The libertarian Cato Institute on Tuesday released its annual “Freedom Rankings,” rating all 50 U.S. states on a variety of issues, ranging from fiscal and economic freedom to personal freedom. Alabama came in at No. 23 overall, receiving particularly high marks for the state’s low taxes and regulations, while ranking lower on many social issues.
“As a socially conservative Deep South state, it is unsurprising that Alabama does much better on economic freedom than on personal freedom,” Cato wrote in its analysis of Alabama’s ratings.
Alabama came in at No. 6 in fiscal freedom, No. 18 in regulatory freedom, No. 10 in labor freedom, No. 2 in land freedom and No. 9 in overall economic freedom.
Those rankings will be welcomed news for economic developers who have worked hard to make the Yellowhammer State an attractive place to do business. With a series of high-profile companies choosing to locate in Alabama in recent years, those efforts seem to be paying off.
“Alabama has always been one of the lowest-taxed states in the country,” the Cato Institute explained. “On regulatory policy, Alabama does especially well on land-use and labor policies… Alabama enjoys a right-to-work law, no minimum wage, and liberal workers’ compensation mandates.”
The libertarian think tank ranked Alabama No. 39 in marriage freedom, No. 45 in alcohol freedom, No. 36 in gambling freedom, No. 48 in cannabis freedom, and No. 48 in overall personal freedom.
“The state is one of the worst in the country on personal freedom,” wrote the Cato Institute, which is far more liberal on social issues than Alabama’s staunchly conservative electorate.
Cato praised Alabama for its recent advances in gun rights, though, noting that the state “was long below average for conservative states on gun rights, but in 2013–14 it moved to shall-issue on concealed carry, and permit costs are low.” Alabama now ranks No. 9 in gun rights, up from No. 30 in 2012.
Cato wrote that Alabama’s most notable opportunities for improvement are in eliminating “cronyist regulations on business and occupations,” particularly in the healthcare industry.
“Like several other southern states, Alabama suffers from strong physicians’ and dentists’ lobbies that have prevented nurse practitioners and dental hygienists from practicing independently,” wrote Cato. “There is also a certificate-of-need requirement for hospital construction.”
“Alabama’s Certificate of Need program, adopted in 1979, is a regulatory process that requires certain health care facilities to obtain approval by a state board before offering certain new or expanded services,” explains Katherine Robertson of the Alabama Policy Institute, an advocate for abolishing Alabama’s CON laws. “The rationale is that overbuilding of medical facilities or overproduction of certain services will directly result in higher health care costs. For instance, if a hospital cannot fill its beds due to a flooded market, fixed costs would have to be met by charging patients more; thus, the state is justified in restricting the supply of medical facilities and equipment.
“If you believe in proven principles of free markets,” she concludes, “it is impossible to support the theories behind Certificate of Need laws.”
To check out the complete Freedom Rankings, visit FreedomInThe50States.org.
