C A S E S T U D I E S

I N T E R N A T I O N A L P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S I N D E X

I P R I A N D E C O N O M I C O U T C O M E S

The IPRI also examines the relationship between property rights protections and economic production. Overall, the relationships are strong and significant. Figure 3-6 below shows the relationship between

GDP per capita values is 0.79 (p<0.001). With regard to individual components, the strongest relationship is reported for IPR at 0.87 (p<0.001); LP and PPR correlate with GDP per capita with

positive, strong, and significant relationship between the strength of property rights protections and a country’s economic performance as measured by GDP per capita.

Case study on Spain - Legal and political environment in SpainBy Cristina Berechet, Civismo

In recent years there have been significant erosions of Spanish legal and political rights; perception of corruption increased considerably and judicial independence has decreased significantly. At the same time, the absence of transparency for

and whether there will be more reductions in the payments to existing renewable generation assets. Furthermore, the lawsuits as a result of regulatory changes send a worrying signal to potential investors within the Spanish economy. There are fears that overregulation could deter foreign direct investment in Spain, at a time when Spain is trying to attract more. As a result, there is an urgent need to reform current legislation and address long-term issues that have been neglected, such as “decarbonization” plans, competition, the mix of generations, and the redesign of the wholesale market to include renewable energies.

Case Study on Honduras - LEAP Zones and “Institutional Leapfrogging”: the Honduran ZEDE innovation By Mark Klugmann, Presidential Commissioner for the Honduran “ZEDE” development zones

Starting more than a decade ago, reformers in Honduras began to work on LEAP zones with Institutional Leapfrogging as a policy

constitution to create a robust framework for these small, semi-autonomous jurisdictions. The Honduran Zones of Economic Development and Employment (ZEDE) initiative regards strong property rights as the product of complex legal, economic, administrative and political (LEAP) institutions, supporting best international practices with regard to property rights in order to surpass what is found in other middle-income and lower-income countries. Unlike the standard reform approach that introduces incremental change for an entire nation, the LEAP zones reform model brings integrated reform to small, new zones, reducing political conflict with national status quo interests while

Case Study on Pakistan - Women Empowerment and IPRI’s Gender Equality Measure.The case of the District Charsadda and Peshawar By Prof. Raza Ullah, The Alternate Solutions Institute

This paper examines the process of female empowerment in the context of the IPRI’s gender equality component. While women are 50 percent of the population in Pakistan, their property rights remain virtually non-existent. This study applies qualitative analysis together with interviews eliciting descriptions of participants’ experiences in Charsadda District and Peshawar, Pakistan. Property rights serve to enhance the process of empowerment, including legal, political, economic, social and psychological empowerment, with tangible political empowerment as the final outcome. Key factors inhibiting women’s property rights include limited mobility and social confinement, which impact their access to information. As a result, the study suggests that ‘access to information’ should become a key indicator in gender equality measures.

Case study on Chile - The Pacific Alliance: the case of Chilean intellectual property rightsBy Daniel Montalva Armanet, Libertad y Desarollo

Intellectual creations in the modern world are an engine for economic development and prosperity and so require vigilant protection. This study examines intellectual property in the Pacific

Alliance and its protection in Chile as a member of that treaty.

areas: the pharmaceutical market, regional trade, and the seeds

Chilean trademarks and grants patents. Part two examines Chilean customs, focusing mainly on the relationship with Peru. Part Three analyzes the level of compliance with the UPOV ’91, part of the international system of plant variety protection. Finally some IP protection suggestions are proposed in order to move from being a commodity-producing economy to an added value production system.

