study by dr. sary levy-carciente

StudybyDR.SARYLEVY-CARCIENTE2015/2016HernandodeSotoFellow

International Property Rights Index - PRI

Legal and Political Environment

(LP)

Judicial Independence

Control of Corruption

Rule of Law

Political Stability

Physical Property Rights

(PPR)

Protection of Physical

Property Rights

Registering Property

Ease of Access to Loan

Intellectual Property Rights

(IPR)

Protection of Intellectual

Property Rights

Patent Protection

Copyright Piracy

Measuring Property Rights

TheGlobalCompetitivenessIndexHistoricalDataset©2005-2015WorldEconomicForum




TheWorldwideGovernanceIndicatorsoftheWorldBank



WorldBankGroup.DoingBusiness

Ginarte-Park(PatentProtection,1960-2010)

BSAGlobalSoftwareSurvey

𝑰𝑷𝑹𝑰 =𝑳𝑷 + 𝑷𝑷𝑹 + 𝑰𝑷𝑹

𝟑

Methodology

• Scale: 0 - 10 (worst – best )Different sources and scales => Rescaling process

• Ranking specificationCalculation were made using IPRI scores with all decimals

• Simple Average: equal importance of components

Methodology (cont.)

Countries: 128 in 2016 edition (129 in 2015)including all countries with enough data available.

+ 4 countries not present in IPRI-2015: Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, Liberia.

5 countries of IPRI- 2015 : Angola, Burkina Faso, Libya, Puerto Rico, Yemen.

2016 IPRI Results IPRI LP PPR IPRScore (Mean) 5.4458 5.1302 5.8745 5.3327

2016 IPRI. Ranking by QuintilesTop20Percent 2ndQuintile 3rdQuintile 4thQuintile Bottom20Percent

FINLAND IRELAND SLOVAKIA BRAZIL MALINEWZEALAND BELGIUM OMAN THAILAND MONTENEGROLUXEMBURG QATAR LITHUANIA BULGARIA DOMINICANREPUBLICNORWAY UNITEDARABEMIRATES BAHREIN INDONESIA BENINSWITZERLAND FRANCE POLAND MACEDONIA,FYR NEPALSINGAPORE ICELAND BOTSWANA SRI.LANKA EGYPTSWEDEN TAIWAN(China) JORDAN CROATIA MOZAMBIQUEJAPAN ESTONIA SPAIN COLOMBIA GUYANANETHERLANDS MALAYSIA COSTARICA TUNISIA IRANCANADA MALTA LATVIA LIBERIA SIERRALEONEDENMARK CHILE HUNGARY SENEGAL ETHIOPIAAUSTRALIA PORTUGAL ITALY SWAZILAND ARMENIAHONGKONG(SARofChina) SOUTHAFRICA JAMAICA PERU ARGENTINAUNITEDKINGDOM(UK) CZECHREPUBLIC SLOVENIA ZAMBIA BOSNIAANDHERZEGOVINAUNITEDSTATES(USA) ISRAEL GHANA MEXICO BOLIVIAGERMANY RWANDA ROMANIA ELSALVADOR ALGERIAAUSTRIA MAURITIUS CHINA KAZAKHSTAN AZERBAIJAN

KOREA,REP PANAMA ECUADOR PARAGUAYCYPRUS GREECE CôTED'IVOIRE CAMEROONURUGUAY MOROCCO HONDURAS SERBIASAUDIARABIA INDIA GABON ALBANIA

TRINIDADANDTOBAGO VIETNAM NICARAGUATURKEY UGANDA UKRAINEKUWAIT GUATEMALA MADAGASCARPHILIPPINES KENYA LEBANON

MALAWI CHADGEORGIA MAURITANIARUSSIA MOLDOVATANZANIA,UNITEDREPUBLICOF PAKISTAN

NIGERIABURUNDIZIMBABWEHAITIBANGLADESHMYANMARVENEZUELA,BOLIVARIANREPUBLICOF

2016 IPRI. Top & Bottom

15 Top

15 Bottom

Finland, New Zealand. Luxemburg, Norway,Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, Japan,Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Australia,Hong Kong (SAR of China), UnitedKingdom and United States.

Nicaragua, Ukraine, Madagascar, Lebanon,Chad, Mauritania, Moldova, Pakistan,Nigeria, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Haiti,Bangladesh, Myanmar and Venezuela.

