IPR and Innovation 39, Recent IP developments in CN, TW, KR, ID

Reposting these news stories collated by PRA, enjoy.
-----------

China launches campaign to protect IPRs of foreign companies

China.org.cn, September 19, 2017

The Chinese government has begun a campaign to protect the intellectual property rights (IPR) of foreign companies.

The campaign will focus on malicious trademark registration and imitation of foreign brands, the Ministry of Commerce said Monday, citing a joint action plan by 12 government departments.

From September to December, the campaign will also target infringement of online IPRs, patent rights and plant variety rights, as well as industrial espionage, according to the plan.

IP in the Cloud: the China Perspective

Lexology, October 20, 2017

China is in the middle of a rapid shift towards cloud technologies. Execution of the 13th Five Year Plan will deliver substantial investment into cloud computing and the sector is undergoing unprecedented growth. Meanwhile, organisations operating in this digital economy face an increasingly complex intellectual property (IP) environment, as China becomes a global IP center and scales up IP protection, enforcement and penalties for infringement. Indeed, the number of cloud-related IP lawsuits in China grew 158% between 2011 and 2016. Against this backdrop, organisations face an important question: how can they take advantage of the enormous opportunities presented by the cloud in a way that manages this complex IP landscape? In this post, Matt Pollins and Nick Beckett from CMS look at the practical steps organisations can take to protect themselves and succeed in the cloud. 

Taiwan approves major amendment to protect trademarks at the border

World Trademark Review, September 26, 2017

A major amendment in Taiwan to the regulations governing customs border measures will play a key part in protecting trademarks. The measures allow the owner of a trademark registered in Taiwan to file an application with Customs to have the trademark recorded on its database enabling Customs to seize counterfeits when it inspects imported or exported goods ex officio. The legal basis for this mechanism is rooted in the Regulations Governing Customs Measures in Protecting the Rights and Interests of Trademark, which is enacted pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Trademark Act.

S.Korea urges DPRK not to violate property rights in closed inter-Korean factory complex

XinhuaNet, October 10, 2017

South Korea's unification ministry on Tuesday urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) not to violate property rights owned by South Korean companies which had operated factories in the currently closed inter-Korean industrial complex.

US presses India on IP protection, market access and trade barriers

The Economic Times, October 27, 2017

Seeking to achieve a "more balanced" trade relationship, the Trump administration has pressed India on key issues like market access, lifting of trade barriers and intellectual property protection. During the first US-India bilateral Trade Policy Forum (TPF) under the Trump administration which was attended by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Suresh Prabhu, India strongly differed with the American position on many of the contentious issues.

India Taking Steps to Strengthen Intellectual Property Rights

PRA

During a meeting in New Delhi last week, Indian Commerce & Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu announced how "extremely important" it is for India to protect intellectual property rights. Minister Prabhu noted that the Indian economy has undergone robust changes during recent decades and is now a leader in innovation and developing technologies.

-------------- 

See also:

IPR and Innovation 36, Plain packaging from tobacco and soon to soft drinks, alcohol, ice cream products, May 31, 2017 

IPR and innovation 37, US-China dispute on IP, September 17, 2017

IPR and Innovation 38, Recent IP development in some ASEAN countries, October 24, 2017

BWorld 153, Property rights, trademarks and consumer protection

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last September 18, 2017.

Private property rights that people and businesses enjoy are among the cornerstones of a free and dynamic society. People have exclusive rights on what to do with their private properties — use them, sell, rent out, or donate.

However, when rights to private property — both physical and intangible assets — are unprotected, society can quickly degenerate into disorder. As a result, consumers will be unable to recognize which among manufacturers and service providers are trustworthy and which are suspicious.

Measuring the extent of property rights protection across many countries is done annually by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA), a Washington DC-based think tank. It produces the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) annually and partners with independent, nongovernment, and market-oriented think tanks and institutes from many countries.

IPRI is derived by getting the score (1 to 10, 10 being the highest) of each country covered in three major areas:

1. Legal and Political Environment (LP), covers judicial independence, rule of law, control of corruption, and political stability of a country or economy.

2. Physical Property Rights (PPR), includes registration and protection of physical properties, access to loans.

3. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), includes protection of patents, trademarks and brand, and copyrights.