Case Study on Italy - How Italy successfully improved its approach to intellectual property rights protectionBy Prof. Cesare Galli, Istituto Bruno Leoni; Prof. Pietro Paganini, Competere

judiciary system to protect IP rights, the establishment of a specialized civil IP division and reforms to the Industrial Property code, and most recently the implementation of law addressing digital copyright piracy. The driver of Italian exports comes from the competitive advantage linked to the reputation enjoyed by the Italian producers in design, fashion, engineering and food, for the quality and originality of their products. While abundant innovation exists, cultural immaturity in regards to IP protection has left Italian brands vulnerable on the global scale. In recent years, an increased local desire to protect the “Made in Italy” products has prompted increased government and industrial action. In this case study, the authors analyze the legal aspects of Italian IP Protection, while also examining the cultural and the industrial policies that underpin the iconic brand.

Case Study on Australia - Plain Packaging: a threat to the intellectual property rights system

Australia’s introduction of standardized packaging for tobacco products in 2012 attracted the attention of the international intellectual property, public health, and consumer goods industries. A protracted legal battle is underway on whether the policy is in violation of international trade and intellectual property agreements. This report explores in detail the legislative context, the regulatory mechanism, the policies rollout, the social and economic impact, and the policy’s movement to other countries and, worryingly, other industries. This report finds that plain packaging is an actively harmful policy in terms of both its intended and unintended outcomes. Because of these threats to IP rights, the report recommends concerted and pre-emptive international and cross-industrial resistance to the concept of plain packaging.

Case Study on Hong Kong - The Intellectual Property Rights System in Hong KongBy Michael Wong & Andrew Work, The Lion Rock Institute

The importance of intellectual property rights is an issue the Hong Kong government has recognized for decades. The Intellectual Property Department was established on July 2nd, 1990 to advise government leaders. Since 1997, the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s “mini-constitution”, has allowed Hong Kong to keep its IP policies independent from mainland China. This

to secure intellectual property protection within its economy. Hong Kong’s unique conditions are evaluated and analyzed for their contributions to the eventual success or demise of its

intellectual property trading on Hong Kong’s economy.

STUDY BY DR . FRANCESCO D I LORENZO – 20 13 HERNANDO DE SOTO FELLOW

WWW. INTERNAT IONALPROPERTYRIGHTS INDEX .ORG

The 2014 edition represents 98 percent of world

Gross Domestic Product and 93 percent of

world population.

FIGURE 3: Relationship between IPRI and GDP Per Capita

FIGURE 4: Relationship Between LP and GDP Per Capita

FIGURE 5: Relationship Between PPR and GDP Per Capita

FIGURE 6: Relationship Between IPR and GDP Per Capita

0.0  

10.0  

20.0  

30.0  

40.0  

50.0  

60.0  

70.0  

0.0   1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0   6.0   7.0   8.0   9.0   10.0  

GDP

 Per  Cap

ita,  P

PP  (con

stan

t  200

5  interna5

onal  $),  20

08-­‐201

2  

Averate  LP,  2010-­‐2014  

0.0  

10.0  

20.0  

30.0  

40.0  

50.0  

60.0  

70.0  

0.0   1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0   6.0   7.0   8.0   9.0   10.0  

GDP

 Per  Cap

ita,  P

PP  (con

stan

t  200

5  Interna5

onal  $),  20

08-­‐201

2  

Average  IPRI,  2010-­‐2014  

0.0  

10.0  

20.0  

30.0  

40.0  

50.0  

60.0  

70.0  

0.0   1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0   6.0   7.0   8.0   9.0  

GDP

 Per  Cap

ita,  P

PP  (con

stan

t  200

5  interna5

onal  $),  

2008

-­‐201

2  

Average  PPR,  2010-­‐2014  

0.0  

10.0  

20.0  

30.0  

40.0  

50.0  

60.0  

70.0  

0.0   1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0   6.0   7.0   8.0   9.0   10.0  

