Report Explores Effects of Regulatory Patchwork and State Preemption of Local Laws

This new report from the Urban Institute, “Do the Effects of a Regulatory Patchwork Justify State Preemption of Local Laws?” was funded by the Local Solutions Support Center. This research has debunked the claim that state preemption is necessary to prevent a “patchwork” of local laws inside one state from harming residents, businesses, and consumers. To the contrary, analysis shows that people who use the patchwork argument to support preemption are generally arguing against any regulation at all, not against local variation.

From the report abstract:

“This report investigates arguments that justify state preemption of local lawmaking on the basis that local laws produce a harmful “patchwork” of regulations within a state. We examine the use and merits of the patchwork argument across 10 policy areas­, (focusing on paid sick leave, rent control, plastic bag bans and regulations, and antidiscrimination laws) and review the evidence around the patchwork argument’s merits. We find little research evidence that a patchwork of local laws harms businesses, residents, or consumers. Arguments in favor of preemption generally focus on the supposed harm of the regulation itself, rather than on the marginal costs of a patchwork of local laws. Given this lack of evidence, we recommend more research studying the marginal costs and benefits of having different local laws in different jurisdictions.”

This report was authored by Mark Treskon, John Marotta, Prasanna Rajasekaran, Kriti Ramakrishnan, and Aaron Shroyer with Solomon Greene. Read the Report here.