Countries with high scores in two or all three of these areas will have a high IPRI overall score and global rank (see table).

Among the important insights in the above numbers are: One, the more developed the economies are like Singapore and Japan, the higher the IPRI score and global rank. Which implies that as private property is better recognized and protected, there are more economic activities and innovations that occur.

Two, the Philippines experienced some improvement in its global rank, from 77th out of 131 countries in the 2013 report. It rose to 64 out of 127 countries in 2017. Its low score in legal and political environment was compensated by its high score in physical property rights.

One emerging issue in IPR non-protection is plain packaging (PP) of tobacco products purportedly for health reasons. Besides being slapped with high taxes, tobacco products also feature graphic warnings on packaging. Advertising tobacco products have also been restricted and smoking in may areas have been disallowed, which are part of several moves to deter people from lighting up.

These have been tried in many countries but smoking incidence does not seem to significantly decline as people shift to cheaper and often, illegal, illicit products. So the next step is to prohibit the use of a tobacco brand, logo, or trademark. This has been done in Australia and there are plans to introduce legislation in Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan.

This plan does not appear to be right because a brand or logo of a company represents how effective it is in developing consumer loyalty and service. Imagine also if all ice cream, all soft drinks, all beer, all wine, etc. will simply be labeled as “ice cream,” “soda,” “beer,” etc. with no brand recognition of who produced or manufactured the products.

Or all government departments and agencies (DoH, DoF, DPWH, NEDA, etc.) will lose their logo and will simply have a generic brand “Philippine government,” it would not seem right.

I have never been a smoker nor have I been a fan of smoking but was once a fan of tobacco ads in cycling or in the F1 race. But I will not recommend the scrapping of a brand or trademark of companies in a particular industry. People who hate the companies should attack them as such and they may even use the company brand for their attacks.

Intellectual property rights like medicine patents, song copyrights, company brand or trademarks, play an important role of recognizing efficiency and innovation. Consumers look up to these brands and decide which ones to support and patronize and which ones to reject based on their specific needs and interests.

Governments therefore, should respect and protect these IPRs the same way it should respect and protect physical private properties. Moreover, people own their bodies and not the state nor NGOs.

After rising taxes, health warnings, and business regulations are in place, governments should leave individuals and allow them to seek their own happiness without harming other people.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers, which is a member of EFN Asia and the Property Rights Alliance (PRA).

---------------

See also:

BWorld 150, Rising state-inspired murders and budget 2018, September 18, 2017 

BWorld 151, Mining taxes per hectare of land, September 22, 2017 
BWorld 152, Cronyism in Renewable energy, gas sectors? September 23, 2017

BWorld 81, Property rights are human rights

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last August 25, 2016.

Private property and its protection is among the cornerstones of a free society. It bestows upon the individuals, households and enterprises exclusive rights what to do with their private property like a car or a piece of land -- use it, sell it, rent it out, or donate it.

When private property rights are unprotected, society can quickly degenerate into chaos and disorder. Gangs and bullies can confiscate other people’s houses, cars, or shops, and the enterprising people will flee and escape such society and only the lazy, bullies, and opportunists will stay.

Measuring property rights protection across many countries has been done by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA), a Washington DC-based think tank. It produces the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) annual reports and partners with independent, nongovernment and market-oriented think tanks and institutes from many countries around the world in spreading the philosophy and measurement of protecting private property rights.

The IPRI 2016 Report was released in partnership with 102 independent think tanks from 70 countries and it was launched on Aug. 10, 2016 in Delhi, India.

PRA Executive Director, Lorenzo Montanari summarized the value of this exercise:

“Property rights are the linchpin of a prosperous society. They say what is yours, what is not, and how to exchange with others in order to create value... that is why they are human rights and essential to individual liberty.”

IPRI is derived by getting the score (1 to 10, 10 being the highest) of each country covered in three major areas:

(1) Legal and Political Environment (LP), which covers judicial independence, rule of law, control of corruption and political stability of a country or economy.

(2) Physical Property Rights (PPR), which includes registration and protection of physical properties, access to loans.

(3) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), that includes IPR protection, especially patents and copyrights.

Thus, countries with high scores in two or all three of these areas will have a high IPRI overall score and global rank.