GDP

 Per  Cap

ita,  P

PP  (con

stan

t  200

5  interna5

onal  $),  

2008

-­‐201

2  

Average  IPR,  2010-­‐2014  

A Project of the Property Rights Alliance

2 0 1 4 I P R I P A R T N E R O R G A N I Z A T I O N S

Afghanistan’s Economic and Legal Studies Organization (AELSO), Afghanistan • Foundation for Economic Freedom, Albania • Fundación Atlas 1853, Argentina • Fundación Liberdad y Progreso, Argentina • Fundación Libertad, Argentina • Institute for Public Affairs, Australia • My Choice, Australia • Austrian Economics Center, Austria • F.A. v. Hayek Institut, Austria • The Nassau Institute, Bahamas • CPA, Bosnia Hercegovina • Populi, Bolivia • Instituto Liberdade, Brazil • Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria • Centre Des Affaires Humaines (CEDAH), Burkina Faso • Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Canada • Fundación para el Progreso, Chile • Libertad y Desarrollo, Chile • Cathay Institute of Public Affairs, China • Unirule Institute of Economics, China • Instituto de Ciencia Politica, Colombia • Asociación de Consumidores Libres, Costa Rica • IDEAS, Costa Rica • Centre de Analisis para Políticas Públicas (CAPP), Dominican Republic • Instituto Ecuatoriano de Economía Politica, Ecuador • Institute for Economic Studies Europe (IES), France • New Economic School, Georgia • Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Germany • Institute for Free Enterprise, Germany • IMANI Center for Policy and Education, Ghana • CIEN, Guatemala • The Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong • Centre for Civil Society, India • Centre for Policy Research, India • Liberty Institute, India • India Institute, India • Iraq Institute for Economic Reform, Iraq • Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, Israel • Competere, Italy • Instituto Bruno Leoni, Italy • Institute for Development and Economic Affairs (IDEA), Kazakhstan • Center for Free Enterprise, Korea • Bishkek Business Club, Kyrgyz Republic • Central Asian Free Market Institute, Kyrgyz Republic • OHRID Institute for Economic Strategies and International Affairs, Macedonia • Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia • Center of Research and Development (CIDAC), Mexico • Fundación Idea, Mexico • EBI Think Tank Institute, Mongolia • Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (CEED), Montenegro • The Arab Center for Scientific Research and Humane Studies, Morocco • Center for Mozambican and International Studies, Mozambique • Limited Government, Nepal • Samriddhi Foundation, Nepal • Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Nigeria • Civita, Norway • International Research Foundation (IRF), Oman • Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan • Pal-Think for Strategic Studies, Palestinian Territories • Fundación Libertad, Panama • Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD), Peru • Instituto de Libre Empresa, Peru • Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., Philippines • Ludwig von Mises Institute, Poland • Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju, Poland • Polish-American Foundation for Economic Research and Education (PAFERE), Poland • Warsaw Enterprise Institute (WEI), Poland • Center for Institutional Analysis and Development (CADI), Romania • Center for Liberal-Democratic Studies, Serbia • F. A. Hayek Foundation, Slovakia • The Free Market Foundation, South Africa • Civisimo, Spain • Timbro, Sweden • Liberales Institute, Switzerland • Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD), Thailand • Association for Liberal Thinking, Turkey • The Ukrainian Reform Support Foundation, Ukraine • The Bow Group, United Kingdom • Institute Economic Affairs (IEA), United Kingdom • Property Rights Alliance, USA • Center for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge (CEDICE), Venezuela • Zambia Institute for Public Policy Analysis (ZIPPA), Zambia

FOR MORE INFORMATION, OR TO BE PART OF THE PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS , PLEASE CONTACT LORENZO MONTANARI , EXECUTIVE D IRECTOR OF THE PROPERTY R IGHTS ALL IANCE AT LMONTANARI@PROPERTYRIGHTSALLIANCE.ORG.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 2 0 1 4 I P R I R E S U LT S ( C O N T . )

The International Property Rights Index (IPRI) is the flagship publication of the Property Rights Alliance (PRA). Based in the U.S. in Washington, D.C., PRA is committed to promoting property rights around the globe. In producing this year’s IPRI, PRA has secured the support of 81 think tanks and policy organizations in 62 countries involved in research, policy development, education and promotion of property rights in their countries. The 2014 edition of the IPRI focuses in detail on 97 out of 131 countries, with 34 countries being more broadly analyzed.

