 I'm Rick van der Blok. I've been working for the last eight years on the economics of countries that have a lot of natural resources. Rich countries, like Norway, put the proceeds of the oil or gas revenue into a fund and invest in international equity and bonds markets. And by doing that, they can do two things. They can spread the wealth to future generations, so that when the oil seizes, they have transformed the assets under the ground and the assets above the ground. And then they can maintain an increase in consumption long after the oil is finished. This advice from Norway is very bad advice for many developing countries. For them, it's much more sensible to use the windfall from natural resource exports to invest in the domestic economy and to speed up the process of growth and development. For developing countries, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to use this oil and gas and mineral revenue to invest in their own economy. The return on early years childhood education of young girls in developing countries is much higher than the return you would get on US Treasury bills or on legal inequities and shares. So it's much better for those countries to invest in their own growth and development. The problem is that for many of these countries are plagued by political conflict. A sovereign wealth fund will be very bad for them anyway, because you may do that as a prudent politician, but a future politician will just want to raid it. What politicians do instead in those countries is that they invest in what I call illiquid assets, which cannot be raided by political competitors. So think of a road or a bridge or a school or anything like that in your own region, rather than the region of your rival. Rather than investing in growth enhancing investments, which is really good for the general good of the country, people are investing too much in partisan projects, which are a cheap way for them to actually benefit their political clientele. Just like you have in some countries independent central banks, you might have an independent fiscal authority. You allocate the money into what I call an investment fund, and they get given very strong criteria. So it should be sustainable, it should really promote long-term growth and development. And if you do that way, I think the politicians have a narrative that they really have to be able to explain to their electorate and to the people of these countries that the money which is taken out of their ground eventually benefits the people of that country. The experience of Ghana has shown that putting it in a sovereign wealth fund is not very, very good, because if you had a proper growth and development strategy financed by these oil and gas revenues, it would resonate much more with the local people, and therefore you have a much bigger chance of managing it efficiently and really harnessing the windfall revenue for future growth and development. What's at stake is do you want to end up like Nigeria or other countries where you basically had 30 years' slowdown perform much worse than the Asian Tigers, or do you want to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really give your whole process of development a leg up? And if you can do that, then you've really done something really important.