Below are the scores and global rank of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries and their neighbors in the region. Three ASEAN countries -- Brunei, Cambodia, and Laos -- were not included in the IPRI annual reports, mainly for lack of reliable data for comparative purposes. Myanmar was included only starting 2015.

The table show the following:

1. The more developed the economy is (Singapore, New Zealand, Japan,...), the higher the IPRI score and global rank. Which implies that as private property is better recognized and protected, there are more economic activities that occur.

2. Emerging markets of the ASEAN except Thailand have improving global rankings: Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. The decline in Thailand’s ranking coincided with the rise of the military leadership there.

3. The Philippines experienced the biggest improvement among the emerging markets in the region, from 77th in 2013 it rose to 64th in 2016. Its overall score of 5.15 in 2016 is a result of its low score in LP of only 4.15 but compensated by its high score of 6.07 in PPR, while its IPR score in IPR was a modest 5.23.

The continuing uncertainties in human rights protection due to the ongoing extrajudicial killings (EJKs) related to the drugs war of the Duterte administration may have some negative repercussion in the country’s future low scores and position in rule of law and judicial independence. These two are part of the Legal and Political environment (LP). There is danger of a possible decline in the Philippines’ overall IPRI score and global rank if these uncertainties continue for long.

The main functions, the raison d’etre or reason for existence of governments are to enforce the rule of law, to protect the citizens’ right to life (against aggressors, murderers, rapists, etc.), right to private property (against thieves and destroyers of properties), and right to liberty (against censorship, bullies and despots).

Private property rights as human rights are good incentives for the people to become productive citizens and stay away from being dependent on state welfare. Governments should stay the course in securing this philosophy and veer away from forcing equality by penalizing the hard working with high, multiple taxes, fees and permits.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the President of Minimal Government Thinkers and a SEANET Fellow. Both institutes are among the 102 independent organizations and partners of PRA in producing the IPRI 2016 Report. minimalgovernment@gmail.com

---------------- 

See also: 

BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015 

BWorld 45, Asia Liberty Forum and property rights, February 29, 2016

BWorld 78, If the US becomes protectionist, who loses? August 11, 2016 
BWorld 79, Brownouts, coal power and the electricity market, August 21, 2016 

BWorld 80, Declining share of agriculture in GDP, September 11, 2016

Fat-Free Econ 5: Property Rights and Policy Lefts, April 04, 2012

IPR and Innovation 30, More on IPRI 2015 launching in KL last year, February 01, 2016

ALF 8, Toast to Douglas North

During the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) last February 18-20, 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, one session at the Freedom Dinner was a toast to the "Lost Heroes of Liberty". These are known free market and freedom leaders who passed away in 2015, and few years ago in the case of Aslam Effendi. Baishali Boomjan of the Center for Civil Society (CCS, India), among the key organizers of the conference, asked me to be one of the presenters, I accepted.

The presenters that night and the lost heroes they briefly discussed (about 3 minutes toast) were:

Kumar Anand: S. V. Raju

Nonoy Oplas: Douglas C. North

Manoj Mathew: Sharad Joshi

Deependra Chaulagaon: Bhola Nath Chalise

Tom Palmer: Whitney Ball

Terry Kibbe: Andrew Coulson

Ali Salman: Aslam Effendi​

Below was my short discussion about

Douglas North’s contribution to free market economics

Douglass North was an American economic historian who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics with Robert Fogel. The Prize was given “for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.”

He died on November 23, 2015 at age 95.” Fogel died in 2013.

North asked how it is that some countries rich while others remained poor. Thus his contribution was he “Shed new light on the economic development in Europe and the United States before and in connection with the industrial revolution. He emphasized the role of property rights and institutions.”

According to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, North "has pointed out that economic, political and social factors must be taken into account if we are to understand the development of those institutions that have played a role for economic growth and how these institutions have been affected by ideological and non-economic factors."

In the 70s, North advanced the notion that institutional structures, especially how property rights are handled within a society, made a considerable difference in that society's economic well-being. Institutions are the basic rules of the road in an economy, including formal systems, such as constitutions, laws, taxation, insurance, and market regulations, as well as informal norms of behavior, such as habits, customs, and ideologies. This field of study came to be called “the new institutional economics.”

North showed that England and the Netherlands industrialized more quickly because the guild system, which imposed restrictions on entry and work practices in various occupations, was weaker in those two countries than in other European countries.

