2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

COVERING 94% OF WORLD POPULATION AND 98% OF THE WORLD GDP

PROSPERITY FREEDOM INNOVATION

International
Property Rights
Index 2020
Executive Summary

Dr. Sary Levy-Carciente Lorenzo Montanari

Author, 2020 Hernando de Soto Fellow Editor

With A Special Case Study By Dr. Hernando De Soto:

The Case Of Peru: The Mystery Of Capital Among The Indigenous Peoples Of The Amazon

Contributions by:
Dr. Hernando de Soto • Jacques Jonker and Martin van Staden • Carlos Augusto Chacón Monsalve and María
Fernanda Gallego Ortiz • Philip Thompson and Mary Ann Cortese

1
 2020 IPRI Partner Organizations
INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

Afghanistan Economic and Legal Studies Organization, Afghanistan • Foundation for Economic Freedom, Albania • Fundación Atlas 1853, Argentina • Fundación Bases,
Argentina • Fundación Liberdad y Progreso, Argentina • Fundación Libertad, Argentina • Institute of Nations Development Foundation, Armenia • Institute for Public Affairs,
Australia • Mannkall Economic Education Foundation, Australia • My Choice, Australia • Austrian Economics Center, Austria • F.A. v. Hayek Institute, Austria • The Nassau
Institute, Bahamas • The European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), Belgium • For Free Choice Institute, Belgium • New Direction, Belgium • CPA, Bosnia and
Herzegovina • Multi, Bosnia and Herzegovia • Universidad Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia •Instituto Liberdade, Brazil • Centro Mackenzie de Liberdade Econômica,
Brazil •Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria • Centre Des Affaires Humaines (CEDAH), Burkina Faso • The Canada Strong and Free Network, Canada • Frontier Centre
for Public Policy, Canada • Macdonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, Canada • Institute for Advancing Prosperity, Canada • Ciudadano Austral, Chile • Fundación para
el Progreso, Chile • Libertad y Desarrollo, Chile • Instituto Res Publica, Chile • Cathay Institute of Public Affairs, 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 Especializado de Investigación y
Formación en Ciencias Jurídicas (OMG), Dominican Republic • Instituto Ecuatoriano de Economía Politica, Ecuador • The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies, Egypt •
Institute for Economic Studies Europe (IES), France • Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales (IREF), France • New Economic School, Georgia • Friedrich Naumann
Foundation, Germany • Institute for Free Enterprise, Germany • Prometheus - Das Freiheitsinstitut, Germany • IMANI Center for Policy and Education, Ghana • Greek Liberties
Monitor (GLM), Greece • Thought 4 Action, Greece • KEFiM - Center for Liberal Studies - Markos Dragoumis, Greece • CIEN, Guatemala • Fundación Eléutera, Honduras • The
Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong • Centre for Civil Society, India • Centre for Policy Research, India • Institute for Competitiveness, India • India Institute, India • India Property
Rights Alliance, India • Liberty Institute, India • Center for Indonesian Policy Studies, Indonesia • Iraq Institute for Economic Reform, Iraq • The Edmund Burke Institute, Ireland
• Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, Israel • Competere, Italy • Think-in, Italy • Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy • Pacific Alliance Institute, Japan • Institute for Development and
Economic Affairs (IDEA), Kazakhstan • Bishkek Business Club, Kyrgyz Republic • Central Asian Free Market Institute, Kyrgyz Republic • Lebanese Institute for Market Studies,
Lebanon • OHRID Institute for Economic Strategies and International Affairs, Macedonia • Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia • ASEAN Prosperity
Initiative (API), Malaysia/ASEAN • Caminos de la Libertad, Mexico • Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, Mexico • Instituto de Pensamiento Estratégico Ágora A.C.
(IPEA), Mexico • Fundación Idea, Mexico • Silk Road Foundation, Mongolia • Global Communication Network, 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 • Asociación de Contribuyentes del Peru, Peru • Contribuyentes por Respeto, Peru • Institute for Liberty and Democracy,
Peru • Instituto de Libre Empresa, Peru • Foundation for Economic Freedom, Philippines • Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., Philippines • Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju,
(FOR) Poland • Warsaw Enterprise Institute, Poland • Stowarzyszenie KoLiber, Poland •Center for Institutional Analysis and Development (CADI), Romania • Libek, Serbia •
Adam Smith Center, Singapore • F. A. Hayek Foundation, Slovakia • Free Market Foundation, South Africa • Civismo, Spain • Foro Regulación Inteligente, Spain • Advocata
Institute, Sri Lanka • 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 • Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo, Uruguay • Fundación Rioplatense de
Estudios, Uruguay • The Bow Group, UK • Geneva Network, UK • Institute for Economic Affairs, UK • Adam Smith Institute, UK • Ukrainian Economic Freedoms Foundation,
Ukraine • Property Rights Alliance, USA • Acton Institute, USA • The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, USA • Center for the Dissemination of Economic
Knowledge (CEDICE), Venezuela

