As the regulatory efforts of government continue to increase at all levels, more attention is being given to the public policy topic of occupational licensing. Decisions on whether or not to require occupational licensing should be made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the health and safety risks presented to the public, as well as the costs and benefits of such policies. This dissertation examined occupational licensing policies in Texas by using three methods: case studies of six occupational licensing proposals offered in recent sessions of the Texas legislature, an empirical study of occupational licensing in Texas, and an empirical study comparing occupational licensing policies for behavior analysts across the 50 states. The findings of the case studies revealed that legislators in Texas often make decisions on whether or not licensing should be required in an occupation with very little information about the health and safety risks to the public, instances of harm that have actually taken place, or the costs and benefits found where licensing is already required. In the empirical studies, it was found that the best predictor of whether or not licensing would be required for an occupation in Texas was the amount of other states requiring licensing for the same occupation. Despite the fact that health and safety concerns are one of the most commonly stated reasons for individuals and groups to support occupational licensing requirements, occupations with higher accident rates were not found to be a significant factor in whether or not an occupation is licensed in Texas. When comparing Texas to other states, the most significant variable in determining which of the 50 states will require occupational licensing for behavior analysts is the per capita membership numbers in groups who oppose occupational licensing requirements for behavior analysts.