Exactly. These regulations stem from the same chapter of history as when kings used to grant monopolies (to the East India company, and similar) in their respective industries. It didn't cost the king anything and it did a political favour to those companies, which might then reciprocate. Or the monopoly might have been the king's quid-pro-quo for some favour that the company had done him.
Monopolies are now widely recognized as bad. The monopoly didn't cost the king anything, but the cost was born by all consumers.
In the centuries that passed, some countries with a more libertarian bend got rid of the guilds and their privileges, or never started them in the first place. In other countries (notably the "old world"), these constituencies have remained politically strong enough over all those centuries to still be around now.
So, this romanticizing about the "proud old tradition" is completely the wrong reaction. There are many things with an "old tradition" where it would seem quite odd if a given country hadn't gotten rid of it (like collective punishment, or whatever; the examples are easy to think of). So something being old is neither here nor there.
> Yes, local integration has value, but also means you had to stick around to get there - comes with a cost.
Not sure if you're implying that regulatory capture of local government is some kind of just reward for "sticking around." If so, I disagree.