IPRI 2016 vs. IPRI 2015Top Countries Ranking Change

IPRI & Groups. Geographical regions

IPRI & Groups: Regional & Development

Following: InternationalMonetaryFund.April,2015

IPRI & Groups: Income

Following:WorldBank. July,2015

IPRI by Economic & Regional Integration Agreement Groups

IPRI & Population

Average IPRI All Countries (128) 5.45

Average IPRI (129) weighted by population 5.28

IPRI Score 2016

(Ranges)

Number of Countries

Population (000)

Population (%)

IPRI-Population

Incidence in total Value

(%)

2.5 a 3.4 6 283,493.62 4.15 2.2263.5 a 4.4 25 931,619.97 13.64 10.1764.5 a 5.4 44 4,316,612.40 63.21 61.7455.5 a 6.4 22 324,842.36 4.76 5.3026.5 a 7.4 12 224,695.11 3.29 4.2907.5 a 8.4 19 747,566.49 10.95 16.260

128 6,828,829.95 100 100

A

AO

CEECA

LAC

MENA

NA

WE

More People

IPRI & Gender Equality

Gender equality is an issue of human rights and social justice, so it is a goal in itself. It has been

demonstrated its relevance fostering development, being especially evident in some areas for reducing poverty.

IPRI-GE = IPRI + 0.2*GE

DataWomen´sAccesstoBankLoans

Accesstofinancialservices

Women´sAccesstoLand

Ownership

Secureaccesstoland

Women´sAccesstoPropertyOtherthan

land

Secureaccesstonon-landassets

Inheritance:Widows

Inheritance:DaughtersParental

authority:InmarriageParental

authority:Afterdivorce

Femalegenitalmutilation

Accesstopublicspace

Sonpreferenceineducation

InheritancePractices

WomenSocialRights

Data Source: OCDE GID-DB

GE = 1/5 (Women´s Access to Bank Loans + Women´s Access to Land Ownership + Women´s access to property other than Land + Inheritance Practices + Women Social Rights)

Scale: 0 - 12 (worst – best )

IPRI-GE & GE

2016 IPRI-GE. Ranking by QuintilesTop20Percent 2ndQuintile 3rdQuintile 4thQuintile Bottom20Percent

FINLAND UNITEDKINGDOM(UK) KOREA,REP DOMINICANREPUBLIC BOLIVIANEWZEALAND HONGKONG(SARofChina) URUGUAY ECUADOR KENYALUXEMBURG FRANCE ITALY INDONESIA UGANDANORWAY ICELAND HUNGARY MOROCCO BOSNIAANDHERZEGOVINASWEDEN ESTONIA SLOVENIA GHANA AZERBAIJANJAPAN PORTUGAL JAMAICA MACEDONIA,FYR TUNISIASWITZERLAND CZECHREPUBLIC ROMANIA THAILAND MALINETHERLANDS CHILE COSTARICA ELSALVADOR MOZAMBIQUECANADA ISRAEL PANAMA GUATEMALA BENINDENMARK SOUTHAFRICA RWANDA INDIA GABONAUSTRALIA QATAR BAHREIN KAZAKHSTAN PARAGUAYUNITEDSTATES(USA) CYPRUS TURKEY MEXICO TANZANIA,UNITEDREPUBLICOFGERMANY UNITEDARABEMIRATES GREECE PERU ZAMBIASINGAPORE SLOVAKIA BULGARIA PHILIPPINES MADAGASCARAUSTRIA LITHUANIA TRINIDADANDTOBAGO SRI.LANKA ALBANIAIRELAND MAURITIUS BOTSWANA LIBERIA ETHIOPIABELGIUM POLAND CROATIA HONDURAS MOLDOVA

MALAYSIA COLOMBIA SENEGAL NICARAGUASPAIN SAUDIARABIA VIETNAM CAMEROONLATVIA CHINA ARMENIA SIERRALEONE

BRAZIL GEORGIA EGYPTOMAN UKRAINE IRANJORDAN ARGENTINA ALGERIAKUWAIT SERBIA ZIMBABWERUSSIA CôTED'IVOIRE VENEZUELA,BOLIVARIANREPUBLICOF

NEPAL LEBANONMALAWI PAKISTANSWAZILAND BURUNDI

MAURITANIACHADHAITINIGERIAMYANMARBANGLADESH

2016 IPRI and Development

IPRI-2016 analyzed different dimensions of development and their relationship with the IPRI and its components:

• Economic outcomes• Human Capabilities • Social Capital• Research and Innovation• Ecological performance

2016 IPRI & Economic Outcomes

Pearson Correlation IndexesGDP per capita (constant 2005

USD)

GDP per capita (constant 2005 USD) * Gini

Gross capital formation (current USD per capita)