For more information, or to become a partner organization, please contact Lorenzo Montanari,
Executive Director of The Property Rights Alliance at lmontanari@propertyrightsalliance.org

2
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

Executive Summary

The International Property Rights Index (IPRI) is the flagship publication of the Washington, D.C. based
Property Rights Alliance (PRA) dedicated to the promotion of property rights. In 2007, PRA instituted the
Hernando de Soto fellowship for developing the IPRI. Since then, the yearly IPRI edition has served as a
barometer for the status of property rights, ranking the strength of the protection of both physical and
intellectual property rights in countries around the world.

Property rights are human rights and have shown their ability to nurture economic growth & social
development, promote prosperity & innovation, and have shown to be the most effective mechanism to
guarantee civil rights & civil liberties. Private property rights protect individual liberty – the fundamental
argument for a system of strong private property rights (Fig.1).

JUDICIAL
INDEPENENCE

RULE OF LAW
LEGAL & POLITICAL
ENVIRONMENT
(LP) POLITICAL
STABILITY

CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION

PROTECTION OF
PHYSICAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
INTERNATIONAL PHYSICAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX PROPERTY RIGHTS REGISTERING
(IPRI) (PPR) PROPERTY

EASE OF ACCESS
TO LOANS

PROTECTION OF
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
INTELLECTUAL
PATENT
PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION
(IPR)
COPYRIGHT
PIRACY

Figure 1. IPRI Structure. The IPRI is built on 10 factors, gathered under three components: Legal and Political
Environment (LP), Physical Property Rights (PPR), and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The overall grading scale of
the IPRI is [0-10], where 10 is the highest value for a property rights system and 0 is the lowest value. The same logic
is applied to its components.

During 2020, PRA worked to compile case studies with 123 think tanks and policy organizations in
73 countries involved in research, policy development, education and promotion of property rights
in their countries.

3
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

I. Results
The 2020 IPRI ranks 129 countries, accounting for 93.91% of world population and 97.72% of the world GDP.
The selection of countries was determined only by the availability of sufficient data.

The overall 2020-IPRI score is 5.73. For a second consecutive year, there is a slight set back of the average
score of the IPRI, the LP and the IPR components, while the PPR score keep improving for a continuous
fifth year. The Legal and Political Environment is the weakest component (5.14), followed by Intellectual
Property Rights (5.55), while Physical Property Rights is the strongest component (6.50).

Finland leads the 2020-IPRI (8.65) as well as its IPR component (8.92), followed by the U.S.A. (8.69) in that
component. Switzerland ranks 2nd overall (8.53) followed by Singapore (8.48) who additionally leads
the PPR component (8.73). New Zealand is in 4th place (8.46) and leads the LP component (8.82). Then
come: Japan, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Luxemburg, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, U.S.A., Canada and
Hong Kong. On the other extreme we find: Haiti (2.66), Rep. of Yemen (2.71), Bolivarian Rep. of Venezuela
(2.85), Bangladesh (3.29), Angola (3.36), Democratic Rep. of Congo (3.49), Nigeria (3.72), Madagascar (3.96),
Zimbabwe (3.96), Chad (3.99), Bolivia (4.05), Ethiopia (4.05), Nicaragua (4.13), Pakistan (4.14) and Mauritania
(4.15), (Fig.2-3).

Better Score Worse Score

Figure 2. 2020-IPRI Scores Change. Four countries show the highest relative improvement in their 2020-IPRI score:
Burundi (16.11%), Angola (7.89%), Pakistan (6.88%) and Zimbabwe (5.92%); while another four exhibit the highest relative
decreases: Ethiopia (-7.73%), Iran (-7.22%), Poland (-5.6%) and Albania (-5.56%).

