Regulation

Study: Even Well-Intentioned Regulators Do More Harm Than Good

Bureaucrats who intend to do good still restrict competition and suppress liberty.

J.D. Tuccille | 9.2.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Illustration: Michael Ledray/Pumppump/Dreamstime)

It's both common and accurate to point out that many people who go into government are control freaks motivated by the desire to exercise power over others, or else driven by self-interest to profit from control of the reins of government. But a new study points out that even when government officials are sincere and intend to make the world a better place, they often cause more harm than good.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

Company

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Email(Required)

SUBSCRIBE

Regulations Designed To Protect the Public Can End Up Restricting Opportunity

The Protection Paradox: Good Intentions, Bad Market Outcomes, published August 20 by Soriya Chhe and Marin Murdock of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), emphasizes that as government goes about the business of providing services and exercising authority, any given American should expect that "the government will respect (and ideally protect) her rights to life, liberty, and property. And if the government falls short of fully protecting those rights, it should at least refrain from undermining them."

That's reasonable to expect. But it's not what government often delivers. As Chhe and Murdock write, in theory, "regulatory bodies exist to reinforce a system in which individuals are free to work, innovate, and build businesses within a fair and stable framework. But in practice, a paradox often emerges. Regulations designed to protect the public can end up restricting........

© Reason.com