2015INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTS INDEXTHE 2015 EDITION REPRESENTS 99 PERCENT OF WORLD GROSSDOMESTIC PRODUCT AND 94 PERCENT OF WORLD POPULATION

STUDY BY

DR. SARY LEVY-CARCIENTE2014/2015 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

A Project ofthe PropertyRights Alliance

2015 IPRI PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

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 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.

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.

IPRI 2015 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGURE 1 - 2015 IPRI Rankings by Country

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8.327

8.227

8.207

8.147

8.118

8.050

7.994

7.977

7.929

7.905

7.894

7.714

7.690

7.607

7.606

7.602

7.554

7.492

7.431

7.364

7.301

7.209

7.040

6.874

6.720

6.646

6.621

6.602

6.585

6.556

6.274

6.242

6.165

6.126

6.048

5.977

5.966

5.931

5.926

5.909

5.904

5.898

5.874

FIN 1

NOR 2

NZL 3

LUX 4

SGP 5

CHE 6

SWE 7

JPN 8

CAN 9

NLD 10

DNK 11

AUS 12

GBR 13

DEU 14

USA 15

HKG 16

AUT 17

QAT 18

IRL 19

BEL 20

ARE 21

FRA 22

ISL 23

TWN 24

MLT 25

CHL 26

EST 27

MYS 28

ZAF 29

PRT 30

CZE 31

ISR 32

OMN 33

MUS 34

CYP 35

SAU 36

PRI 37

KOR 38

BWA 39

URY 40

POL 41

RWA 42

SVK 43

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.464

4.433

4.371

4.363

4.339

4.338

4.285

4.261

4.249

4.245

4.236

4.224

4.214

4.169

4.143

4.135

4.087

4.079

4.053

4.006

3.998

3.965

3.926

3.915

3.906

3.820

3.768

3.738

3.713

3.618

3.563

3.557

3.470

3.378

3.320

3.238

2.785

2.728

2.698

2.671

2.647

2.564

2.534

GTM 87

GAB 88

HND 89

DOM 90

UGA 91

SLE 92

GUY 93

ARM 94

GEO 95

BOL 96

MLI 97

CIV 98

MOZ 99

NPL 100

BFA 101

EGY 102

AZE 103

DZA 104

NIC 105

ETH 106

ARG 107

IRN 108

UKR 109

SRB 110

CMR 111

MDG 112

MRT 113

PRY 114

ALB 115

MDA 116

TCD 117

PAK 118

LBN 119

NGA 120

BDI 121

ZWE 122

YEM 123

LBY 124

VEN 125

HTI 126

AGO 127

BGD 128

MMR 129

0 1 2 3 4 5

5.864

5.849

5.826

5.818

5.736

5.730

5.612

5.589

5.534

5.389

5.353

5.290

5.279

5.267

5.261

5.219

5.199

5.185

5.155

5.153

5.099

5.052

4.952

4.944

4.935

4.923

4.900

4.873

4.812

4.760

4.753

4.750

4.735

4.644

4.614

4.603

4.566

4.548

4.540

4.533

4.531

4.490

4.488

LTU 44

JOR 45

HUN 46

BHR 47

CRI 48

ESP 49

GHA 50

ITA 51

LVA 52

CHN 53

JAM 54

ROU 55

GRC 56

PAN 57

TUR 58

TTO 59

KWT 60

SVN 61

IND 62

MAR 63

BRA 64

PHL 65

MKD 66

SWZ 67

BGR 68

THA 69

IDN 70

HRV 71

SLV 72

LKA 73

COL 74

MEX 75

ZMB 76

TUN 77

TZA 78

PER 79

SEN 80

RUS 81

MNE 82

KEN 83

MWI 84

VNM 85

KAZ 86

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).

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

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

IPRI 2015 LP 2015 PPR 2015 IPR 2015

FIGURE 2Top 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 OUTCOMESProperty 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 prop-erty right system measured at an individual level. The statistical dispersion of the GDP distribution in each country was not considered in this analysis.