Let me illustrate North’s contribution with this graph.

Property rights are among the key words of D. North's ideas. "Property lefts" is just my invention to highlight the importance of property rights protection.

I don't have any picture in that session. Anyway, the session was followed by a Freedom Speech by Parth Shah, President of CCS. He discussed about individual's political choice in the government budgeting system.

-------------

See also:

ALF 5, Meeting of Property Rights Alliance in KL, February 19, 2016 

ALF 6, Panel discussion on property rights, February 23, 2016

ALF 7, Panel on TPP, RCEP and other RTAs, March 18, 2016

IPR and Innovation 33, More on the panel on property rights, ALF 2016

Reposting this report by Yogi Nair, a summary of the panel discussion on property rights.
-----------

Event report –Protecting Yourself Against Daylight Robbery – Current Challenges to PropertyRights

(Session sponsored by the Property Rights Alliance)

Saturday, 20 February 2016, Asia Liberty Forum 2016

Chair: Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia (holding the microphone in this photo)

Speakers (left to right, photo)

– Lorenzo Montanari, Property Rights Alliance, USA

– Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India

– Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, Institute of Future Studies for Development, Thailand

– Julian Morris, Reason Foundation, USA

Mr Lorenzo Montanari from Property Rights Alliance (PRA) began the session by proclaiming that “property rights are human rights.” PRA helps develop the International Property Rights Index (IPRI), which ranks countries according to the level of protection which is afforded to physical and intellectual property. Based on the IPRI, Mr Montanari demonstrated the significant correlation between stronger property rights protection with greater economic growth rates and average income levels.

Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, spoke about the connection between the lack of property rights protection with the prevalence of poverty. Mr Barun said that poverty in India is so widespread, because there are insufficient laws to protect the rights of the poor. As a result, the poor are often unable to capitalise on their assets. India’s original constitution recognised property as a fundamental constitutional right. Unfortunately, in 1978, this provision was removed.

In advocating for stronger property rights, Mr Barun encourages local communities to develop a spirit of entrepreneurship on their own. These include the cultivation of their own land and construction of new community buildings. Such initiatives do much to ameliorate the ill effects of weak property rights for the poor in India. “Let’s make intellectual property rights the issue of the century.”

With a particular focus on intellectual property, Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak spoke next about the reasons why developing countries often lag behind developed ones. These include high levels of corruption, poor enforcement of laws, and incompetence of public servants in government institutions when dealing with intellectual property rights issues. As a result of such deficiencies, vibrant innovation is often missing from developing nations, as many would-be innovators see no prospect of maintaining ownership over their work.

One solution that Dr Kriengsak proposes is that governments include private research as public goods. He opines that this will persuade governments to appreciate innovation, because they are paying for it. This would also prevent ‘stealing’ from other countries and competitors through legal processes. More importantly, such a strategy will also give the poor equal access to those intellectual resources.

In the final segment of this panel discussion, Julian Morris of Reason Foundation examined the importance of trademarks. He said that trademarks matter, as it facilitates identification and helps protect consumers against fraud. Furthermore, trademarks enable more effective product differentiation, thus helping producers build stronger reputations – which in turn drives innovation that improves quality and efficiency.

Mr Morris also pointed out that trademarks are immensely valuable; the top ten trademarks in the world alone are worth over half a trillion dollars. In recent times however, trademarks have come under threat. Inappropriate classifications may result in the registration of identical trademarks by different producers for identical goods. Weak enforcement has also lead to mass theft of trademarks by local producers in developing countries, such as in the case of Lacoste’s famous crocodile. Results from poor enforcement can sometimes be deadly, particularly in the case of counterfeit medicines.

Mr Morris said that such threats can be resolved through a more refined classification system worldwide, the legislation of harsher punishments for violations of trademarks, and the removal of regulations that undermine trademarks, such as plain packaging.

(Prepared by Yohannan "Yogi" Nair)

-------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 29, Civil society enforcement of patents, copyrights, January 18, 2016

IPR and Innovation 30, Patents and pharma issues in Asia in 2007, February 07, 2016 
IPR and Innovation 31, Plain packaging and trademark-busting, February 19, 2016
IPR and Innovation 32, On TPP, medicines patent and tobacco trademark, February 29, 2016

BWorld 45, Asia Liberty Forum and property rights, February 20, 2016

ALF 6, Panel discussion on property rights, February 23, 2016

BWorld 45, Asia Liberty Forum and property rights

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.

