Rep. Mark Wright's panel hears Hoover Institution fellow on sweeping regulatory cuts to boost Louisiana growth

Representative Mark Wright convened a special committee hearing on regulatory reform and invited Patrick McLaughlin, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, to present findings and policy options aimed at reducing Louisiana's regulatory burden.

McLaughlin told members that "Louisiana currently ranks as the tenth most regulated state with about a 183,000 regulatory restrictions," and said the state's regulatory stock grew about 9.2% between 2020 and 2024. He described a method that counts restrictive terms such as "shall" and "must" to measure regulatory accumulation and said the metric can be broken down by industry to show where rules affect job creation and investment.

The witness summarized peer-reviewed and state-level work linking regulatory accumulation to slower growth. He said his state-level analysis finds "for every 10 [percent] increase in regulations at the state level, the growth rate slows by 0.37 percentage points." McLaughlin presented modeled scenarios prepared for a forthcoming Pelican Institute report, saying a 10% reduction in accumulated regulations could lift annual growth about 0.16 percentage points, while a 40% cut could boost growth up to 1.56 percentage points and make Louisiana's economy roughly 16.3% larger under that scenario.

McLaughlin pointed to comparative examples elsewhere. He described British Columbia's program to cut roughly 40% of regulations and Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management, which he said was tasked with reducing requirements by 25% and later produced streamlined guidance that McLaughlin estimated saved about $1.4 billion annually. He also cited Idaho's "1 in, 1 out" or periodic sunset approaches as models states have used to reduce regulatory counts.

Outlining a five-pillared framework for Louisiana, McLaughlin recommended: setting a reduction target anchored to a transparent baseline; creating a small oversight office (a regulatory management office) to coordinate analysis and publish regulatory data; mandating simplified benefit-cost analysis for rules and guidance; instituting a 1-in/1-out or sunset review mechanism; and using artificial intelligence and transparency tools to flag duplicative or discretionary requirements while preserving protections.

Committee members pressed on measurement and practice. Chair Wright asked about the proxy of counting restrictive words and how legislators can obtain usable oversight information; McLaughlin said word counts are a scalable proxy that, when combined with targeted analysis, can predict economic outcomes and help prioritize review. Representative Walters asked McLaughlin to share the underlying statistics and scenario details; McLaughlin agreed to provide the requested material and to follow up with practitioners identified by members.

Members also asked about AI and implementation. McLaughlin said AI can help states quickly locate comparable rules in other jurisdictions and scale simplified benefit-cost review; he cited Virginia's use of a vendor to compare occupational licensing training hours across states as an example that exposed unnecessary training requirements for cosmetologists.

Wright told members a draft bill and resolution were in the committee packet and said the hearing was intended to inform the committee's future work. The committee did not take any votes; Wright closed the hearing and directed that the witness provide the requested follow-ups.

The hearing produced no formal actions. Members asked for McLaughlin's data, scenarios, and examples; McLaughlin committed to sharing materials and to follow up with industry contacts.