Economic Complexity

Global Entrepreneurship

IPRI 0.836 0.851 0.778 0.722 0.855

2016 LP, PPR, IPR & Economic Outcomes

IPRIComponents vsEconomicComplexity(EC)IPRIComponents vsGlobalEntrepreneurshipIndex(GEI)IPRIComponentsvsGDPpercapita(Gp)IPRIComponentsvsGDPpercapita*Gini(GDPpc-Gini)IPRIComponentsvsGrosscapitalformationperCapita(GKFpc)

IPRPPRLP

GSp

Gp-G

Gp

GEI

CE

1,5 9,5 1,5 9,5 1,5 9,5

0

3,5E+10

0

20000

0

90000

0

100

-2

2,5

IPRI & Economic Outcomes

x21

2016 IPRI & Human Capabilities

IPRIvsFreedom ofEducation Index (FEI)IPRIvsHumanDevelopment Index (HDI)

1

120

0,3

0

IPRI

HDI

FEI

2 9 2 9

R²=0,518

R²=0,349

2016 IPRI & Social Capital

0,7

0,9

0

0,8

0,1

0,70

6

0

0,35

-5

IPRI

SC-LCA

ISTIM

IC

2 9 2 9 2 9 2 9 2 9

R²=0,617

R²=0,699

R²=0,450

R²=0,494

R²=0,384

IPRIvsSocialCapital-Legatum (SC-L)IPRIvsCivic Activism (CA)

IPRIvsInterpersonalSafetyandTrust(IST)IPRIvsInclusion ofMinorities (IM) IPRIvsIntergroupCohesion (IC)

2016 IPRI & Research and Innovation

9000

4,5

0

0

IPRI

ExpenditureinR&DResearchersinR&D

2 9 2 9

R²=0,472

R²=0,627

IPRIvsResearchersinR&D(permillionpeople)IPRIvsResearchanddevelopmentexpenditure(%ofGDP)

2016 IPRI and Ecological Performance

100

30

IPRI

EPI

2 9

R²=0,414

IPRIvsEnvironmental PerformanceIndex (EPI)

IPRI - Clusters

Cluster analysis aims to gather similar individuals, it classifies in groups individuals as homogeneous as possible based on observed variables.

We performed a cluster analysis using the 3 components of the IPRI for all countries

Method:To seize the variability we used Ward's Method with squared Euclidean distance, grouping countries with minimal loss inertia. To handle variable by factors we used Principal Component Analysis To show the inertia within groups and among them as the criteria to decide the optimal number of classes or clusters we used Mobile centers algorithm

Results:3 clusters are enough to explain the grouping of countriesFirst factor contains 86.07% of inertia

IPRI - ClustersCluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

ALBANIA BAHREIN RUSSIA AUSTRALIAALGERIA BOTSWANA RWANDA AUSTRIAARGENTINA BRAZIL SAUDIARABIA BELGIUMARMENIA BULGARIA SENEGAL CANADAAZERBAIJAN CHINA SLOVAKIA CHILEBANGLADESH COLOMBIA SLOVENIA CZECHREPUBLICBENIN COSTARICA SPAIN DENMARKBOLIVIA CôTE D'IVOIRE SRI.LANKA ESTONIABOSNIAANDHERZEGOVINA CROATIA SWAZILAND FINLANDBURUNDI CYPRUS THAILAND FRANCECAMEROON ECUADOR TRINIDADANDTOBAGO GERMANYCHAD ELSALVADOR TUNISIA HONGKONG(SARof China)DOMINICANREPUBLIC GHANA TURKEY ICELANDEGYPT GREECE URUGUAY IRELANDETHIOPIA GUATEMALA ZAMBIA JAPANGABON HONDURAS LUXEMBURGGEORGIA HUNGARY MALAYSIAGUYANA INDIA MALTAHAITI INDONESIA NETHERLANDSIRAN ISRAEL NEWZEALANDLEBANON ITALY NORWAYMADAGASCAR JAMAICA PORTUGALMALAWI JORDAN QATARMAURITANIA KAZAKHSTAN SINGAPOREMOLDOVA KENYA SOUTHAFRICAMONTENEGRO KOREA,REP SWEDENMOZAMBIQUE KUWAIT SWITZERLANDMYANMAR LATVIA TAIWAN(China)NEPAL LIBERIA UNITEDARABEMIRATESNICARAGUA LITHUANIA UNITEDKINGDOM(UK)NIGERIA MACEDONIA,FYR UNITEDSTATES(USA)PAKISTAN MALIPARAGUAY MAURITIUSSERBIA MEXICOSIERRALEONE MOROCCOTANZANIA,UNITEDREPUBLICOF OMANUGANDA PANAMAUKRAINE PERUVENEZUELA,BOLIVARIANREPUBLICOF PHILIPPINESVIETNAM POLANDZIMBABWE ROMANIA