4
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

Figure 3. 2020-IPRI: IPRI Scores and Rankings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Finland 1 Turkey 66
Switzerland 2 Azerbaijan 67
Singapore 3 Indonesia 68
New Zealand 4 Philippines 69
Japan 5 Tanzania 70
Australia 6 Mexico 71
Netherlands 7 Burkina Faso 72
Norway 8 Georgia 73
Luxembourg 9 Greece 74
Denmark 10 Croatia 75
Sweden 11 Eswatini 76
Austria 12 Sri Lanka 77
USA 13 Vietnam 78
Canada 14 Argentina 79
Hong Kong 15 Tunisia 80
Germany 16 Senegal 81
Belgium 17 Peru 82
United Kingdom 18 Armenia 83
Iceland 19 Dominican Republic 84
Ireland 20 Kazakhstan 85
United Arab Emirates 21 Kenya 86
Taiwan 22 Ecuador 87
France 23 Russia 88
Estonia 24 Guatemala 89
Israel 25 Montenegro 90
Qatar 26 Nepal 91
Czech Rep 27 Côte D’lvoire 92
Chile 28 Honduras 93
Portugal 29 Uganda 94
Malaysia 30 Serbia 95
Korea, Rep 31 Macedonia, Fyr 96
Oman 32 Gabon 97
Malta 33 Brunei Darussalam 98
Spain 34 Malawi 99
Lithuania 35 El Salvador 100
Saudi Arabia 36 Benin 101
Costa Rica 37 Paraguay 102
Bahrain 38 Mali 103
Slovakia 39 Zambia 104
Mauritius 40 Ukraine 105
Cyprus 41 Burundi 106
Jordan 42 Algeria 107
Hungary 43 Lebanon 108
Rwanda 44 Mozambique 109
South Africa 45 Bosnia & Herzegovina 110
Uruguay 46 Moldova 111
Italy 47 Albania 112
Slovenia 48 Iran 113
China 49 Cameroon 114
Latvia 50 Mauritania 115
Jamaica 51 Pakistan 116
Botswana 52 Nicaragua 117
Morocco 53 Ethiopia 118
Romania 54 Bolivia 119
Bulgaria 55 Chad 120
India 56 Zimbabwe 121
Kuwait 57 Madagascar 122
Poland 58 Nigeria 123
Trinidad & Tobago 59 Congo, Dem. Rep. 124
Panama 60 Angola 125
Ghana 61 Bangladesh 126
Colombia 62 Venezuela, Bol. Rep. 127
Egypt 63 Yemen, Rep. 128
Brazil 64 Haiti 129
Thailand 65

5
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

II. IPRI Groups

Valuable information arose from grouping countries according to relevant criteria (geographical regions,
income levels, degree of development, and participation in regional integration agreements). This can be
used by individuals and policy makers to improve their countries’ performance.

• Geographical Regions
At the top are Oceania (8.39), North America (7.12) and European Union (6.91); while at the bottom are
Africa (4.80), Central America & the Caribbean (5.00) and South America (5.08). Asia and the Rest of
Europe showed the most relevant improvements (0.8% and 0.53%), while North America, Oceania and
European Union showed reduction of their IPRI scores.

• Income Levels (WB classification)

This group shows the same display of the IPRI score. High Income (7.08) is at the top, followed by Upper
Middle (5.21), Lower Middle (4.68) and Low Income (4.38) countries. Only the Upper Middle group shows
IPRI score improvement (0.64%); while the decrease was significant for Low Income countries (-3.5%),
mainly for performance of LP scores (-6.24%).

• Regional & Development (IMF classification)

Advanced Economies (7.44) leads, followed by Middle East, North Africa & Pakistan (5.41), Emerging and
Developing Asia (5.26), Emerging and Developing Europe (5.21), Latin America and the Caribbean (5.05),
CIS (4.92), ending with the Sub-Saharan Africa (4.76).

• Integration Agreements
EFTA (8.13) leads, followed by OECD (7.24), USMCA (7.12), EU (6.91) and TPP-11 (6.87). However, all
these groups reduced their IPRI score. At the bottom, we find CEMAC (4.33), CEEAC (4.36), IGAD (4.64),
SAARC (4.64) and CARICOM (4.75). Simultaneously, CEMAC and CEEAC are the groups with the highest
improvement for IPRI scores (5.78% and 4.93%) as a result of an increase of all the components (fig.4).

10
8 IPRI LP PPR IPR
9
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4

3 2

2 1

1 0
D

EU

AS

EN

CC

AP

AC

TA

AD

CA

0
CI

TP
IO

SU
SU

CC
D

PE

EA
AR
EC

EA

CA
CO
W

EF

SM
AC

M
G

IG
SA

CE
O

AS

SA

O
CO

M
CE

RI
O

RL

PR
U
M
EC

CA
ER

AB
PA

AB

Figure 4. 2020-IPRI Groups Results.