FIGURE 4IPRI and GDP per capita. Countriessized by population

Top 20 Percent 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Bottom 20 Percent

$50,000

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

$44,542.82

$23,786.34

$11,086.53

$3,377.99$1,880.94

FIGURE 5Average per capita Income by IPRI Quintile

2015 IPRI RESULTS (CONT.)

FIGURE 3Relationship between IPRI and GDP per capital

900000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

GD

PP

C

IPRI 2015

R2 = 0.7919

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

-20000

GD

PP

C

R2 = 0.7919

IPRI 2015

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 Non-OECD (6.15) and High Income OECD (7.09). (Figure 6)

High Income: OECD

High Income: non OECD

Upper Middle Income

Lower Middle Income

Low Income

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

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.

2.5 - 3.4

3.5 - 4.4

4.5 - 5.4

5.5 - 6.4

6.5 - 7.4

7.5 - 8.4

10

32

35

22

12

18

129

512.9

877.7

4,114.7

328.5

224.7

724.3

6,783.1

7.56

12.94

60.66

4.84

3.31

10.67

100

4.17

18.89

25.04

18.98

12.13

20.77

100

4.24

9.87

60.07

5.45

4.41

15.95

100

IPRI 2015(Score Ranges)

Number ofCountries

Population(millions)

Population(%)

IPRI Incidencein Total Score

(%)

IPRI PopulationIncidence in

Total Score (%)

TABLE 1: IPRI AND POPULATION

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).

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.

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.

FIGURE 6Income Groups Score

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.

OCEANIA NORTHAMERICA

EUROPEANUNION

REST OFEUROPE ASIA CENTRAL AMERICA

AND THE CARIBBEANSOUTH

AMERICA AFRICA

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

GE IPRI - GE

CASE STUDIES

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

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

Over the past year the Institute for Liberty

and Democracy (ILD) has been reviewing its

archives as a reminder of the great success it

has had in Peru. The ILD managed to steer Peru

away from the dangerous path to state induced

violence and towards economic prosperity and

freedom. The Peruvian elite denied people

access to property and business rights based on

the assumption that the poor and uneducated

were incapable of economic contribution. The

ILD helped distinguish between those who

wanted to be included in the economic system

(DECAS) and those who supported radical

terrorism. Reforms to the economy proposed

and defended by the ILD allowed business

registration to decrease from 278 days to 1 day

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

388,000 new businesses and 558,000 new jobs

were created. Terrorists could no longer find

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.

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

By Wagner Lenhart, Instituto Liberdade

Property rights are protected as among the

fundamental rights in the Brazilian Constitution.

However such recognition is made with

exceptions, and these rights are relativized by

several mechanisms of state intervention in

the private domain. This study analyzes the

“social function” of property, a conception of

the public interest in property that limits and

relativizes property rights in the Brazilian legal

system. The social function of property has

been understood by many Brazilian scholars

and judges as an advancement in the realm of

property rights. The problem is that the social

function of property generates by its own

nature, a culture of devaluation and disrespect

of private assets, creates legal insecurity,

and results in repeated cases of arbitrary

conduct by public administrators. As a result, it

negatively affects the country’s economy. For

these reasons, the social function of property

can and should be questioned and rethought.

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

FIGURE 7GE and IPRI-GE Groups of Countries

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

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

By Dr. Buğra Kalkan, Association forLiberal Thinking

A decentralized free market relies heavily

on the implementation of a strong system of

property rights. Turkey was never a communist

state but shared some common features.

Turkey created state owned Import-Substitute

Industries (ISI) from 1930 to 1980 in order

to match the industrialization of western

countries. ISI industrialized Turkey faster than

the free market could have, but governmental

organizations turned into a rent-seeking

mechanism that corrupted the political system

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

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.