 The classical liberal philosophy of more individual freedom and more personal/parental responsibility, free market and less government intervention and taxation is not a popular personal and political philosophy in Asia yet, at least compared to similar movements in the US and Europe.

So annual events like the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference, and now the Asia Liberty Forum (ALF), are very helpful in asserting the virtues of classical liberal, aka “libertarian” or “free market” philosophy. This concept is vastly different from other labels like “neo-liberal” and “US conservatism”.

The three-day 4th ALF event is held here in Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This is a huge international event from Feb. 18-20 with many participants from Asia, US, and Europe. The main sponsors of this year’s conference are the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Washington DC, the Center for Civil Society (CCS) in Delhi, India, and the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) in Malaysia.

Among the important panel discussions in the conference will be on “Protecting Yourself Against Daylight Robbery -- Current Challenges to Property Rights” on Day 3. The session will be chaired by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, CEO of IDEAS Malaysia. The speakers will be (1) Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, India; (2) Kriengsak Chareonwongsak of the Institute of Future Studies for Development, Thailand; (3) Julian Morris of Reason Foundation, USA; and (4) Lorenzo Montanari of Property Rights Alliance (PRA), Washington DC, USA.

The protection of private property rights is among the hallmarks of a free and dynamic society. If other people can say that “Your car is also mine; your house is also mine; your farm is also mine. I can enter and use them anytime I want,” then society can easily degenerate into chaos and disorder. No meaningful economic growth and social development can happen in this type of environment.

The PRA has developed the annual International Property Rights Index (IPRI). The index is composite for a country’s performance in three areas: (a) legal and political environment, (b) physical property rights protection, and (c) intellectual property rights (IPR) protection. The scores range from 1 (poorest) to 10 (best).

I made a short study about the performance of some ASEAN countries in terms of property rights protection covering eight years from 2008 to 2015. Singapore and Malaysia continue to have high scores overall in property rights protection. The Philippines made a modest improvement in its global ranking, from 87th in 2011 and 2012 (out of 130 countries), it jumped to 77th in 2013 and 65th out of 129 countries in 2015.

If we observe the Philippines, the bulk of property rights protection -- in malls and shops, hotels and restaurants, banks and condos, schools and universities, airports and seaports, etc. -- is heavily privatized through the tens of thousands of private security agencies. It is not the police or army or barangay security personnel who guard and protect these businesses and residential, commercial areas, despite the huge and multiple taxes and fees that people pay to the government annually.

And this is an indicator that governments often forget their main purpose, their raison d’etre, which is the protection of the people’s right to life (against bullies and murderers), right to private property (against thieves, vandals and destroyers of property) and right to self-expression (against dictators). To have a rule of law.

When governments are busy giving away endless welfarism and subsidies, collecting endless taxes and fees, imposing endless regulations and restrictions, running banks, casinos, TV stations, and other businesses, there is a tendency to set aside its rule of law function and it is unfortunate.

Government should be big enough in enforcing laws on private property and citizens protection, and it should be small enough in intervening too much in the people’s daily lives, hence requiring small and few taxes to sustain itself.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. heads the Minimal Government Thinkers, a member of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia, and a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET). minimalgovernment@gmail.com

---------------

See also:

BWorld 42, World inequality, Oxfam and bad mathematics, February 11, 2016

BWorld 43, More on WESM, PEMC and DOE, February 14, 2016

BWorld 44, Why the Philippines should join the TPP, February 19, 2016 
ALF 5, Meeting of Property Rights Alliance in KL, February 19, 2016

IPR and Innovation 30, More on IPRI 2015 launching in KL last year

I am reposting this article from the Property Rights Index (PRA, Washington DC) last year, about the launching of IPRI 2015 in Kuala Lumpur that I attended. The photos I added and not part of the original PRA article.
-----------

2015 International Property Rights Index

Monday, November 16, 2015 | By Dennis Cakert

The 2015 International Property Rights Index (IPRI) was officially launched this morning in Kuala Lampur, hosted by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Director of Southeast Asia Network for Development (SEANET). Today featured an introduction to the IPRI given by the Executive Director of the Property Rights Alliance, Lorenzo Montanari, followed by a presentation on this year’s findings by the 2014-2015 Hernando De Soto Fellow, Prof. Sary Levy Carciente….

