Our daily round-up of what other think-tanks and commentators are saying on the big issues:

Adam Smith Institute: socialism isn’t for play time- the subplot of Toy Story 3.

Aid Watch asks whether aid can win hearts and minds?

Our daily round-up of what other think-tanks and commentators are saying on the big issues:

Donald Boudreaux on income equality, “progressive” itches, and body envy.

Something About Texas: The Economist on why the lone star state fared comparatively well during the recession.

Raul Castro’s latest move towards a more business friendly economy is a positive development for Cuban society. This is a continuation of Raul Castro’s pragmatism with regards to the Cuban economy when he inherited the country from his brother in 2006.  Such reforms include the eliminating wage caps, lifting a nine-year ban on privately operated taxis, and opening up unused land to private farmers.

Improvements in Cuba’s international position have also been considerable.  Raul Castro’s comparatively liberal approach to governance has recently secured Cuban foreign trade agreements with both China and Russia and has helped to end EU sanctions.  Furthermore, a 2008 poll taken by Florida International University revealed that over half of Miami’s Cuban-American population are in favour of removing the US embargo and travel restrictions.

Raul Castro is still very much the heir to his brother’s Marxist dynasty. But these recent developments represent a move towards greater Cuban integration into the international market and away from the destructive myths of Cuban autarky (its economy was mostly, until the 1990s, propped up by ideologically motivated Soviet investment) and central planning.  This can only be good for Cuba.  Whether economic reforms will be backed up with much needed political and social reform however remains to be seen.

Our daily round-up of what other think-tanks and commentators are saying on the big issues:

Chris Blattman: Is philanthropy killing business in Africa?

The Adam Smith Institute asks whether the BBC is  a global player or a subsidy junkie.

The debate about intellectual property rights and development has been raging for years, especially after the World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreements was enacted in 1994.  International Policy Network has been active participant in this debate as it touches many of the issues that we work on related to development.

Here is quite a comprehensive literature review (opens pdf) about the impact that stronger intellectual property rights have had on developing countries put together by the RAND Corporation at the behest of the UK Intellectual Property Office.  It’s very much a kind of “on the one hand, on the other hand” study, but it should make for quite useful reading for anyone interested in learning more about the debate.  There is much to pore over. James Delong over at Digital Society has written a short but good review.

Unfortunately some of the myths promoted by anti-IP activists are given credibility in this otherwise rather good survey.  One of those is the so-called 10/90 Gap, which was debunked by IPN in this 2004 report. Because of intellectual property rights, activists argue that pharmaceutical companies invest 90% of their R&D budgets on diseases that only affect 10% of global population.  A great story if you’re trying to stick to a “capitalism harms the poor” narrative, but unfortunately for the script-writers this just isn’t true.

It is also rather unfortunate that the RAND researchers ignored “Nashville in Africa”—academic version here and IPN white-paper version here- which discusses how intellectual property rights must not be viewed only as a “cost” for people in poor countries.  In the right circumstances, entrepreneurs in poor countries can already be competitive in industries that rely on the protection of intellectual property rights, but only if their property is protected at home.  Many African cultures are widely recognised for their cultural talent and skill, yet most African music is produced and recorded in Paris and London.  This only contributes to stagnation at home and “brain-drain”.  Why?  The lack of effective intellectual property rights protection back home is one of the main reasons.