6
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

III. IPRI and Population

The 129 countries included in 2020-IPRI have a population of 7.32 thousand million people – representing
93.91% of world population – showing that 73% of that population live in 84 countries with an IPRI between
4.5 and 7.4. Almost half the sample population (48.9%) lives in 29 countries with a middle score of this index,
[5.5-6.4]. On the two extremes of the sample, we find that 10.7% of the population enjoys higher levels of
property rights protection in 21 countries [7.5-9.4]; and 16.4% sample population live in 24 countries with
lower levels of property rights [2.5-4.4].

The 2020 IPRI average score is 5.73, but when population weighs in, it reduces to 5.67, which is a decrease
of 1.03% from last year (5.71). However, there is an improvement if compared to 2018 IPRI-Population (5.645)
and 2017 IPRI-Population (5.522).

Simultaneously, we can complement this IPRI-Population analysis with GDP results (Fig.5), as follows:
Almost 60% of the total GDP comes from 36 countries with 15% of the total population, and they show
robust property rights systems in a range [6.5-9.4] of the IPRI. Particularly 47.87% of the total GDP is from 18
countries with 10.4% of total population with an IPRI score in a range of [7.5-8.4]. Further, 28.2% of the total
GDP lies in 29 countries with 48.9% of the total population, and they show middle IPRI scores, in a range
[5.5-6.4]. Finally, 12.22% of the total GDP is manufactured in 64 countries with 36.2% of the total population,
and they show weak property rights systems with low IPRI scores in a range [2.5-5.4].

50

40

30

20

10

0
[2.5 - 3.4] % GDP
[3.5 - 4.4]
[4.5 - 5.4]
[5.5 - 6.4]
[6.5 - 7.4]
[7.5 - 8.4]
% Population
[8.5 - 9.4]

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50

Fig 5. 2020-IPRI Population.

7
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

IV. IPRI and Gender Equality

The Gender Equality (GE) score was calculated using 10 items gathered in 5 indicators: Women’s Access
to Land Ownership, Women’s Access to Credit, Women’s Access to Property other than Land, Inheritance
Practices and Women’s Social Rights. This measure allowed us to extend the standard IPRI index, giving
rise to the IPRI-GE, which this year is also on a scale [0-10].

The 129 countries showed an overall GE score of 7.248, which is slightly higher than last year’s (7.243). Of
the GE components, Women’s Social Rights is the weaker (5.28), followed by Inheritance Practices (6.78),
Women’s Access to Land Ownership (7.6) and Women’s Access to Property other than Land (7.91). Fig. 6
shows the 2020 IPRI-GE(0-10) rankings by quintile for the 129 countries in the sample.

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

Finland Ireland South Africa Ghana Mozambique

Switzerland United Kingdom Romania Turkey Malawi
New Zealand Estonia Mauritius Argentina Philippines
Australia France Uruguay Russia Kuwait
Netherlands Taiwan Costa Rica Mexico Benin
Norway Portugal Rwanda Peru Zambia
Singapore Czech Republic Hungary Burkina Faso Moldova
Sweden United Arab Emirates Oman Georgia Gabon
Luxembourg Malta Jamaica Senegal Boznia & Herzegovina
Denmark Israel Poland Vietnam Eswatini
Austria Lithuania Panama Armenia Nicaragua
Japan Spain Colombia Kazakhstan Albania
United States Qatar Saudi Arabia Honduras Mali
Canada Korea, Rep. Bahrain Montenegro Burundi
Hong Kong Slovakia Trinidad & Tobago Greece Paraguay
Belgium Cyprus Bulgaria Macedonia, Fyr Côte d’Ivoire
Germany Chile Jordan Guatemala Bolivia
Iceland Italy Brazil Indonesia Uganda
Slovenia Botswana Ecuador Ethiopia
China Azerbaijan Serbia Iran
Latvia Thailand El Salvador Algeria
Malaysia India Nepal Lebanon
Croatia Tanzania Zimbabwe
Morocco Tunisia Madagascar
Dominican Republic Ukraine Cameroon
Sri Lanka Pakistan
Egypt Chad
Kenya Nigeria
Brunei Darussalam Mauritana
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Venezuela, Bol. Rep.
Angola
Weakest
Haiti
Bangladesh
Figure 6. 2020 IPRI-GE by Quintiles.
Yemen, Rep.
8
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

V. IPRI and Life Enhancing

There is extensive literature that informs relevant connections between the respect for property rights and
the improving quality of life of citizens. Therefore, we examined different items to evaluate their correlations
with the IPRI drawing empirically based conclusions (Fig.7). Those indices were gathered in 5 groupings:
Productive Drive; Underlying Conditions; Human Mobility; Digital Society; and Health & Life.