Lorenzo Montanari released this statement earlier this morning:

“The 2015 IPRI emphasizes the necessity of property rights for creating a free market and driving economic growth” said Lorenzo Montanari, Executive Director of the Property Rights Alliance, “but we also recognize that property rights are first of all a matter of human rights. Property rights are directly related to the values and principles of individual liberty. The special case studies in this year’s edition demonstrate the importance of property rights for women and the poor in developing countries. This year data was available in countries where it was previously not, which is a good sign for future improvement. There are now 129 countries included in the analysis, up from 97 countries in last year’s edition. Countries that had strong property rights systems experienced significantly higher GDP per capita. In the EU, for example, IP accounts for 26 percent of employment and 39 percent of GDP. Societies undoubtedly achieve greater societal development by protecting property rights of authors, entrepreneurs, artists, innovators and inventors.”

There was also a presentation from Ganesh Muren, founder of Saora Industries, a Malaysian Innovative Social Enterprise that specializes in delivering safe and clean drinking water to rural and marginalised communities. Saora has innovated a proprietary solar powered water purification system that is able to purify any surface water (e.g. river water, rain water, pond) to safe clean drinking water through nanotechnology. The competitive advantage of Saora is their intellectual property. They have developed proprietary nanotechnology that replaces the usage of UV light to kill and eliminate bacteria and viruses. The affordability of this new technology developed by Saora makes it appealing and reachable to the poor, those at the “bottom of the pyramid”.

Mr. Burhan Irwan Cheong, Malaysia’s Lead Negotiator for the IP Chapter, Ministry for Domestic Trade, Cooperatices, and Consumerism, presented on the Intellectual Property Chapter in the TPPA and how it will implement a fair and transparent patent system in member countries. Young entrepreneurs like Ganesh Muren is a perfect example about how the TPPA will contribute to protecting the patent on his water purification system. Without the certainty of the rule of law, innovation does not exist.

Lastly, Bienvenido Oplas Jr., President of Minimal Government Thinkers in the Philippines and a SEANET Senior Fellow, presented his economic analysis on the benefits of the TPP for trade. His extensive research showed that if the Philippines joins the TPP, exports are expected to rise 48 percent and real GDP will increase 61 percent. He also spoke regarding the importance of property rights to maintain order in society, while debunking the myth that IP hurts public health, proving instead that government taxation of medicine is the real problem.

------------

Afternoon of that day, Dr. Sary Levy was interviewed in Bloomberg TV Malaysia, live. The place is outside KL proper.

The interviewer was a pretty and very articulate lady.

Among the footages shown while Prof. Levy was speaking. It's Wan, the CEO of IDEAS and Director of SEANET.

------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 26, Countries with most patent applications, most innovative universities, September 19, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 27, India strengthening its IP protection, September 30, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 28, Recent IP development in Singapore, October 10, 2015

IPR and Innovation 29, Civil society enforcement of patents, copyrights, January 18, 2016

BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015

Free Trade 57, Growth, IPRI 2015 and the TPP, November 28, 2015

Pol. Ideology 62, Marx and Hayek on Property Rights

Nearly six years ago, I presented this paper in a seminar on "Freedom and Property" in Manila, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Philippine Office.

Yeah, I recalled my UP student activism days in the 80s, when the Maoist Nat-Dems were the dominant leftist groups, but our small group dissociated with their ideology as we read more Marx and Lenin, not Mao Tse Tung :-) I re-read portions of "Das Kapital"  and "The Communist Manifesto" in making that presentation.

Recognizing the mistakes of Marx' analysis contributed why I abandoned the Marxist ideology. And later embraced the philosophies of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Mises, etc.

Property Rights Alliance's (PRA) annual IPRI Reports are good materials in the study of how countries and economies respect or disrespect private property ownership and control, both physical and intellectual property.

My first published article in BusinessWorld was in November 2007. (This year I have two articles already in that newspaper, a 3rd article coming up this Friday :-))

The full text and presentation is available in my slideshare page.

I posted this paper because next week, I will be a reactor to a mainly socialist paper presentation on "Alternative Economic System", with a largely socialist audience. No problem with me, I don't evade any debate, civil debate. Excitng.

