowboys & cowgirls operating in these kinds of industries.
However, another reason is slightly sinister: many professions want to limit the number of people working in their industry to ensure that the insiders get paid a premium. This behavior was called "rent seeking" by US economist George Stigler in 1971. He argued that industries seek to "capture" their regulator and the true reason behind many rules is that they are wanted by incumbent players to limit new entrants from starting up. Such behavior is anti-competitive and puts up the cost of living (ring any bells?). Its worthwhile to make this observation in the context of Realtor Janet Dickson who was facing a five-year ban for refusing a compulsory Māori values course set by the Real Estate Authority. Stigler's work suggests the Authority in Wellington may not give a fig about supporting Māori values - the bureaucrats there may only care about themselves & the real estate agents and firms who they regulate and who are making truck loads of money from exorbitant commissions. Anything to restrict entry to the profession by making it harder to become an agent would likely be received with open arms by the industry, which may have captured its regulator. Given the number of millionaire real estate agents there is probably a lot of truth in it.
If this rent-seeking explanation is true, then no-one comes out of the debate well. The Real Estate Authority was insincere about the true reason for introducing this compulsory values course and the likes of Don Brash & Heather du Plessis-Allan got fooled. The losers are, of course .. you & me, who have to pay higher fees when we sell houses - as well as those who suffer when racial division is stirred up. The winners are our incumbent agents who may have been thrilled to see Dickson get kicked out. The profession tried to appear as if it was acting in the social good, when instead its motive may have been to make more profit & increase the cost-of-living. Next time the industry huddle with the Authority to design more courses, let me suggest they have a 40 hour compulsory course in Hindi to help take out a few more prospective agents. By the way, I note you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person to work in their industry as a salesperson, agent or branch manager (they will decide whether you are). Guess that rules me out, which must also delight them. By the way, that rule does not apply to those of us who call ourselves "economists" - my profession is happy to embrace those even with hefty criminal records, just so long as they're good at economics (!)
Sources:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/509955/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-five-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course
https://www.rea.govt.nz/
However, another reason is slightly sinister: many professions want to limit the number of people working in their industry to ensure that the insiders get paid a premium. This behavior was called "rent seeking" by US economist George Stigler in 1971. He argued that industries seek to "capture" their regulator and the true reason behind many rules is that they are wanted by incumbent players to limit new entrants from starting up. Such behavior is anti-competitive and puts up the cost of living (ring any bells?). Its worthwhile to make this observation in the context of Realtor Janet Dickson who was facing a five-year ban for refusing a compulsory Māori values course set by the Real Estate Authority. Stigler's work suggests the Authority in Wellington may not give a fig about supporting Māori values - the bureaucrats there may only care about themselves & the real estate agents and firms who they regulate and who are making truck loads of money from exorbitant commissions. Anything to restrict entry to the profession by making it harder to become an agent would likely be received with open arms by the industry, which may have captured its regulator. Given the number of millionaire real estate agents there is probably a lot of truth in it.
If this rent-seeking explanation is true, then no-one comes out of the debate well. The Real Estate Authority was insincere about the true reason for introducing this compulsory values course and the likes of Don Brash & Heather du Plessis-Allan got fooled. The losers are, of course .. you & me, who have to pay higher fees when we sell houses - as well as those who suffer when racial division is stirred up. The winners are our incumbent agents who may have been thrilled to see Dickson get kicked out. The profession tried to appear as if it was acting in the social good, when instead its motive may have been to make more profit & increase the cost-of-living. Next time the industry huddle with the Authority to design more courses, let me suggest they have a 40 hour compulsory course in Hindi to help take out a few more prospective agents. By the way, I note you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person to work in their industry as a salesperson, agent or branch manager (they will decide whether you are). Guess that rules me out, which must also delight them. By the way, that rule does not apply to those of us who call ourselves "economists" - my profession is happy to embrace those even with hefty criminal records, just so long as they're good at economics (!)
Sources:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/509955/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-five-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course
https://www.rea.govt.nz/
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
This suggests the entire country is " on the make.".......
The bar for complying with this requirement was low so your argument that it might be part of restricting the number of agents is weak. This requirement was all about being woke signalling.
Agreed, Real Estate Agent's fees are a rip off as they live in the best houses and drive almost the most expensive cars, while actually producing nothing more than everyone can produce with very little cost. Real Estate Agents have the same market as everyone else -- the rest of the population.
NZ Real Estate Agents charge 3-4%; in Australia it is 1.5-1.75%, Netherlands 1.5-2.0%, UK 1.0-2.0%. USA and Germany are a fair bit higher. NZ seems to align itself near the top end of the scale. Why do we let them get away with it. With Trade Me and other such websites, why don't we do the selling ourselves and cut out the middle man/woman? If enough of us did that, the rates would surely fall to reasonable levels.
I 100% agree. Often these organisations exist solely because of legislation that has been passed, or because access to government subsidies requires membership. If funding were opened up to competiton, many of these woke organisations would disappear.
I suggest it doesn’t really matter why Maori wokeness was on the table. It was a cynical ploy to manage real estate agents- irrespective of whether we need them or not.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.