Last month, the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) of the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) released the International Intellectual Property (IP) Index, “Inspiring Tomorrow”. This is the seventh edition of the International IP Index, which lays down a roadmap for countries looking to create a conducive environment for inspiring innovation through an effective IP ecosystem. In this year’s index, India’s rankings have substantially improved from a measly 44th out of 50 to 36th. This is the highest jump in rankings for any country assessed since 2012. But can these rankings be taken at its face value for gauging a country’s (especially India) innovative capacity and level of economic development? Especially considering the rankings profess that there is a close correlation between effective intellectual property protection and economic growth, global competitiveness and the creation of a knowledge-based economy?Also Read: Intellectual Property Myths, Incentives and More – an Interview with Carlos CorreaThe report illustrates how tangible progress on intellectual property can lead to real economic benefits. For instance, the 2019 International IP Index reveals that IP-driven economies are 55% more likely to adapt to sophisticated, state-of-the-art technology and are 26% more competitive overall. Additionally, these economies are twice as likely to produce and export complex, knowledge-intensive products. Economists however have long been skeptical about the benefits accruing solely from a stringent IP regime especially for developing countries. For example, notable economist Keith Maskus has elucidated in his seminal paper that intellectual property is not sufficient in itself for encouraging effective economic growth which has to come through an amalgamation of policies aimed at maximising IP’s 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. Similarly, evidence suggests that in lower-middle countries, intellectual property has only a moderate effect on economic growth. In low income countries, this effect is further reduced. It is for this reason that even in the Global Innovation Index (GII), intellectual property is just a sub-indicator of one of the sub-indexes for gauging a country’s innovative capabilities. The GII, which is hailed as one of most accurate predictors of a country’s innovative capacity is based upon two sub-indexes: the Innovation Input Sub-Index and the Innovation Output Sub-Index. Intellectual property is one of the sub-indicators of the Innovation Output Sub-Index and it subsumes factors such as the number of patent and trademark applications filed by residents of a particular country and royalties and revenues flowing from monetising intellectual property by a particular country. Therefore, from the GII, it is clear that intellectual property plays a very small role in determining the innovative capacity of a country.This is where the USCC’s rankings falter (apart from methodological errors pointed out by scholars in previous versions of the report) as it makes intellectual property an end in itself rather than the means to an end, the end being the economic development and the innovative capability of a country. Had the USCC’s argument on intellectual property being the sole indicator for unleashing the innovative capacity of a nation been true, India would have consistently fared poorly even under successive GII rankings. A minute comparative analysis of the GII rankings and the International IP Index reveals otherwise. For example, in 2012 (the year in which the International IP Index was released ) India was ranked last in the International IP Index out of the total number of eleven countries assessed, whereas Mexico was ranked fifth.Also Read: Seven Decades of Grappling With Intellectual Property Issues in IndiaHowever, in the same year’s GII rankings, India was ranked 64th, while Mexico was ranked 79th. Similarly, in 2016, India was ranked 37th out of 38 in the International IP Index, just ahead of Venezuela. In the same year’s GII rankings, countries such as Brazil, Peru and Argentina which were much ahead of India in the International IP Index fared poorly under the GII rankings. As a matter of fact, the 2018 GII rankings have applauded India for being a consistent over-achiever in relation to its level of development as far as innovation is concerned. It has further predicted that India has the potential to make a true difference to the global innovation landscape in the coming years. This clearly indicates that a robust IP regime does not necessarily harness a nation’s innovative capacity.This is not to say that India’s IP regime is perfect. Some of the issues raised by the USCC on India’s IP regime (such as accession to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks) require serious consideration by Indian legislators and policymakers. Since the USCC rankings are released by the largest corporate lobby in the US, they are devoid of any input from other stakeholders such as academia, civil society and not-for-profits. Therefore, these rankings can best be described as partisan. It is a limited measure to serve and protect the American corporate interests by imposing the idea that transitioning economies stand to gain much by emulating its standards of IP protection. This rhetoric of a stringent IP regime leading to a flourishing locally innovative industry should be tread with caution by Indian policymakers, if not discarded altogether. Rather, Indian policymakers should pay attention to more holistic and credible indices such as the Intellectual Property Rights Index (IPRI) which is published by the advocacy group Property Rights Alliance (PRA).IPRI’s comprehensiveness in terms of the number of countries evaluated, the fact that PRA and its partnering organisations are think tanks and academic institutions and lastly that its findings are backed by references which give a more 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 USCC’s IP rankings. However, this is not so much a fault of journalism but more so attributable to the USCC’s deep pockets; which commences the promotion of its IP rankings months in advance. Given the misnomer and the reported methodological errors pointed out in the previous versions of the report, India should not take the USCC rankings at its face value. Seemantani Sharma is legal counsel, Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (Malaysia).