Property Rights Index

IV. Final Remarks

  1. Property Rights: The Essence of Liberty

  2. IPRI Structure

  3. Methodology

  4. IPRI 2017 Country Results

  5. IPRI-Population

  6. IPRI and Gender

  7. IPRI and Development

  8. IPRI Cluster Analysis

  9. Final Remarks

  10. References

  11. Appendix


IX. Final Remarks

The methodology of the 11th edition of the International Property Rights Index is consistent with previous editions, revealing a proper structure for the index. In this sense, its follow-up in years ahead is crucial to monitor the performance of property rights systems and their relationship to prosperity within countries, regionally, and globally.

Results suggest that countries with high IPRI scores and its components also show high income and high development levels, indicating the positive relationship between property rights regime and wellbeing.

In this edition, we included a range of dimensions to be contrasted with property rights. Our results show that the IPRI is strongly associated with economic opportunities and liberties 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 adjusted by inequality and composition), investment, entrepreneurship ecosystem, economic freedom, political rights, civil liberties, absence of coercion, propensity to connectivity, human development (current condition and future potential), freedom of education, minority group inclusion, civic activism, intergroup cohesion, interpersonal safety and trust, social capital, number of researchers, number of papers published, expenses in R&D and environmental performance. All the items showed a strong 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 to foster development, defined as a multidimensional and synergic term.

IPRI-2017 includes 127 countries with an average score of 5.6336, showing an increase of 0.1877 points (3.45%) compared to 2016. This edition includes three countries (Brunei Darussalam, Democratic Rep. of Congo and Rep/ of Yemen) that were not in the IPRI-2016, and four countries had to be excluded (Guyana, Haiti, Myanmar and Swaziland) due to the absence of enough information.

Country performance is quite dissimilar: we find countries with very high scores and others with very low scores. Once a country attains one of the top positions it mostly keeps it. We are glad to highlight five countries with an improvement over 0.5: Spain (0.57), Israel (0.56), Sweden (0.51), Ethiopia (0.51) and Lebanon (0.50). However, as some countries improve, others may show a setback. This is the case of Cyprus (-0.6743), that this year shows the biggest recoil mainly as a result of a PPR decline (-1.8974).

IPRI-2017 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 123 countries and 2017 average score is 7.44 showing a sustained improvement (2016=6.933; 2015= 6.76). This despite the GE score of 7.118 is lower than in former two years (2016=7.466; 2015=7.39), meaning that gender equality is deteriorating as an average, while property rights protection improves. 

IPRI-POP was calculated for the 127 countries, the world average of 5.522 is an improvement compared to 2016 (5.45). This is due to the fact that 68% of world population lives in 66 countries with an IPRI between 4.5 and 6.4, insisting on the importance of fostering property rights systems in densely populated countries.

IPRI-2017 also included a cluster analysis, in order to gather countries in groups by their homogeneity. The 127 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, provides 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 in shaping societies.