IPRI

GDP per capita 0.820

GDP per capita * GINI 0.817

Productive 0.772
Gross Capital Formation, per capita
Drive
FDI Inward, per capita 0.428
New LLC, per capita 0.502
Global Competitiveness Index 0.903
Economic Freedom Index 0.749

Underlying Business Freedom 0.764

Conditions Financial Freedom 0.741
Trade Barrier Index -0.646
Logistic Performance Index 0.871
Passport Index 0.719

Human Fragile State Index -0.864

Mobility Refugees & IDPs -0.624
Human Flight & Brain Drain -0.810
Global Innovation Index 0.863
Telecom. Infrastructure Index 0.800
Digital
Networked Readiness Index 0.892
Society
Digital Quality of Life Index 0.787
Digital Adoption Index - People 0.817
Prosperity Index 0.902
Best Country Index 0.795

Health & Quality of Life 0.832

Life Citizenship 0.816
Global Health Security Index 0.723
Global Biotech Innovation Index 0.917
Figure 7. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients.

9
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

On average, countries in the top quintile of IPRI scores show a per capita income almost 16 times of
the countries in the bottom quintile (Fig.8). That disparity is the same as last year, however it is lower
than 2015’s when it was almost 24 times. These results reinforce the significant and positive relationship
between prosperity and a robust property rights system.

$70,000

$60,000 $57,908.32

$50,000
Average Per Capita Income

$40,000

$30,027.62
$30,000

$20,000

$12,365.33

$10,000
$6,254.73
$3,608.16

0$
Top 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Bottom 20%

IPRI Quintile

Figure 8. Average Per Capita Income by IPRI Quintiless.

10
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

VI. IPRI Clusters

Cluster analysis is useful for gathering similar entities into groups, based on pre-defined indicators (Fig.9).
We performed it for all the 129 countries according to the IPRI components’ scores. Then a group of
illustrative variables were included contributing to describe each cluster.

Three clusters were acceptable to explain the groups of countries. Each cluster represents more than
a grouping by variables directly associated with property rights; they gather countries with common
characteristics within them and with different features between clusters. This confirms the consistency of
the IPRI and the relevance of property rights systems influencing societies.

This year we find important differences of clusters’ organization and composition, compared to previous
editions, due to a greater dispersion of values, favoring the displacement of the centroids.

Factor 2
GEO
ARM
LBN AZE
MKD CIV
PPR
BHR
PRY GTM IDN
YEM MDA PAN QAT
0.75 THA
HND KAZ OMN MYS
ALB NPL KWT JOR SAU TWN
DOM
KEN SWZ TUR
VEN NIC BIH BDI BWA MAR MUS ARE
ETH ZMB SRE UGA PER CHN
ZAR DZA LKA BFA PHL RWA MLT CHL ISL NZL SGP
MLI SLV TUN EST HKG
PAK IRN MNE SEN CLUSTER 2/3 NOR
UKR GAB
0 JPN CHE
CLUSTER 1/3 RUS VNM EGY
COL IND LVA URY
SVK LTU CAN USASWE
ZWE CMR CRI
ECU HRV MEX BGR ISR CLUSTER 2/3 AUS
MWI HUN LP AUT LUX
NGA TCD BOL MOZ JAM
GHA ROU KOR DEU
ZAF CYP ESP CZE GBR DNK FIN
BRA PRT
MDG SVN BEL NLD
ARG TZA TTO IPR
-0.75 ITA
AGO FRA
IRL
BGD GPC
POL

MRT BEN
-1.50

BRN
Cut “a” of the tree into 3 clusters
-2.25 Cluster 1/3 32
Cluster 2/3 63
Cluster 3/3 34
HTI

-3.0 -1.5 0 1.5 3.0

Factor 1

Figure 9. Cluster’s Members & Centroids.