IPRI - Clusters

Clusters, Groups & Population

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Advancedeconomies

Emerging andDeveloping Asia

LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean

MiddleEast,NorthAfrica,andPakistan

Sub-Saharan Africa

Advancedeconomies


Emerging andDeveloping Europe


Sub-SaharanAfricaEmerging and

Developing Asia

CommonwealthofIndependentStates

Sub-SaharanAfrica



CommonwealthofIndependent States

Emerging andDeveloping Asia

Emerging andDeveloping Europe


1.474.552 972.262

4.382.016


EUNAFTA

ASEAN

GCC

EFTA

EUPACIFIC

SADCAP

AP SADCGCC

ASEANPARLACEN

MCCA

ARABMUNION

CAN

CARICOM

CIS

MERCOSUR SAARC

IGAD

NAFTA

ECOWAS

ECOWAS

SADC CEMAC

ARABMUNIONCIS

MERCOSURPARLACEN

SAARC

ASEAN

CARICOM IGAD

MCCA CAN

CEEACOPEC

TPP

TPP

OPEC

TPP

OPEC

IPRI.Regional Integration Agreements & Clusters

RegionalIntegration Agreements Total Cluster1 % Cluster 2 % Cluster 3 %

EU EuropeanUnion 28 13 46.43 15 53.57SADC SouthernAfricanDevelopmentCommunity 10 5 50.00 4 40.00 1 10.00ECOWAS EconomicCommunityOfWestAfricanStates 8 3 37.50 5 62.50ASEAN AssociationofSoutheastAsianNations 7 2 28.57 3 42.86 2 28.57PARLACEN CentralAmericanParliament 6 2 33.33 4 66.67GCC GulfCooperationCouncil 6 4 66.67 2 33.33AP PacificAlliance 6 5 83.33 1 16.67MERCOSUR SouthernCommonMarket 5 3 60.00 2 40.00SAARC SouthAsianAssociationforRegionalCooperation 5 3 60.00 2 40.00CEMAC CentralAfricanEconomicandMonetaryCommunity 3 3 100MCCA CentralAmericanCommonMarket 5 1 20.00 4 80.00CIS CommonwealthofIndependentStates 6 4 66.67 2 33.33ARABMUNION ArabMahgrebUnion 4 2 50.00 2 50.00CARICOM CaribbeanCommunity 4 2 50.00 2 50.00CAN AndeanCommunity 4 1 25.00 3 75.00EFTA EuropeanFreeTradeAssociation 3 3 100IGAD IntergovernmentalAuthorityonDevelopment 3 2 66.67 1 33.33NAFTA NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement 3 1 33.33 2 66.67PACIFIC PACIFIC 2 2 100OPEC OrganizationofthePetroleumExportingCountries 10 4 40.00 4 40.00 2 20.00CEEAC LaCommunautéEconomiquedesEtatsdel'AfriqueCentrale 4 4 100TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 1 9.09 2 18.18 8 72.73

Each cluster represents more than a grouping by variables directly associated with property rights; they are groups with common characteristics within them and with different features among clusters, which confirms the consistency of the IPRI, and the relevance of property right systems influencing societies.

• Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 are two extreme poles in terms of the performance oftheir economies, human capabilities, social capital, research and innovation,ecological performance, their institutional stability, as well as their IPRI scores.

• Cluster 2 statistical values reflected its intermediate positions and depending onthe decisions taken in the present and near future of each country, will beinclined to one of the two polar classes. Those countries that keep theirposition very close to Cluster 1 should reread their policies regarding propertyrights, but, as been showed, also in other dimensions to improve theirperformance and the well-being of their citizens.

Clusters analysis

• Countries in Cluster 1 should make particular efforts to strengthen their legaland political environment to protect physical and intellectual properties, whichare still weak, in order to improve the quality of life in their societies.

• Countries in the boundaries between two clusters have to make special effortsto mind the gap, which will place them in a higher level.

Clusters analysis

Final Remarks

• The 10th edition of the International Property Rights Index - IPRI-2016 -shows consistency with previous ones, revealing a proper structure of the index

• IPRI-2016 proves to be a valid instrument to evaluate the performance of nations looking for improvements of the welfare of their population and revealing the importance of the relationship between property rights and diverse dimensions of development.

