Indice Internacional de Propiedad Privada

2015

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX THE 2015 EDITION REPRESENTS 99 PERCENT OF WORLD GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND 94 PERCENT OF WORLD POPULATION

STUDY BY

DR. SARY LEVY-CARCIENTE A Project of the Property Rights Alliance

2014/2015 Hernando De Soto Fellow

With Contributions by: Dr. Hernando De Soto, Wagner Lenhart, Dr. Buğra Kalkan, Dr. Björn Hasselgren, Patrick Krassén, Souad Adnane, Bienvenido Oplas, Jr., Giammarco Brenelli, Prof. Wolfgang Grassl

2015 IPRI PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

IPRI 2015 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The International Property Rights Index (IPRI) is the flagship publication of the Property Rights Alliance (PRA). PRA, based in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to promoting property rights around the world. In this year’s production of the IPRI, PRA worked with 92 think tanks and policy organizations in 65 countries involved in research, policy development, education and promotion of property rights in their countries, to compile data for the index.

The 2015 edition of the IPRI examines 129 countries.

The importance of property rights is directly related to the values and principles of individual liberty.

A strong system of property rights not only promotes prosperity but also creates a virtuous cycle of human flourishing in society.

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).

The scope of this 2015 edition represents 98.66 percent of the world Gross Domestic Product and 93.56 percent of the world population.

IPRI 2015 RESULTS The 2015 IPRI ranks a total of 129 countries from around the world. The selection of countries is determined solely by the availability of sufficient data. The increase in number of countries included in this year’s IPRI is due to an increase in available data.

Afghanistan’s Economic and Legal Studies Organization (AELSO), Afghanistan, · Foundation for Economic Freedom, Albania · Fundación Atlas 1853, Argentina · Fundación Bases, 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 Institute, Austria · The Nassau Institute, Bahamas · CPA, Bosnia Herzegovina · 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 · The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies, Egypt · 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 · Greek Liberties Monitor (GLM), Greece · CIEN, Guatemala · Fundación Eléutera, Honduras · 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 · Hibernia Forum, Ireland · Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, Israel · Competere, Italy · Think-in, Italy · Istituto 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 · Southeast Asia Network for Development (SEANET), Malaysia/ASEAN · Center of Research and Development (CIDAC), Mexico · Instituto de Pensamiento Estratégico Ágora A.C. (IPEA), 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 · Samriddhi Foundation, Nepal · New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, New Zealand · Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Nigeria · Civita, Norway · International Research Foundation (IRF), Oman · Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan · Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME), Pakistan · Pal-Think for Strategic Studies, Palestinian Territories · Fundación Libertad, Panama · Contribuyentes por Respeto, Peru · Institute for Liberty and Democracy, 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, Poland · Warsaw Enterprise Institute, Poland · Center for Institutional Analysis and Development (CADI), Romania · Libek, Serbia · F. A. Hayek Foundation, Slovakia · The Free Market Foundation, South Africa · Civisimo, Spain · Timbro, Sweden · World Taxpayers Associations (WTA), Sweden · Liberales Institute, Switzerland · Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD), Thailand · Association for Liberal Thinking, Turkey · Freedom Research Association, Turkey · Bow Group, UK · Institute for Economic Affairs, UK · Property Rights Alliance, USA · Acton Institute, 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 DIRECTOR OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ALLIANCE AT LMONTANARI@PROPERTYRIGHTSALLIANCE.ORG

The sample of 129 countries on the IPRI this year averaged a score of 5.3. The Legal and Political Environment (LP) was the weakest component with a score of 4.99, the Physical Property Rights (PPR) was the strongest component with a score of 5.77, and the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) component fell in between with a score of 5.14.

