By Seemantani Sharma
The dubious U.S. Chambers of Commerces (USCC) intellectual property rankings are back, this time abound with misnomers. One does not have to navigate deep inside the rankings to spot these misleading statements. Unsurprisingly, it ranks Indias intellectual property (IP) regime at a dismal 43 out of the 45 economies analysed. The very title of this years rankings is specious. Titled Roots of Innovation, the rankings supposedly recognise the indispensable role of IP in the 21st century knowledge economy driven model. This is where the primary discomfort with these rankings arise.
One-dimensional parameters?
[su_pullquote]Unsurprisingly, it ranks Indias intellectual property (IP) regime at a dismal 43 out of the 45 economies analysed.[/su_pullquote]
Economists have long been sceptical about the benefits accruing solely from a stringent IP regime, particularly for developing economies. As Maskus elucidates, IP is not sufficient in itself for encouraging effective economic growth. It has to come through an amalgamation of policies aimed at maximising IPs potential for raising dynamic competition. Some of these policies include strengthening the skill set of human capital, promoting flexibility in enterprise organisation, ensuring a strong degree of competition in domestic markets, and developing a transparent, non-discriminatory, and effective competition regime. Apart from methodological errors as pointed out by commentators, this is where the rankings falter.
It makes IP an end in itself, rather than the means to an end the end being the economic development of a country.
Intellectual Property is a piece, not the entire puzzle
The relationship between IP and innovation cannot be discounted. However, the premise that IP is the sole parameter for unleashing the innovative capacity of a nation is misplaced. India would have fared poorly under the Global Innovation Index 2016 if the latter would have been true. India, though, was ranked at a modest 66 out of the 128 countries under the 2016 Global Innovation Index, with countries such as Brazil, Peru and Argentina faring much worse than India even though they substantially lead under the USCCs 2016 International Intellectual Property Index. This clearly indicates that a robust IP regime does not necessarily harness a nations innovative capacity. This is not to say that Indias IP regime is all perfect. Some of the issues raised by the USCC require serious consideration by the Indian Government, particularly accession to pertinent copyright and neighbouring rights treaties.
USCC inaccuracies: Vested interests at work?
[su_pullquote]This clearly indicates that a robust IP regime does not necessarily harness a nations innovative capacity.[/su_pullquote]
Promulgated by the largest corporate lobby in the U.S., the USCC rankings can at best be described as partisan. It is a limited measure to serve and protect the U.S. corporate interests by imposing the idea that transitioning economies stand to gain much by emulating its standards of IP protection. A stringent IP regime singularly leading to an innovative industry is a rhetoric. This entire argument should be tread with caution by policymakers.
USCC building in Washington. USCC said the IPR policy failed to address the fundamental weaknesses in Indias IP framework | Photo Courtesy: Live MintLooking towards alternatives
More holistic and credible indices such as the Intellectual Property Rights Index (IPRI) should be given more attention. IPRI is published by the advocacy group Property Rights Alliance (PRA). IPRIs comprehensiveness in terms of the number of countries evaluated, the fact that PRA and its partnering organisations are think tanks and academic institutions, and that its findings are backed by references which give a balanced view on the correlations between IP and economic development makes it more credible.
Unfortunately, the IPRI has gained little traction in the Indian media as compared to the USCCs IP rankings.
However, this is not so much a fault of journalism but more so attributable to the USCCs deep pockets; which commences the promotion of its IP rankings months in advance. Given the misnomer and the reported methodological error, it is high time that restraint is exercised before taking the USCCs rankings at its face value.