Partnerships for the Goals

In this paper we study the determinants of the strength of patent enforcement in 43 member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) between 1998 and 2011, a period after the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. We do so by building on and expanding the seminal work of Ginarte and Park (1997) on the pre-TRIPS determinants of patent rights in the years 1960-1990. We find that in the years after TRIPS was signed, the strength of patent enforcement of a country is positively determined by two variables that signify the usage of the patent and intellectual property system, the number of patent and trademark applications. We also find that the level of research and development expenditure, the quality of human capital, and the level of development of a country have positive effects on the strength of the enforcement of patent law in practice. Intellectual property rights enforcement is one of the key investment-related policies included in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. Identifying the determinants of strong patent systems will help policymakers at the national and supranational levels to design and implement effective policies that strengthen national patent systems, thereby enhancing economic benefits such as greater levels of commercialization of intangible assets and greater levels of international trade and investment.

This paper explores the link between foreign direct investment (FDI) and the BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting) practices of multinationals (MNEs). It puts the spotlight on the outsize role of offshore investment hubs as major players in global corporate investment, a role that is largely due to MNEs’ tax planning, although other factors contribute. The paper shows that tax avoidance practices enabled by FDI through offshore hubs are responsible for significant leakage of development financing resources. In policy terms, these findings call for enhanced cooperation and synergies between international tax and investment policymaking.

Why at all would we want to safeguard cultural and linguistic diversity you may wish to ask, when we talk so much about the global citizen?

This year, my home state of Louisiana, United States of America, enacted common-sense prison reforms that will reduce the incarcerated population by 10 per cent and save the state more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the next 10 years. One local sheriff’s response to the reforms encapsulates why they are so desperately needed: he complained that he would be losing a source of free labour. Referring to non-violent offenders, Sheriff Steve Prator of Caddo Parish said, “They’re releasing some good ones that we use every day to wash cars, to change oil in our cars, to cook in the kitchen, to do all that, where we save money.” Video of his offensive statement went viral on social media, with many comparing the prison labour system to slavery.

This study applies both the internationalization and regulatory focus theories to understand what motivates SMEs to implement springboard strategies – i.e. to invest in a country to re-export to third countries. While some academics emphasize the importance of free trade agreements and cost differentials, others highlight the role played by the individual and network dimensions. We conducted 66 in-depth interviews and five days of non-participant observations with five French manufacturing SMEs and ten investment promotion agencies. Our analysis revealed the existence of firm, network and country-related motivations – springboard strategies being mainly firm-driven – as well as common, partially-shared and specific motivations. Public policy to promote and/or attract springboard-oriented foreign direct investment (FDI) should look at developing dedicated support and educational programmes for SMEs, offering better access to promising markets by removing barriers and enforcing transparency and trade agreements.

Most health professionals would agree that stress is the biggest factor affecting the mortality rate in modern society. If left untreated, stress can have detrimental impacts on both physical and mental health, and can lead to conditions such as heart disease, insomnia and depression. It is no wonder that stress has reached epidemic levels when one considers the sheer volume of stimuli reaching our consciousness on a daily basis, not to mention the increasing demands on our time and volatile changes across political and economic systems.

This article is written in response to the theme of “eradicating poverty as a means of conflict prevention”. By asking whether the eradication of poverty prevents conflict, we reflect upon its complexity and interdependence with other aspects of modern day life. To focus solely on poverty reduction as a means of conflict prevention is somewhat reductive. Empirical work done on post-war Sri Lanka shows that the symbiotic relationship between poverty and conflict falls beyond the scope of simplistic analysis. After all, poverty is only one of many contributing factors to conflict. On the other hand, poverty itself is a multidimensional phenomenon. Similarly, conflict exacerbates poverty in many ways, by stunting growth, destroying investments and breaking down service delivery. Firsthand experience provides countless stories of deprivations that people suffer during war. This article looks beyond these binaries to emphasize that conflict and poverty remain interlinked even after armed warfare ends, highlighting the fact that structural inequalities hinder both conflict prevention and poverty reduction. Conflict prevention, we argue, must position itself intersectionally and holistically, with an eye to transforming these structural inequalities.

Since its inception more than 10 years ago, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) recognized media literacy as an educational and cultural area that needed to be addressed, particularly when aiming at building bridges of better understanding between individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds. UNAOC sees the field of media literacy as an opportunity for the development of peacebuilding initiatives, addressing polarization that too often provokes identity-based violent confrontations.