Case Study on Sweden. Property Rights Report – Sweden 2015

By Dr. Björn Hasselgren & Patrick Krassén, Timbro

Protection of property rights in Sweden has

solid support in the Instrument of Government

and in general civil law. When it comes to

expropriation of land, the rights of private

property owners have been strengthened

during the most recent years. As regards

the protection of IP rights and the freedom

to pursue for-profit business activities,

fundamental constitutional law also provides

solid protection. At the same time, there are

some worrying signs of developments that

weaken property rights protection in the

above mentioned areas in Sweden. Conflicting

principles between private and public interests

in relation to land-value capture and the

protection of property rights have not been

resolved. Far-reaching limitations on the use

of trademarks and proposals to limit the right

to pursue business with profit motivations in

certain sectors additionally present challenges

seemingly in conflict with constitutional

rights. These worrying signs motivate further

monitoring from a property rights protection

perspective.

WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG WWW.INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

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

According to the Rockefeller foundation,

women’s property rights are the most insecure

in the MENA region, South Asia and Sub-

Saharan Africa. Women in the MENA, as well as

in the other regions above, lack secure property

rights for three major reasons as summarized

by the foundation: lack of formal legal property

rights, lack of the ability to exercise existing

property rights, and lack of property rights

due to customary laws and cultural norms. The

case study aims at analyzing the situation of

women’s property rights in the MENA region

on the basis of a “comprehensive” definition

of property rights accounting for women’s

property. It identifies and illustrates the

obstacles that limit their access to property,

the interplay between those, and suggests

possible venues for change. The paper focuses

on the issues related to women’s ownership

of land, and access to and control of financial

assets.

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

There is a vast difference across ASEAN in the

scores for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

with the best performing ASEAN country,

Singapore (5th) and the worst performing

ASEAN country, Vietnam (85th). Free Trade

Agreements (FTAs) and Economic Partnership

Agreements (EPAs) such as the Trans-Pacific

Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and European

Union FTAs have exerted pressure on ASEAN

to increase protection of IPR. However, there

is as of yet no definite ASEAN IPR Action Plan

to succeed the existing plan which runs only

through 2015. In order to ensure that ASEAN

countries can benefit from a robust IP system,

ASEAN member states should encourage

competitive and deregulated economies and

ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

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 property

rights encompasses both the definition and

protection of new ideas, applied to industry.

It originally developed together with the

industrial revolution, first in the single countries

and later with international conventions. With

the advent of globalisation, however, it has

become apparent that there are many gaps in

the protection of ideas and innovation afforded

by legislation, and in fact development

on a global scale has brought with it the

“poisoned fruit” of increased opportunity for

counterfeiting. The huge and easy profits from

counterfeiting have attracted organised crime,

with a consequent need for standardised

protection and continuous updating of the

remedial measures. While the EU is still limited

in its action in this sphere, some national legal

systems are already reacting. Italy, for its part,

in 2009 introduced new probative tools and

also effective precautionary measures to be

implemented before trial. From the perspective

of the criminal code, the law today gives

stronger protection, not only of trademarks

and patents but of a company’s entire heritage

of know-how, and the action taken by damaged

companies and their defence counsels is more

incisive.

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

is contingent upon two interdependent

components. First, private property is essential

for freedom and personal development.

Second, God has destined the goods of the

earth to benefit all people and nations. Failure

to appreciate both aspects of private property

leads to either laissez-faire capitalism or the

all-encompassing state, what Pius XI called

the “twin rocks of shipwreck.” Such teaching

calls for asceticism and detachment, and the

rejection of private property among some of its

members, recalling the fact that the apostles

of the early Church held property in common.

The ever-expanding secular powers of kings,

emperors and lords eventually led the Church

to have to define property rights to keep the

state at bay. Saint Thomas Aquinas declared

while it is natural for individuals to own things,

God as Creator is the ultimate owner of all

goods of the earth. Through ownership and

work the human person can glorify God in all

things, while being prudent to make sure what

one has does not prevent another from being.

The relationship between the human being

and property is best understood as a steward:

the person has the responsibility to treat his

property as Christ would, never forgetting that

God is the true owner of all in this world.