0

FIN 1

1

2

8.327

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

LTU 44

5.864

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

GTM 87

4.464 4.433

NOR 2

8.227

JOR 45

5.849

GAB 88

NZL 3

8.207

HUN 46

5.826

HND 89

4.371

LUX 4

8.147

BHR 47

5.818

DOM 90

4.363

SGP 5

8.118

CRI 48

5.736

UGA 91

4.339

CHE 6

8.050

ESP 49

5.730

SLE 92

4.338

SWE 7

7.994

GHA 50

5.612

GUY 93

4.285

JPN 8

7.977

ITA 51

5.589

ARM 94

4.261

CAN 9

7.929

LVA 52

5.534

GEO 95

4.249

NLD 10

7.905

CHN 53

5.389

BOL 96

4.245

DNK 11

7.894

JAM 54

5.353

MLI 97

4.236

CIV 98

4.224

AUS 12

7.714

ROU 55

5.290

GBR 13

7.690

GRC 56

5.279

MOZ 99

4.214

DEU 14

7.607

PAN 57

5.267

NPL 100

4.169 4.143

USA 15

7.606

TUR 58

5.261

BFA 101

HKG 16

7.602

TTO 59

5.219

EGY 102

4.135

AUT 17

7.554

KWT 60

5.199

AZE 103

4.087

SVN 61

5.185

DZA 104

QAT 18

7.492

4.079

IRL 19

7.431

IND 62

5.155

NIC 105

4.053

BEL 20

7.364

MAR 63

5.153

ETH 106

4.006

ARE 21

7.301

BRA 64

5.099

ARG 107

3.998

FRA 22

7.209

PHL 65

5.052

IRN 108

3.965

ISL 23

7.040

MKD 66

4.952

UKR 109

3.926

TWN 24

6.874

SWZ 67

4.944

SRB 110

3.915

MLT 25

6.720

BGR 68

4.935

CMR 111

3.906

CHL 26

6.646

THA 69

4.923

MDG 112

3.820

EST 27

6.621

IDN 70

4.900

MRT 113

3.768

MYS 28

6.602

HRV 71

4.873

PRY 114

3.738

ZAF 29

6.585

SLV 72

4.812

ALB 115

3.713

PRT 30

6.556

LKA 73

4.760

MDA 116

3.618

CZE 31

6.274

COL 74

4.753

TCD 117

ISR 32

6.242

MEX 75

4.750

PAK 118

3.557

OMN 33

6.165

ZMB 76

4.735

LBN 119

3.470

MUS 34

6.126

TUN 77

4.644

NGA 120

3.378

CYP 35

6.048

TZA 78

4.614

BDI 121

3.320 3.238

3.563

SAU 36

5.977

PER 79

4.603

ZWE 122

PRI 37

5.966

SEN 80

4.566

YEM 123

KOR 38

5.931

RUS 81

4.548

LBY 124

2.728

5.926

MNE 82

4.540

VEN 125

2.698

BWA 39

2.785

URY 40

5.909

KEN 83

4.533

HTI 126

2.671

POL 41

5.904

MWI 84

4.531

AGO 127

2.647

RWA 42

5.898

VNM 85

4.490

BGD 128

2.564

SVK 43

5.874

KAZ 86

4.488

MMR 129

2.534

FIGURE 1 - 2015 IPRI Rankings by Country

3

4

5

900000

Finland came in first in the 2015 IPRI (8.32/10), followed by Norway (8.22/10), New Zealand (8.20/10), Luxemburg (8.14/10) and Singapore (8.10/10) [Figure 1]. Scandinavian countries reported (Figure 2) high IPRI score rankings (Finland #1, Norway #2, Sweden #7) and Northern European countries report strong property right systems (Luxemburg #4 and Netherlands #10). New Zealand (#3, 8.20/10) has the highest LP score (9.0), Singapore (#5, 8.10/10) has the highest PPR score (8.1) and Japan (#8, 8.0/10) has the highest IPR score (8.6).