11
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

2020 IPRI Case Study Abstracts

The Case of Peru: The Mystery of Capital among the Indigenous

Peoples of the Amazon
by Dr. Hernando de Soto, Institute for Liberty and Democracy, Peru

This case study is based both on the findings of the research carried out by the Instituto Libertad y
Democracia (ILD) over the last 10 years and on the permanent relationship it has with organizations
representing more than 700 tribes in the Peruvian Amazon. The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted
vulnerable members of indigenous communities. Economic recession and unemployment in cities
has increased migrations to their territories. With its concomitant informal activities, such as mining
and deforestation, it is essential that the indigenous peoples of Peru’s Amazon region be provided with
property rights that allow them to manage and take advantage of their natural resources. Additionally, this
will allow them to negotiate on an equal footing in global markets so that they can protect themselves
from the invasion of their territories and the destruction of their environment.

Undoing 26 Years of Progress: Property Rights in South Africa

By Jacques Jonker and Martin van Staden, Free Market Foundation, South Africa

In February 2018, the South African Parliament resolved to amend the Constitution to allow government
to expropriate private property without being required to pay compensation. This marks the most radical
departure from South Africa’s post-Apartheid liberal democratic legal dispensation that came to be
around 1994. The mere threat of expropriation without compensation has already led to the low-cost
housing market and agricultural sector to contract. Experiences across the world (Venezuela) and on
South Africa’s borders (Zimbabwe) with the same policy should engender extreme caution among South
Africa’s political class. But it is not only real property, but also intellectual property that is under threat. The
Copyright Amendment Bill was introduced in May 2017 as an evident attempt to weaken the protection
of copyrighted material through the introduction of a ‘fair use’ regime amongst other things. International
experience, specifically in the United Kingdom and Canada, has shown that the introduction of such a
regime imposes severe costs on the economy, specifically in the educational publishing industry, and
leads to the elimination of numerous jobs. If introduced in South Africa, the effects would likely be the
same, and reduce the strength of the economy even further; something which the country can ill afford
considering the extensive socio-economic pressures already faced by citizens.

12
2020 | INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX

Multipurpose Cadastre Project and Its Role in Property Rights

Protection in Colombia
By Carlos Augusto Chacón Monsalve and María Fernanda Gallego Ortiz, Instituto de Ciencia
Política Hernán Echavarría Olózaga, Colombia

A cadastre system seeks to boost processes to keep up-to-date all documents that contain the record of
land rights and information regarding legal, economic, fiscal, and physical changes of properties. Mainly,
the existence of this registry has a considerable impact ensuring legal security for landowners. It allows
them to have access through a single cadastre code to all information making it easier to oppose their
right against third parties. In Colombia, this system is obsolete due to its lack of flexibility, low coverage,
no capacity for updating, and a fiscal perspective that does not answer to all the needs of privates and the
State. According to the Geographic Institute Agustín Codazzi, the authority responsible for the cadastre,
94 % of Colombian territory does not count with the register or has not been updated. The absence of
clearness in property deeds, land boundaries, uses or capacity of fields, prices, etc., threaten property
rights and open the door for legal uncertainty. To solve the out-of-date cadastre and solve all the issues,
the actual administration aims to introduce a multipurpose cadastre that is embodied in the CONPES 3958
and expects to have full coverage by 2025. The research focuses on the importance of this new cadastre
approach and its application to protect and promote property rights in the country.

Innovation Accelerated: Factors Enabling Rapid COVID-19 Vaccine

Development
By Philip Thompson and Mary Ann Cortese, Property Rights Alliance, USA

On March 11, 2020 when the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a
global pandemic the world’s governments and industries rallied to combat the virus in various ways.
From the private sector, several industries such as distilleries and automobile manufacturers were able to
re-tool assembly lines and divert supply chains to create much needed Personal Protective Equipment,
hand sanitizer, and ventilators. However, the task to create a novel vaccine, test therapies, and ultimately
defeat the virus on a biological level can only be achieved through the pharmaceutical sector. The unique
nature of the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes the COVID-19 disease, renders traditional quarantine and
contact-trace measures less effective. Scientists agree, vaccines are the “most effective approach” and
are “urgently needed” to be used as an “important tool” in defeating COVID-19 to enable society and
economies to fully open back up. Fortunately, unlike past vaccine development, in less than 10 months
several vaccines are already in phase 3 clinical trials and are on track to be approved in early 2021. This
case study examines the environmental factors that allowed the pharmaceutical sector to levy a robust
response to the pandemic by creating vaccines and advancing cutting edge science in record time.

13
 INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

INTERNATIONALPROPERTYRIGHTSINDEX.ORG

14