Increased regulation leads to more deaths

In a 1975 Television interview, Milton Friedman asserted that

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

According to a recently published paper, this is true of most regulations.

Generally, proponents of regulations assert that rules exist to improve safety and quality. Indeed, most regulating agencies in the U.S claim that regulations targeting hazards to the environment, workplaces, and homes are put in place to reduce mortality.

However, evidence exists showing otherwise. Consider the following observed occurrences:

Regulations targeting fuel efficients have incentivized carmakers to produce smaller, cars that are more dangerous in an accidentt (Crandall and Graham 1989).

Security regulation on flying by the Department of Homeland Security have pushed many people to drive thereby icnreasing road accidents  (Blalock, Kadiyali, and Simon, 2007).

Phasing out nuclear power plants in Germany increased use of coal and thereby resulted in increased deatsh from pollution (Jarvis, Deschenes, and Jha, 2019).

In a recently published study, authors Dustin Chambers and James Broughel found evidence that regulations can reduce disposable income (by raising prices), limiting access to health-improving goods or services.

The authors specifically estimate the relationship between federal regulations and health outcomes at the state level. To control for other factors, they utilize data on the prevalence of chronic conditions that are mostly associated with low income levels and poverty than other factors, like genetics. The authors generally find a positive relationship between mortality and regulation. “That is, as regulation levels rise, so does mortality”.

Generally, robust evidence exists showing the regressive effect of regulation. The poor are disproportionately harmed by strict regulation through increased prices. This new study is just more evidence of that phenomenon.