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 58: Democracy, Coercion and Civil Society, November 29, 2014 

Pol. Ideology 59: On PostModern Politics, December 14, 2014 

Pol. Ideology 60: Lecture in Nepal on Liberalism, Rule of Law, Civil Society, January 13, 2015 

Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015

Agri Econ 11: Protecting Land Properties by the Poor in India

Another good article from my friend Barun Mitra (2nd from right in photo) of Liberty Institute in India, co-authored with his wife Madhumita Mitra, posted before the on-going India general elections started early this month.

I particularly like their point on 

"Abolish land ceiling laws, particularly in agriculture to facilitate consolidation such fragmented land into viable farm units."

That is similar to the campaign to end the no-time table agrarian reform (AR) program and forced redistribution of agri land here in the Philippines. AR was started in 1972 by the Marcos government, then a new law on AR in 1988 during Pres. Cory Aquino’s time with 10-years time table. The 1998 deadline came, and AR was extended to 2008. And further extended to June 2014. Now there are moves to further extend it for many years more.

-----------

Recognising Right to Property: An agenda for reforming land related laws and policies

India’s land management regime has for decades been mired in obsolete laws and misguided policies that distort markets, enable corruption, and deny fundamental property rights. Current land policies are a mix of outdated laws and even more obsolete ways of thinking, many of which are rooted in colonial India.

The paradox is best illustrated by the fact that many landowners, including farmers, would like to move out of agriculture, but cannot find remunerative price for their land assets, while industrialists and investors who would like to buy land cannot find access to land at a reasonable price. Tens of billions of dollars of investment, in public and private projects have been stalled due to land related conflicts. This land alienation is also contributing to a section of society sympathising with leftwing insurgency in some parts of India.

Land is the only asset that most Indians, even the poorest, possess to at least some degree, but technicalities often prevent them from claiming legal ownership over what they possess. A functioning land market founded on strong property rights would expand the opportunities for economic advancement for those who possess land, empowering them as citizens in a democratic India. Such a market would also allow those with wealth to access and invest in property and engage with land owners in mutually-beneficial transactions, rather than trying to use their waning political influence to access land.

The 16th General Elections to the Indian Parliament, the House of the People, (Lok Sabha), is being held thro’ April-May 2014. A new government will take office by the end of May. Reforming land management will be a key factor shaping the political and economic trajectory of the country. In that context, we suggest the following agenda items, which may be considered by the incoming government, and the country at large, in the coming months and years.

§  Clearly articulate the need to create a functioning land market which will significantly reduce the need to invoke eminent domain.

§  Partner with private, community and public-sector stakeholders to build a modern land recordkeeping infrastructure based on GIS and other imaging technologies.

§  Abolish land ceiling laws, particularly in agriculture to facilitate consolidation such fragmented land into viable farm units.

§  Eliminate capital gains tax. In a poor country, taxing capital is self-defeating.

§  Drastically reduce or eliminate fees and taxes that impede land transactions and increase the potential for corruption, replacing them with a nominal fee to cover only the administrative costs of keeping up-to-date land records.

§  Transfer authority over land-related regulation such as zoning, land use and environmental concerns, to local governments and councils.

§  The scope of eminent domain needs to be severely restricted to truly public purposes, and with the consent of those affected, not to facilitate private investment and business projects.

§  Recognise the land owners rights over forest and other environmental resources, including minerals, whether above or below the ground.

§  A new mines and mineral law, which recognises the rights of land owners and communities, and allow them to directly negotiate access and royalty with investors, is much awaited.

§  A land titling law to grant conclusive title guarantee to land owners is imperative. Property transfers must legally validate transfer of titles rather than merely enabling registration of the deed.

§  Restoration of Right to Property as a fundamental right in the Constitution.

----------

See also:

Agri Econ 7: Bt Eggplants vs Environmentalism, December 20, 2010 

Agri Econ 8: On Rice Price Stabilization, January 16, 2013 
Agri Econ 9: On Agrarian Reform and Agri Credit, April 29, 2013 
Agri Econ 10: On Rice Price Spikes, September 29, 2013

EFN Asia 33: Bibek Debroy on Property Rights

Among the key members and personalities within the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia is Prof. Bibek Debroy, a famous free market economist at the Center for Policy Research, India. Below are some interesting quotes from him when he was interviewed in 2008 by EFN staff.

source: http://issuu.com/efnasia/docs/link_2_2_2009/10 

Amen, Bibek. He has been a friend of mine since September 2007 when I first met him here in Manila during the IPN-MG conference on innovation and public health. He was among the three speakers of high international exposure that day.

