Launching of the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2015 Report in Kuala Lumpur

1. Bienvenido “Nonoy” Oplas Jr.
Pres., Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc.
Fellow, SEANET
Economic Expansion, Intellectual
Property and the TPP
SEANET and Property Rights Alliance (PRA) forum on
“Protection of Property Rights, Economic Growth and the TPP”
Park Royal Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
16 November 2015

2. OUTLINE
1. Economic and export gains of TPP membership, Dr.
Clarete’s study
2. BusinessWorld column re IPRI in APEC countries
3. IPR = expensive medicines. How true?
IPR provisions of TPP
4. Concluding notes

3. • Dependent variable: flow of trade between and
among countries studied
• Independent or explanatory variables, their expected signs or
relationships: GDP (+), population (+), dist. between two countries (-),
commonality of language (+), shared borders (+), landlocked state (-).
• In addition, TPP and RCEP indicators or dummy variables are
introduced: (a) TB1, 1 if both trading countries are TPP or RCEP
members, 0 otherwise, (b) TB2, 1 if exporting country is a TPP or RCEP
member, 0 otherwise; (c) TB3, 1 if importing country is a TPP or RCEP
member, 0 otherwise. For overlapping memberships, a dummy variable
where TPP*RCEP =1 if both trading partners are members of the two
trade blocs.
Dr. Ramon Clarete, University of the Philippines
School of Economics (UPSE), February 2015
He used the Gravity model of trade in estimating
the level of bilateral exports or imports between
two trading partners.

4. All estimated coefficients are statistically significant and bear the expected signs.
If the PH, RCEP member and it further becomes a TPP member – like Vietnam
and Malaysia -- its exports expected to rise by 48%, GDP projected to rise by 61%.

5. Economic Effects of
TPP membership
* Used computable
general equilibrium (CGE)
model of the PH
* Model comprises 50
industries/sectors; 3
primary factors of
production; 10 household
income groups, govt, priv.
business enterprises
* The estimated add’l
exports (above) inputted
into the model to compute
their economy wide
impacts.
* PH already with RCEP,
computing the gains if PH
also joined TPP….

6. My column today. Because Manila will host the APEC summit this week.
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=propert
y-rights-protection-in-apec-economies&id=118660

7. • Gap in score bet. Singapore and low-ranked Vietnam very wide; Thailand, Vietnam
and Indonesia suffered significant declines in scores and global rank.
• Singapore and Malaysia managed to retain their high scores and global ranking.
• Philippines’ jump in global rank from 77th in 2013 to 65th in 2015. Reason, many
countries suffered significant decline in their scores from 2014 to 2015.

8. Lesson 1 (Clarete paper):
IF the Philippines, already RCEP member RCEP, joins the TPP – like
Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore and Brunei:
 Exports are expected to rise by 48%, real GDP rises by 61%, and all
households in general will enjoy higher real incomes, although
regressively.
Lesson 2 (IPRI in APEC):
 Positive relationship between economic development and strength of
property rights protection. Top in ranking are New Zealand, Singapore,
Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia.

9. IPR in TPP = expensive medicines, poorer public health. How true?
“IP rules proposed for the TPPA, if adopted, are
likely to prolong monopolies over new medicines
and delay the availability of cheaper generics.”

10. What the TPPA says?
 TRIPS flexibilities are
affirmed (CL, special CL,
parallel importation…)

11. * More
patent
coop., not
exclusion.
* Only those
with
inventive
steps can
be patented
* Health
methods,
biological
processes,
animals,
can NOT be
patented.

12. * So, reduce
the 10-12 yrs
(out of 20 yrs
patent life) ave.
regulatory
approvals of
clinical trials to
drug
marketing.
* Regulatory
data protection
(RDP) not 10
or 8 years, only
5 years

13. * At least 8
years effective
patent life (bec.
10-12 yrs
patent life
already eaten
by clinical trials
& approvals)

14. Concluding Notes:
1. Joining the TPP has more gains than pains for member-countries,
especially in exports and overall GDP expansion.
2. IPR health provisions in TPP are not scary, they do not reduce access
to cheaper generic drugs. Existing TRIPS flexibilities are maintained.
3. It seems that the generic pharma lobby + the anti-capitalism, anti-
globalization NGOs created more noise and fear than what the TPPA
actually provides.
4. There is more to fear in government taxation of medicines, in
mandatory drug price discounts and price controls, than IPR protection.
“IPR create incentives for businesses to invest in ideas, to develop new
products, and to earn a profit from the sale of those products. This in turn
leads to improved customer satisfaction, improved profitability, and greater
employment opportunities.”
– Prof. Sinclair Davidson, RMIT Univ. (Econ Dept.), Melbourne, Australia.

15. Thank you.
Email: minimalgovernment@gmail.com
Blogs: https://ipinasia.wordpress.com/
https://seanet2.wordpress.com/
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/
BusinessWorld column: “My Cup of Liberty”,
www.bworldonline.com/
SEANET: http://seanetwork.asia/