The IPRI is an annual comparative study that aims to quantify the strength of property rights – both physical and intellectual – and to rank countries accordingly. The IPRI scores and ranks each country based on 10 factors reflecting the state of its Legal and Political Environment (LP), Physical Property Rights (PPR), and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). A separate measurement that incorporates

protections outside the OECD countries.

The scope of this 2014 edition represents 98 percent of the world Gross Domestic Product and 93 percent of the world population.

2 0 1 4 I P R I R E S U LT S

Finland leads the 2014 rankings with a score of 8.5 out of 10. New Zealand, Sweden and Norway tie for second place at a score of 8.3, followed by Switzerland and Singapore at 8.2, the best score in the Southeast Asia region. Canada ranks 9th with a score of 8.0, 0.3 points above the United States (7.7), which ranks 17th.

At the bottom of the 2014 rankings are mainly countries from the African and South American regions including Venezuela (3.2), Burundi (3.6) and Chad (3.9). Venezuela ranks the lowest in this year’s IPRI.

On average, countries in the top quintile of IPRI scores (i.e., the top 20 percent) show a per capita high income (HI) approximately twelve times that of the bottom quintile. The statistics given in Figure 2 (below) are based on the averages of the IPRI scores for the years 2010–2014, and corresponding data on average GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms for the years 2008–2012. The same relationship is observed when using only the last year of the IPRI scores and HI per capita data.

IPRI Gender Equality Component

to include a measure of gender equality for a number of countries outside of the OECD. This year 59 countries were thus evaluated on women’s access to land, women’s access to credit, women’s access to property, inheritance practices, and women’s social rights. This resulting score (GE) was then aggregated to the country’s IPRI base measurement to yield a combined score referred to as the IPRI(GE) for those countries. Singapore tops the IPRI(GE) ranking among these, with a score of 10.0, followed by Hong Kong with a score of 9.8. The remaining countries in the top 10 are more geographically dispersed, with the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America all represented. Burundi scored the lowest IPRI(GE) score at 4.3.

$39,147.05  

$27,483.03  

$15,793.80  

$6,778.46  

$3,083.96  $0.00  

$5,000.00  

$10,000.00  

$15,000.00  

$20,000.00  

$25,000.00  

$30,000.00  

$35,000.00  

$40,000.00  

Top  20  Percent   2nd  Quin<le   3rd  Quin<le   4th  Quin<le   Bo@om  20  Percent  

Average  GDP

 Per  Cap

ita,  P

PP  (C

onstan

t  200

5  Interna8

onal  $),  20

08-­‐201

2  

FIGURE 2: Average Per Capita Income by IPRI Quintile

FIGURE 1: 2014 IPRI Rankingsby Country

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

�������� ����� � ���������������

� ��� ��������

����������

���� ����

��� �������

�� �����

��������������

���� ����

� � �� �����

� ��������

�  �� �����

� � ������

� � � �� �����

������ ����

���� ����

����� �����

� �����

� ��� � ����

��� �����

��� ����

 ��� ����

���������

�� � �� ����

����� �����

��� � �� �����

�� �� ����

��� � ����

�� ��� � ����

���� ����

���� �����

�� ��­������

��������

���� �� ������

���� �������������

���� ����

����� ����

��������

����� �  ����

��� ������

� �� � ���������������������

� �� ����

� � �����

��������

��������

���� � ����

�� � ������

�� � ����

����������

� � � ����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �����

����������

��������

��������

���������

����������

���������

���������

������� �����

���������

��������

�����������

�����������

�������������

������������

���������������

������������

��������

�������������

��������

����������

������������

�� �������� ����

���������� �����

�����������

��������

�������� ���� ����

���������

� ��������

���� �����

�����������

����������

����������������� ����

���������������� ����

�������������

������������������ ���� ����

�����������

�����������

��������

����������

�������

�������������

��­���������

�����������

�������������

���������

�������������

��������

���������

of