80000 70000

R2 = 0.7919

60000 GDPPC

2015 IPRI RESULTS (CONT.)

50000

FIGURE 3 Relationship between IPRI and GDP per capital

40000 30000 20000 10000

10

IPRI 2015

9

LP 2015

PPR 2015

IPR 2015

0 IPRI 2015

8 7

80000

6 60000

5

R2 = 0.7919 GDPPC

4 3

FIGURE 4 IPRI and GDP per capita. Countries sized by population

40000

20000

2 1

0

0 FIN NOR NZL LUX SGP CHE SWE JPN CAN NLD DNK AUS GBR DEU USA

-20000 IPRI 2015

FIGURE 2 Top 15 Countries At the bottom is Myanmar (2.53/10), followed by Bangladesh (2.56/10), Angola (2.64/10), Haiti (2.67/10) and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2.69/10). Seven of the fifteen countries at the bottom were not included in last year’s IPRI (Myanmar, Angola, Haiti, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon and Albania). Although their scores are low, the availability of data this year is a good sign for future improvement.

IPRI AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES Property rights are important in part because of their close relation with economic performance, prosperity and wellbeing of populations.

The relationship between the IPRI scores and GDP per capita are strong and significant, with a Pearson coefficient of 0.822 (p<0.01). In addition, the best-fit curve for this case is a 2nd grade polynomial with a coefficient of determination of R2=0.7919. The components of the IPRI also show significant relationship with GDP per capita, and their best-fit curve is a 2nd degree polynomial. The strongest relationship is reported for LP with an R2=0.7804, followed by IPR with an R2=0.7523, and then PPR with an R2=0.5167. (Figure 3). The same behavior is found in analyzing the relationship of GDP per capita and IPRI-2015 by groups of countries. (Figure 4)

These results show the significant and positive relationship between prosperity and a robust property right system measured at an individual level. The statistical dispersion of the GDP distribution in each country was not considered in this analysis.

$50,000 $45,000

$44,542.82

$40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000

$23,786.34

$20,000 $15,000 $10,000

$11,086.53 $3,377.99

$5,000

$1,880.94

$0 Top 20 Percent 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile

4th Quintile

FIGURE 5 Average per capita Income by IPRI Quintile

Bottom 20 Percent

Figure 5 shows that, on average, countries in the top quintile of IPRI scores (i.e. top 20%) show a per capita income almost 24 times that of the countries in the bottom quintile. Statistics are based on the averages of IPRI-2015 scores and corresponding data on average GDP per capita in US Dollar constant terms (2005=100, source: World Bank data) for the last available year (generally 2013 and for some countries 2012).

The relationship between GDP growth and IPRI or its components is much weaker (and mildly indirect) compared to the GDP per capita, with just a statistically significant correlation among IPRI, LP and IPR. For IPRI r=-0.252 (p <0.01), for LP r=-0.290 (p <0.01), and then IPR r=-0.281 (p <0.01).

Those relationships are mildly negative, possibly linked to the fact that most developed or higher income economies hold high IPRI scores but show lower growth rates. The same behavior is found in the analysis by groups of countries.

Finally, the relationship between FDI net inflows, measured as a percentage of GDP, and IPRI or its components showed a weak relationship. For the IPRI R2=0.0098, for LP R2=0.0112, followed

by PPR R2=0.0082, and then IPR R2=0.0056. We expected that well-established legal system and stable political environment (and with strong protection of physical property rights) receive more FDI compared to those countries with low levels. This suggests that deeper analysis is needed in choosing the variable to contrast.

IPRI 2015 GROUPS RESULTS This year, the countries were grouped following different criteria: Geographical regions, Income classification (World Bank, July, 2014), Regional and Development classification (International Monetary Fund, April, 2014) and Economic and Regional Integration Agreements.

Compared to the IPRI-2014, the geographical regions with better rankings (Western Europe and North America) decreased their IPRI scores, while the rest of the groups improved their scores.