• Results suggest that countries with high IPRI scores and its components also show high income and high development levels, indicating the positive relationship between property rights regime and wellbeing.

Final Remarks

• Our results show that the IPRI is strongly associated with economic and political opportunities within countries, as well as their social cohesion, human capabilities, innovative research and the ecosystem sustainability. Each of these dimensions was evaluated using different items: production (per capita level and composition), investment, entrepreneurship ecosystem, human development, freedom of education, minorities’ inclusion, civic activism, intergroup cohesion, interpersonal safety and trust, social capital, number of researchers, number of papers, expenses in R&D and environmental performance. All the items showed a strongly positive association with the IPRI and its components

Final Remarks

• A demographic perspective showed that more than 60% of world population lives in countries with an IPRI score in a range of [4.5 - 5.4], highlighting the relevance to encourage the development of property rights in densely populated countries

• The cluster analysis also confirmed the consistency of the IPRI, as the classes gathered countries not only based on their property rights, but also with a high degree of homogeneity, showing the relevance of property rights systems shaping societies

• IPRI results can be used as guidelines for policy makers in different countries -as in multilateral or integration agreements, to which they belong - to enhance their policies aimed to foster development, defined as a multidimensional and synergic term

India

Global Rank: 59 of 128Regional Rank: 10 of 20Region: Asia and Oceania

India’s IPRI score remained the same at 5.2. This ranked India at 10th in Asia andOceania and 59th in the world. India is classified by the IMF as a part of the Emergingand Developing Asia group and by the World Bank as a lower middle income nation, aswell as a member of the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation).

LP increased by 0.1 to 4.3 with: 5.0 in Judicial Independence, 3.1 in Political Stability,4.8 in Rule of Law, and 4.1 in Control of Corruption.PPR decreased 0.2 to 5.8 with: 4.6 in Property Rights, 8.4 in Registering Property, and4.3 in Ease of Access to Loans.IPR increased 0.3 to 5.6 with: 5.4 in Intellectual Property Protection, 4.0 in CopyrightPiracy Level, and 7.5 in Patent Protection.

India. IPRI & Components

IPRI 2016 & Components.India Vs. Groups

IPRIIndia & South Asia Countries

Note:Showing last countryIPRIscore.(Bhutan,Maldives andAfghanistan arefrom 2010)

IPRI and Components.India & BRICS Countries

India Vs. Countries

INDIA 5.22 4.25 5.03 4.82 3.08 4.07 5.78 4.61 8.44 4.30 5.62 5.36 7.52 4.00BANGLADESH 2.78 3.07 2.29 3.56 3.25 3.18 2.87 4.10 2.10 2.41 2.39 2.73 3.15 1.30BRAZIL 5.14 4.50 3.97 4.84 4.97 4.24 5.49 4.86 8.84 2.78 5.44 4.46 6.85 5.00CHINA 5.41 4.39 4.81 4.33 4.07 4.34 6.51 5.75 9.36 4.43 5.32 4.94 8.42 2.60IRAN 4.24 3.58 4.35 2.93 3.18 3.86 5.15 4.91 9.56 0.97 3.99 3.25 4.73NEPAL 4.46 3.92 4.52 3.65 3.59 3.91 5.50 4.55 9.84 2.11 3.97 3.56 4.37PAKISTAN 3.68 2.80 4.27 3.44 0.13 3.37 5.04 4.12 8.36 2.63 3.21 3.68 4.47 1.50RUSSIA 4.58 3.33 3.17 3.58 3.32 3.26 5.57 3.89 9.52 3.28 4.84 3.37 7.35 3.80SOUTHAFRICA 6.59 5.59 7.41 5.32 4.85 4.77 6.93 7.45 9.21 4.14 7.23 7.35 7.75 6.60SRILANKA 5.00 4.73 5.42 4.70 4.50 4.32 5.64 5.53 8.29 3.11 4.61 5.68 6.45 1.70

IPR-IPP

IPR-pp

IPR-cpCOUNTRY PPR PPR-pr

PPR-rp

PPR-eal

IPRLP LP-ji LP-rl LP-ps LP-ccIPRI

India. Cluster position

Many Thanks!•

आपको बहुत बहुत ध*यवादaapako bahut bahut dhanyavaad

Dr. Sary Levy-Carciente2015-16 Hernando de Soto Fellow

[email protected] www.sarylevy.com

@saryleProperty Rights Alliance:www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.orgwww.propertyrightsalliance.orgFollow :

https://www.facebook.com/PropertyRightsAlliance@PRAlliance

44

study by dr. sary levy-carciente

Documents