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 yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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