The Income criteria of the World Bank gather countries into five different groups based on income: Low Income (3.93), Lower Middle Income (4.33), Upper Middle Income (4.74), High Income NonOECD (6.15) and High Income OECD (7.09). (Figure 6)

IPRI-POPULATION The IPRI-2015 adds a demographic incidence to the index (Table 1). We note that although the IPRI-2015 average value is 5.30, when it is weighted by population it is reduced to 5.17, thereby showing the imperative to improve property rights in highly populated countries. Our sample of 129 countries had a population of 6.78 billion people. 61 percent of the world’s population lives in 35 countries with an IPRI between (4.5-5.4). Only 14 percent of the population enjoys the higher ranges of IPRI score [6.5-8.4] found in 30 countries.

TABLE 1: IPRI AND POPULATION IPRI 2015 (Score Ranges)

Number of Countries

Population (millions)

Population (%)

IPRI Incidence in Total Score (%)

IPRI Population Incidence in Total Score (%)

2.5 - 3.4

10

512.9

7.56

4.17

4.24

3.5 - 4.4

32

877.7

12.94

18.89

9.87

4.5 - 5.4

35

4,114.7

60.66

25.04

60.07

5.5 - 6.4

22

328.5

4.84

18.98

5.45

6.5 - 7.4

12

224.7

3.31

12.13

4.41

7.5 - 8.4

18

724.3

10.67

20.77

15.95

129

6,783.1

100

100

100

IPRI AND GENDER The IPRI 2015 includes a separate measurement that includes gender equality to illustrate the gender differences in access to property rights (Figure 7). Gender equality is an issue of human rights and social justice and is therefore a goal in itself. It plays a crucial role for less developed and developing countries. This year the IPRI-GE shows results for 124 of the 129 countries included in the IPRI-2015.

On average, the 124 countries show a GE of 7.39 and an IPRI-GE of 6.76.

Finland tops the IPRI-GE (10.32/12), followed by Norway (10.22/12), New Zealand (10.20/12), Luxemburg (10.15/12), Sweden (9.99/12), Japan (9.96/12), Switzerland (9.94/12), Canada (9.92/12) and Netherlands (9.90/12). On the other extreme of the IPRI-GE we find Bangladesh (3.35/12), Myanmar (3.47/12), Rep. of Yemen (3.50/12), Libya (3.57/12), Angola (3.85/12) and Nigeria (4.00/12).

High Income: OECD

High Income: non OECD

The top three geographical groups are Oceania (9.96/12), North America (8.55/12), and the European Union (7.89/12), followed by ‘Rest of Europe’. Even though ‘Rest of Europe’ shows a lower overall IPRI value (7.08/12), it has a higher level of GE (8.92) than the EU. The bottom region is Africa (5.69/12) followed by South America (6.29/12), which is mostly due to its IPRI value, as South America’s GE is 8.29.

Upper Middle Income

Lower Middle Income

Low Income

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

FIGURE 6 Income Groups Score

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

CASE STUDIES

12.00 GE

IPRI - GE

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00 OCEANIA

NORTH AMERICA

EUROPEAN UNION

REST OF EUROPE

ASIA

CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

SOUTH AMERICA

AFRICA

FIGURE 7 GE and IPRI-GE Groups of Countries IPRI CLUSTER ANALYSIS This year we performed a cluster analysis in order to gather homogeneous countries (Figure 8).

The 129 countries were classified according to their values in LP, PPR and IPR into three different clusters. Each cluster represents a different group with common characteristics beyond merely property rights. The cluster analysis revealed countries grouped with a high degree of homogeneity and property rights, which confirms the relevance of property rights in shaping societies.

