Study by DR. SARY LEVY-CARCIENTE
Transcript of 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
TheGlobalCompetitivenessIndexHistoricalDataset©2005-2015WorldEconomicForum
TheGlobalCompetitivenessIndexHistoricalDataset©2005-2015WorldEconomicForum
TheGlobalCompetitivenessIndexHistoricalDataset©2005-2015WorldEconomicForum
TheWorldwideGovernanceIndicatorsoftheWorldBank
TheWorldwideGovernanceIndicatorsoftheWorldBank
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
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
LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean
Emerging andDeveloping Europe
MiddleEast,NorthAfrica,andPakistan
Sub-SaharanAfricaEmerging and
Developing Asia
CommonwealthofIndependentStates
Sub-SaharanAfrica
MiddleEast,NorthAfrica,andPakistan
LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean
CommonwealthofIndependent States
Emerging andDeveloping Asia
Emerging andDeveloping Europe
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
1.474.552 972.262
4.382.016
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
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