Below is a portion of his article, "Democracy vs. Socialism", published at the Economic Times, India. on September 04, 2010.

… Take the devolution agenda that any incoming coalition is bound to support. Most stuff one wants government to spend on is in social sectors. These are state, municipal or panchayat subjects.

Why not transfer funds directly to states, and lower down, scrapping the central sector and centrally-sponsored schemes? At best, there can be a menu of options the states can spend on….

Let all other devolution be formulae-based, without indicators for deprivation. Following the same line of argument, let forest and environmental clearances be decided by states. Let the ministry of environment and forests become irrelevant, except for international negotiations. Let there be decentralised identification of poor families and make the Planning Commission irrelevant.

Let’s make oil pricing market-determined. Policy paralysis and governance deficits, more important than current account and fiscal deficits, have been caused by Delhi. Let’s make Delhi irrelevant, even if the Seventh Schedule cannot immediately be amended. Friedrich Hayek correlated socialism and dictatorship. Though we are stuck with the Preamble, we can invoke democracy and demolish Delhi’s dictatorship….

Nor is foreign direct investment the key. If make Delhi irrelevant is one strand, make the world irrelevant is another. Let’s fix the domestic supplyside. Let’s reform agricultural markets and ensure inter-state movements of agricultural produce. If we fix the domestic problems, growth and investments will revive. So will manufacturing and exports.

This isn’t a pension, banking, insurance and Industrial Disputes Act agenda. Idon’t see why any incoming government should refuse to accept these two strands. All it requires is an acceptance of making itself less important and converting Centre-state (which is not an expression in the Constitution) to Union-state (which is one). Democracy, thus defined, is the best antidote to the dictatorship of socialism inflicted on us."

Amen, once again.

-----------

See also:

EFN Asia 29: Speakers in Day 1, Conference 2013 in Bangkok, October 21, 2013 

EFN Asia 30: Conference 2013, Day 1, October 23, 2013 

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013 

EFN Asia 32: Day 2 of Conference 2013 in Bangkok, November 09, 2013 

Socialized Healthcare 3: Free Market and Better Health, Sept. 22, 2010

Property Rights 6: IPRI 2013 Report

The International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2013 Report was released last week. Our think tank here in Manila, Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc. is the Philippine partner of the Property Rights Alliance (PRA, USA) in producing the annual IPRI.

There are many annual studies and reports measuring economic freedom, economic competitiveness and related concepts of countries, and ranking them. IPRI incorporates many of those factors and indicators, but it is focused on studying property rights and their protection worldwide.

IPRI is composed of three main indicators, which themselves have their own sub-indicators. And this makes the IPRI unique and useful.


For many governments that are stuck in the welfarist and central planning philosophy, they are characterized by soft or implicit disrespect, or less protection of private property rights. Since private property is among the cornerstones of a free society, disrespect of property rights is the path to socialism and dictatorship.

Here is the result of the 2013 IPRI, the ranking of 131 countries covered by the study. I separated the East and Southeast Asian economies for easier identification.

The Philippines ranked 77 out of 131 countries covered by the study. Not good for us.
 

And here's the score for the three components of IPRI by country. The Philippines scored poor in legal and political environment (LP), pulling the overall IPRI score.

The report made this observation:

... there is a positive relationship between economic development and strength of property rights regimes. In addition,this finding is also confirmed when looking closer to specific groups, such as different regions or different average household income groups.

Kudos to PRA for persistently producing this annual report.
----------

See also:
Property Rights 1: IPRI 2009 Report, March 02, 2009
Property Rights 2: IPRI 2010 Report, February 27, 2010
Property Rghts 3: IPRI 2011 Report, March 29, 2011
Property Rights 4: Trees, SM Baguio, Henry Sy and Twitter, April 12, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 5: Property Rights, Policy Lefts, April 04, 2012 
Property Rights 5: IPRI 2012 Report, April 18, 2012