Case study on Peru. The Hidden History of the Defeat of the Shining Path - and the Birth of Peru’s New Middle Class

Case Study on Brazil. Reflections on the Social Function of Property in Brazil

By Wagner Lenhart, Instituto Liberdade

By Dr. Hernando De Soto, Institute for Liberty and Democracy

Property rights are protected as among the

Over the past year the Institute for Liberty

However

and Democracy (ILD) has been reviewing its

exceptions, and these rights are relativized by

archives as a reminder of the great success it

several mechanisms of state intervention in

has had in Peru. The ILD managed to steer Peru

the private domain. This study analyzes the

away from the dangerous path to state induced

“social function” of property, a conception of

violence and towards economic prosperity and

the public interest in property that limits and

freedom. The Peruvian elite denied people

relativizes property rights in the Brazilian legal

access to property and business rights based on

system. The social function of property has

the assumption that the poor and uneducated

been understood by many Brazilian scholars

were incapable of economic contribution. The

and judges as an advancement in the realm of

ILD helped distinguish between those who

property rights. The problem is that the social

wanted to be included in the economic system

function of property generates by its own

(DECAS) and those who supported radical

nature, a culture of devaluation and disrespect

terrorism. Reforms to the economy proposed

of private assets, creates legal insecurity,

and defended by the ILD allowed business

and results in repeated cases of arbitrary

registration to decrease from 278 days to 1 day

conduct by public administrators. As a result, it

and at a fraction of the previous cost. As a result,

negatively affects the country’s economy. For

388,000 new businesses and 558,000 new jobs

these reasons, the social function of property

were created. Terrorists could no longer find

can and should be questioned and rethought.

fundamental rights in the Brazilian Constitution. such

recognition

is

made

recruits, as people chose economic prosperity over radical terrorism. The ILD remembers its success and hopes to bring the same ideas to the Middle East and North Africa, where 300 million people are currently searching for the same alternative to terrorism that Peruvians once were.

FIGURE 8 Clusters’ Members and Centroids. Factor 1 and Factor 2

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

with

Case Study on Turkey. Understanding the Future of Political Reform in Turkey

Case Study on Sweden. Property Rights Report – Sweden 2015

By Dr. Buğra Kalkan, Association for Liberal Thinking

By Dr. Björn Hasselgren & Patrick Krassén, Timbro

A decentralized free market relies heavily

Protection of property rights in Sweden has

on the implementation of a strong system of

solid support in the Instrument of Government

According

property rights. Turkey was never a communist

and in general civil law. When it comes to

women’s property rights are the most insecure

There is a vast difference across ASEAN in the

state but shared some common features.

expropriation of land, the rights of private

in the MENA region, South Asia and Sub-

scores for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Turkey created state owned Import-Substitute

property owners have been strengthened

Saharan Africa. Women in the MENA, as well as

with the best performing ASEAN country,

Industries (ISI) from 1930 to 1980 in order

during the most recent years. As regards

in the other regions above, lack secure property

Singapore (5th) and the worst performing

to match the industrialization of western

the protection of IP rights and the freedom

rights for three major reasons as summarized

ASEAN country, Vietnam (85th). Free Trade

countries. ISI industrialized Turkey faster than

to

activities,

by the foundation: lack of formal legal property

Agreements (FTAs) and Economic Partnership

the free market could have, but governmental

fundamental constitutional law also provides

rights, lack of the ability to exercise existing

Agreements (EPAs) such as the Trans-Pacific

organizations

rent-seeking

solid protection. At the same time, there are

property rights, and lack of property rights

Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and European

mechanism that corrupted the political system

some worrying signs of developments that

due to customary laws and cultural norms. The

Union FTAs have exerted pressure on ASEAN

weaken property rights protection in the

case study aims at analyzing the situation of

to increase protection of IPR. However, there

above mentioned areas in Sweden. Conflicting

women’s property rights in the MENA region

is as of yet no definite ASEAN IPR Action Plan

principles between private and public interests

on the basis of a “comprehensive” definition

to succeed the existing plan which runs only

in relation to land-value capture and the

of property rights accounting for women’s

through 2015. In order to ensure that ASEAN

protection of property rights have not been

property.

