Rebuttal of the Report by the Institute for Justice Entitled Designing Cartels: How Industry Insiders Cut Out Competition

Abstract

In September 2006, the Institute for Justice published a report entitled Designing Cartels: How Industry Insiders Cut Out Competition (Carpenter). The stated purpose was to examine “titling laws, using the interior design industry as the focus, to stimulate further research in this area and to illustrate what titling laws are and how they function” (p. 1). However, the focus of the report, in concert with the Institute for Justice's lawsuits against existing interior design regulation in New Mexico and Texas, appears to be an attack on the interior design profession. This paper is a research–supported rebuttal that analyzes Carpenter's findings within two major constructs: 1) interior decoration is not interior design, and 2) the purpose of regulation. The evidence of the Institute for Justice report is examined via principal topics that include the definition of interior design; the relationship of interior design to the health, safety, and welfare of the public; the framework of interior design regulation; the ideology of consumerism; the function of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) as a measurement tool of industry quality; and the idea of “profession” as a construct. This rebuttal found that Designing Cartels has not succeeded in presenting findings and conclusions that support its intended purpose. It is unfortunate for the public and the interior design profession that this report has been so widespread and used as a way to bolster litigation against the public interest without being examined more closely. Suggestions of the Institute for Justice, if implemented, could compromise the public's health, safety, and welfare.