IPRI 2016: Final Remarks
IX. Final Remarks
The 10th edition of the International Property Rights Index – IPRI 2016 - shows consistency with previous ones, arguing that the index is properly structured. In this sense, its follow-up in years ahead is a key to monitoring the performance of property rights systems and their relationships to societies’ prosperity; globally, regionally and by country.
Results suggest that countries with high IPRI scores and their components also show high income and high development levels, pointing to a positive relationship between a property rights regime and wellbeing.
In this edition we included a range of dimensions to be examined in conjunction with property rights. Our results show that the IPRI is strongly associated with economic and political opportunities within countries, as well as their social cohesion, human capabilities, innovative research and the ecosystem.
Each of these dimensions was evaluated using different items: production (per capita level and composition), investment, entrepreneurship ecosystem, human development, freedom of education, minorities’ inclusion, civic activism, intergroup cohesion, interpersonal safety and trust, social capital, number of researchers, number of papers, expenses in R&D and environmental performance. All the items showed a strongly positive association with the IPRI and its components.
This way, IPRI results can be used as guidelines for policy makers in different countries - as in multilateral or integration agreements to which they belong - to enhance their policies aimed at fostering development, defined as a multidimensional and synergic term.
IPRI-2016 includes 128 countries with an average score of 5.45, showing an increase of 0.1 points compared to 2015. This edition includes four countries (Benin, Ecuador, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Liberia) that were not in the IPRI-2015, although five countries had to be excluded (Puerto Rico, Angola, Burkina Faso, Libya and Yemen) due to the absence of enough information. We urge these and other countries not included in the index to increase their efforts in the availability of information so that in future editions they may be included.
Countries’ performances are quite dissimilar: we find countries with very high scores while others have very low ones. Once a country grasps a top position it mostly keeps it. However, as some countries improve, other may show a setback. We are glad to highlight the improvement of Cote d’Ivore (Ivory Coast). Even though its IPRI score is still low; it showed an increase of 0.509 points, an exceptionally positive change.
IPRI-2016 keeps the calculations of IPRI-GE and IPRI-POP given the importance of showing the impact of gender equality and countries’ demographic weight in analyzing property rights systems.
IPRI-GE was calculated for a total of 124 countries and the 2016 average score is 6.93/12 which results in an increase of 0.17 points compared to 2015.
IPRI-POP was calculated for the 128 countries, giving rise to a score of 5.28. This is due to the fact that 63% of world population lives in 44 countries with an IPRI between 4.5 and 5.4, insisting on the importance of fostering property rights systems in densely populated countries.
IPRI-2016 also included a cluster analysis, in order to gather countries into groups by their homogeneity. Therefore, the 128 countries were classified according to their values in the IPRI and its three components in three clusters. The analysis of clusters’ centroids and the countries by the boundaries between groups, yields important information about their characteristics and challenges. Cluster analysis also confirmed the consistency of the IPRI, since the assembled countries exhibited a high degree of homogeneity, showing the relevance of property rights systems shaping societies.
The regional and economic integration agreements included in the analysis showed heterogeneity concerning to property rights systems, as their country members belongs to more than one cluster. This presents special difficulties and challenges when coordinating or overtaking multilateral policies on the issue of property rights.