the

countries can benefit from a robust IP system,

resolved. Far-reaching limitations on the use

obstacles that limit their access to property,

ASEAN member states should encourage

of trademarks and proposals to limit the right

the interplay between those, and suggests

competitive and deregulated economies and

to pursue business with profit motivations in

possible venues for change. The paper focuses

ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

certain sectors additionally present challenges

on the issues related to women’s ownership

seemingly

of land, and access to and control of financial

turned

into

a

deeply. Turkey’s transition to democracy in 1950 increased the power of elected politicians over the distribution of ‘rents’ and ended up with military intervention establishing bureaucratic tutelage in 1960. Economic interventionism and weak political institutions prevented a property rights system from flourishing. The Justice and Development Party (JDP) of Turkey has had success in recent years reducing rent-seeking and increasing the power of democratic politics.

However, during the JDP era, rent-seeking activities continue to destabilize the political system

where

bureaucratic

organizations

have huge influence over economic resources

pursue

for-profit

in

conflict

business

with

constitutional

rights. These worrying signs motivate further

Case Study on Middle East & North Africa. Women’s Property Rights in the MENA Region

By Souad Adnane, Arab Center for Scientific Research and Humane Studies to

It

the

Rockefeller

identifies

and

foundation,

illustrates

Case Study on ASEAN Countries. Intellectual Property Rights Protection in 6 ASEAN Countries – Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam

By Bienvenido Oplas, Jr., Southeast Asia Network for Development

assets.

monitoring from a property rights protection perspective.

and cultural issues. The instability of Turkey’s legal and political environment prevents the establishment of a robust system of property rights. The judiciary branch must achieve independence from special interest groups, both the old secular businessmen/bureaucrats and

the

new

conservative

businessmen/

organizations, if Turkey hopes to improve its score on the International Property Rights Index.

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

Case Study on Fashion & Intellectual Property Rights. Globalisation: a New Opportunity for Counterfeiting? The Case of the Italian Fashion Industry

By Giammarco Brenelli, Competere The

law

regarding

industrial

Special Case Study on Religion & Property Rights. Property Rights from a Christian Perspective

By Prof. Wolfgang Grassl, Acton Institute A proper understanding of private property

property

is

contingent

upon

two

interdependent

rights encompasses both the definition and

components. First, private property is essential

protection of new ideas, applied to industry.

for

It originally developed together with the

Second, God has destined the goods of the

industrial revolution, first in the single countries

earth to benefit all people and nations. Failure

and later with international conventions. With

to appreciate both aspects of private property

the advent of globalisation, however, it has

leads to either laissez-faire capitalism or the

become apparent that there are many gaps in

all-encompassing state, what Pius XI called

the protection of ideas and innovation afforded

the “twin rocks of shipwreck.” Such teaching

by

development

calls for asceticism and detachment, and the

on a global scale has brought with it the

rejection of private property among some of its

“poisoned fruit” of increased opportunity for

members, recalling the fact that the apostles

counterfeiting. The huge and easy profits from

of the early Church held property in common.

counterfeiting have attracted organised crime,

The ever-expanding secular powers of kings,

with a consequent need for standardised

emperors and lords eventually led the Church

protection and continuous updating of the

to have to define property rights to keep the

remedial measures. While the EU is still limited

state at bay. Saint Thomas Aquinas declared

in its action in this sphere, some national legal

while it is natural for individuals to own things,

systems are already reacting. Italy, for its part,

God as Creator is the ultimate owner of all

in 2009 introduced new probative tools and

goods of the earth. Through ownership and

also effective precautionary measures to be

work the human person can glorify God in all

implemented before trial. From the perspective

things, while being prudent to make sure what

of the criminal code, the law today gives

one has does not prevent another from being.

stronger protection, not only of trademarks

The relationship between the human being

and patents but of a company’s entire heritage

and property is best understood as a steward:

of know-how, and the action taken by damaged

the person has the responsibility to treat his

companies and their defence counsels is more

property as Christ would, never forgetting that

incisive.

God is the true owner of all in this world.

legislation,

and

in

fact

freedom

and

personal

development.

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG