 and will be a new vision of growth is required and today we will discuss this with a diverse panel of experts and let me introduce a panellist to you. To my left is Mr. Linthaluw Tamaki deputy secretary general for the OECD in 2011 the OECD published the Your Better Life Index, introducing Thank you! in 2011 the OECD published the Your Better Life Index introducing Thank you in 2017 the oECD a'r popular microbron blogger in China, as well. Then Dr Rajiv Bargava, director and senior fellow, centre for the study of developing societies in India. Dr Bargava is an expert on political theory. He advocates social and economic equality as a basis for sustainable economic and societal growth. Mr Dav Seidman, founder and chief executive officer of LRN. LRN helps hundreds of companies to develop ethical corporate cultures and inspire principled performances in business. Thank you all for joining us. No, I must say our topic today, measuring our lives, is rather a challenging topic to address under the time constraint. But my first question is to you, Mr Tamaki. OECD has developed a new matrix that involves far more than just GDP figures. It uses 11 dimensions aside from economic growth and also evaluates different types of growth. Now, what is this matrix trying to achieve and what does the index reveal that we did not know already? Let me start with a background. Of course, we are still in the process of recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. The prevailing sentiment is that globalization and economic growth have not benefited all groups of society. At the time when governments are designing strategies to restore economic growth, we need to respond to these aspirations and to place economic growth within the broader, much broader context of societal progress. There is a growing consensus that we put too much emphasis on measuring economic production and not enough on establishing what truly matters to people. Too many important policy decisions are still being taken on the basis of GDP or per capita GDP as a sole driver. GDP will continue to play, of course, as a pivotal role, but we need to contemplate it within the major well-being more broadly. OECD, my organization, published this publication last year. It has led almost for over a decade the international reflection on the measurement of well-being and progress. As you said, this house life publication or, I'll say, your Better Life Initiative includes indexing the quality of life and progress of society in the 11 fields, like job, education, health, community, et cetera. This is still the way to elevating it. And the final purpose of establishing this kind of index is to make it useful to policy decision making. I noticed that you used the word like well-being and better life instead of happiness. What is the thinking behind it? Quite often, particularly in Japanese translation, it is translated into happiness, measuring happiness. But this is, of course, measuring some quality of life but not measuring spiritual or sentimental happiness. Perhaps this is quite a prevailing misunderstanding. The most part of the indicators are more material ones. Something that are measurable, in a sense, I see. Dr Liu, what is your view of OECD's matrix? China dominates the market using, for example, low labour cost to break into foreign exports. But there is a limit to the size of any market. So a growth strategy focused purely on a larger pie will inevitably hit a dead end. Would I be right in saying that? Yes, I think that in the past, the Chinese economy has been growing very fast. But sometimes we are forgetting the ultimate goal of the economy. In the past, I think the government has put forward some slogan, like we need to improve the living standard of the people. Basically that means GDP. In the early stages of the Chinese economy growth, I think this is extremely important because in the first several decades for China we have a lot of social problems and the economy is very poor. And the most urgent task is to improve the economy and especially people's living standards. But nowadays, I think we are coming to a new turning point because the currently called economic growth model has caused a huge social cost. The major cost comes from the pollution problem. Actually now everybody in China they are worrying about their food safety problem. And also we see that pollution will cause a lot of diseases in the future. This is an inevitable outcome. So this is a short-term and a long-term balance. In the short-term everybody wants to make more money. But if you have a long-term horizon, probably your today's money is at a higher cost of the future for your health. So for China as a country we need to rethink about the goal of our economy. And also I think the ultimate goal of the economy should be people's happiness. But happiness is something not only related to the economic growth level but also to other factors like the life quality and also I think the fueling of fairness is most important. By fairness I don't mean that the fairness of outcome even in the United States in most countries income inequality is actually a natural result of competition. But here opportunity fairness is indispensable. If you don't have opportunity fairness the people will feel unfairly treated. They will lose their support and their patience. Actually I think now to be frank we are facing a big problem of corruption issue. Basically corruption means somebody can make money by privilege and this is unfair to other people. I think this is another big challenge for China's current economy. Thank you. And we will go into that, the social issues later on as well. And Dr Bargawa, what about India? Like China, India also has made a huge progress thanks to growth based on GDP boosting strategy perhaps. Will India continue to prioritise GDP based growth model or is there a kind of realisation that there's got to be something else than that? I think the first point that I want to make is that getting rid of poverty for everybody is an absolutely necessary condition of any idea of collective well-being. Poverty is a source of profound unhappiness. It is a source of a complete lack of well-being. You have disease, you have sickness, you are exposed to extreme heat and cold and so on. I mean there is nothing, it's a curse. So everywhere people should be getting rid of poverty. And if GDP is some indicator of the removal of poverty then I wouldn't say there's anything particularly wrong with the idea of GDP. However, as we know prosperity, even if it's distributed well, which actually the GDP figures don't always reveal, even when everybody gets a fair amount, prosperity in itself is not going to give us happiness or won't give us well-being. And one of the things which is wrong with this whole idea of GDP is actually the notion of measure itself which is being used here. Measure here is to give a number, is to quantify something. And that is entirely inappropriate when we are trying to measure lives or measure good lives. I think there's another sense of measure which is much more appropriate. And that is when we say man is the measure of all things or man is a measure of man or honesty is a true measure of man where we mean not something that is quantifiable but what we mean here is that we are judging the quality of something, in this case a virtue or quality of a person or quality of a society by reference to a standard or an idea of what is truly good. And it's that sense of measure that we are using, the term measure when we are talking about measuring lives. So I think both these points in my view are extremely pertinent to all those societies which are getting out of a state of poverty and under development and moving to a state of relative prosperity. Thank you. And Mr Seidman, you are a CEO and a moral philosopher and entrepreneur and obviously you wear many hats and I hope you are wearing all of them today. So what are your thoughts on this issue of measuring our lives? We're here to have a debate but Rajiv, those comments very much resonate with me. Stepping back philosophically, I think this issue is so critical because in my experience of 20 years working with global companies trying to help them wrestle with this issue of can we pursue revenue and growth and be responsible, can we pursue profits and be principled along the way. This issue is critical now more than ever but we need to step back and acknowledge that we manage what we measure but what we measure is a choice and it reveals what we value and it reveals our values and if we're really going to get to the essence of the issue we have to learn to measure the values that animate everything. Now let's just make this very personal. If one of you had a crisis or a friend came to you in crisis and said I'm in crisis, I need $10,000 you would say if you trust them here or you'd say how are you living and how can I help you get back on track. You wouldn't say how about I give you six. A personal relationship it's about how. But anytime we scale at a national level it's how much GDP we spend three years debating how much stimulus not how are we going to stimulate the economy. The next UX election is going to be about how many jobs are going to be created in September and October. How much revenue, market share, how much debt can our balance sheets hold. In the new economy how many followers, how many friends, how many click-throughs, how many impressions, how much, how much, how much. Even though life is about how. And I think that let's see what this looks like in practice. Netflix, a rising company and China later this year is going to have its version of Netflix, Jaflix, right? So Netflix is thinking they're about to take over all these subscribers, county how much subscribers they do a little price increase and 800,000 people came together in Unison and left in 48 hours and crashed the company. They were measuring how much, how many subscribers, but not how loyal. And I think that we are now in a time where we need to do two things. We need to have a deep debate about what are the right metrics. But more importantly we need to recognize that metrics and our endeavors have a philosophical paradox. The most ancient paradox in philosophy is the paradox of happiness. That if you pursue happiness directly it alludes you. But if you do things that you're passionate about that are meaningful to you, that make a difference in the lives of others happiness can find you. So even after we pick the right metrics, if we pursue these metrics directly they will go away. If we pursue success in business and politics they will allude us. So I think the way forward is to decide that even though this is what we want, let's have a more deeper relationship with those very things that enable us to create these things on a prosperous, sustainable basis. The reason, and I'm going to wrap up, the reason this is so critical is the world is not just connected, it's not just interconnected, it's interdependent. One vegetable vendor can make a revolution in the Middle East. When we are rising and falling together, when we are in an interdependent, morally interdependent relationship, we need to begin to measure the ways how we create trust in our relationships, how we affect each other, how we relate to each other and how we are personal with each other at a national, global, business and personal level. Just to clarify on one point, it's not that probing ways to devise indexes in indices for happiness, it's not our aim is it. Happiness has to be the outcome. Here's a painful example. We think we have a jobs crisis. I don't think we have a jobs crisis. Clearly we don't have enough jobs. We have a careers crisis. Seven out of ten people on the job collecting a paycheck are not engaged and two out of the seven are disengaged. So we keep measuring how many jobs, not how much people care on the job so we're measuring the wrong things. We need to have the right relationship between the metric and those things that bring that metric about in a sustainable way. Talking about this happiness or well-being, Dr Bargawa, you have said that while happiness or well-being tends to be defined from an individual point of view, you are focused more on the relationship between the individual and society and how individuals relate to society and that resonates to what Mr Seidman has just elaborated, I think. But could you elaborate your idea in the context of measuring our lives? First of all, it's very important to have resources because it's only through resources that you achieve anything whatsoever. But once you have these resources you must also have the skill to do something with those resources. I mean, that's a point that is made by people like Mr Seidman that what matters even more than having resources is what you do with them and how you integrate them into your lives, how you turn them into your skills. But that, again, is not sufficient. The skills that you achieve and which you integrate into your life have to be seen in a broader perspective We have to find out how they fit appropriately in the kind of life that we want to lead. And for that it's extremely important to have some idea of what the ends of life are. Unless you have some clarity on what it is that defines or what it is that gives purpose or meaning or point to a life, there's no point in even acquiring skills. Now, all this is all very... In the context of relation with others? Exactly. All this is, in some senses, you can see it from a purely individualistic point of view. I'm not denying that this is not important. It's extremely important. But I think what this misses out on is how much we depend on others and how much our well-being depends on the quality of social relations we have, whether it is in the smallest possible context, namely that of our family, in our friendship and companionship, or in a larger community, how much it matters that we are recognised appropriately, how much it would really matter to us in a negative way if we were demeaned or degraded or humiliated. In other words, our sense of self-esteem, our sense of self-respect and our basic self-confidence in some ways is highly dependent on other people. That means that if all these dimensions are absolutely crucial to a sense of well-being, then you cannot even conceive what it is to have well-being without there being some understanding of what it is to have of well-being in a collective. Let me follow up on that point and broaden the idea because I'm sure Mr Seidman has something to say regarding that. You emphasised that it is vital to have a full private sector, an environment where employees share the company values and work towards the goal of contributing to it. Can this idea also be applied to society as a whole, a kind of shared sense of mission or sense of hope in your vocabulary? It's funny you say hope in business. How many of you have heard the expression hope is not a strategy? I want an analytic plan. Hope is the greatest strategy ever known to mankind. When people are inspired in the value of hope, they lean into the world. They see the world as full of possibility. They see others in the world as people they can relate with and do things together. When they don't have hope, they lean out of the world. They despair and you can't innovate and move forward. Yet we don't necessarily know how should we lead to inspire hope in people. How do we measure the level of hopes? Because when hope is low, people aren't going to forge ahead. I want you to know that we did an independent study of two million observations of behaviours in large and small companies, for-profit, not-profit, some governments, and we looked at two million behaviours of 36,000 people in 18 countries, including Japan and China and India. I've got some good news and bad news to tell you. This is an independent study of statistical analysis. The bad news is that only 3% of organisations are what we call self-governing. They were truly, they didn't just have values. Decisions were animated by values. They abounded in trust and they had a sense of mission and not just profit that drove them. Only 3%. Those that could create that company had so much more how much from focusing on the how. They had much more innovation, customer dissatisfaction by dramatic levels, employee engagement, financial performance, and they had, because they had more trust, they had 22 times the level of risk-taking that leads to innovation, because you don't innovate without taking a risk. Speaking in a meeting is taking the risk that someone's going to think you're not that smart. So if you have trust, you take risk to innovate and create progress. And I think that this is an enormous opportunity if 97% of organisations are not truly values-based. Imagine if we did values and got to how much as an outcome of that, and the journey we can go on to scale not just revenue and profit and debt and market share, but we scaled our values because we did the hard work of translating our values into societal, corporate and organisational practices and behaviours and leadership behaviours that you can observe and measure and incent and celebrate and get more of those and then get the outcomes. Dr Liu, talking about values or ideas of what direction society should go has perhaps been changing in recent years in China. It may have been confused as ideas long ago, perhaps even communists no longer seem to form the basis of a shared concept of society. If that was the case, then what shared ideal or value of society do the Chinese people today hold to make them go forward? To be frank, nowadays the Chinese people, the only value is money. People believe in nothing but money. For several years I think this is the first time because in the past we believe in confucius, we also believe in Buddhism but because of the cultural revolution it changed many things and also after China's opening up and reform the market economy, people realised the importance of making money. This is good, but at the same time we forget our traditional values. That's why we see there are so many difficult to understand social problems when people get injured in the street. Nobody there to help you. This is a social trust crisis now. For society I think if we don't have real belief people have nothing to do with them and that partly explains why there are so many people who are making pointless food for other customers. Without value our society is difficult to reach status of harmony. I think this is a big problem for China. We need to try to restore our traditional values or beliefs. But where to find? Of course, Confucius is a possibility and also I think Buddhism can be something also important for the Chinese society. I also noticed that for this diverse conference we also invited a Buddhism religion leader from Taiwan to join the forum. I think this is very good because especially for the mainland Chinese people we need to think more about making money. We need to think the true meaning of our lives. Mr Tamaki, of course. I'm not on the podium but I'd like to say the OECD is not proposing a composite life index. A unique composite life index but we are aiming to establish a kind of interactive index. It's a weight given to each topic. For example, for some education is quite crucial. Others, life balance is more important. So we are aiming to change the weight among various indicators according to societal or cultural background or say individual conditions. So we are calling this index not OECD Better Life Index but your Better Life Index. So that you can adapt and apply to your... You can access from the website and change your balance as a weight among indicators. What are your thoughts on the opinions and viewpoints expressed by our panellists here today? Because having read the OECD index I did get the impression that there was only one topic for valuing community and it does not seem as if there is an explicit emphasis on them as a goal. Would I be right in saying that? Say social connectedness for example we are now establishing a series of statistics. So some indicators are quite easy to take as an indicator or take on a statistics but others are not very easy. Another example is one subjective indicator life satisfaction survey. Quite surprisingly comparing indicators in my country Japan most of indicators in Japan is above or at the level of OECD average but the exception is life satisfaction. Always life satisfaction in Japan is below average above OECD. This is also the case in Korea. We are wondering why. This is an issue to be discussed but one possibility is a cultural bias not to say I am so happy to the outsider and to recognise ourselves as a quite happy man a happy human. I want to ask a follow-up question that you have been at the forefront of a policymaking in Japan yourself a mature economy that has experienced very slow GDP growth for around 20 years so far. How do you evaluate the state of Japan today in terms of wellbeing? Sitting in Paris and looking at my home country I feel how Japan is important in the global economy and the global itself and we are wishing quick recovery from earthquake and quick recovery from financial crisis. Looking at this house life exercise in the context of Japan Japan has several major strengths particularly the well educated people and a decent and homogeneous quality of life but to make to maintain the standard of living and to include the quality of life further I have to say Japan should undertake another series of reforms quickly and the keystone is of course tax and social security reform to to sustain and pin the public finance confidence confidence on the sustainability of public finance this is a really crucial element for the future in Japan but also we see I see the necessity of integrating Japanese economy more into global economic system and labour market reform and others perhaps the need for us is to try and measure our own lives and not just talk about the reform hoping that the world will somehow go back to what it used to be before I'll say without being self complacent Doctor Liu you have talked about the disparity the unfairness that exists in the society today Prime Minister Wenja Bao in his speech at this forum highlighted economic disparity as the major challenge that China has had to tackle there have been ideas or national slogans though as harmonious society or society with enough for all but as China approaches a change in leadership how will China deal with the persisting disparity problem so that growth becomes sustainable yes the widening wealth gap is a big threat to China's stability nowadays I think the Chinese government has realised that it is important to take further reform in the income distribution but this is a very tough issue because fundamentally speaking the root reason for today's income inequality comes from the fact that the government is too powerful now we have probably we have the largest government in the Chinese history not only in terms of the number of employees but also in terms of the power it has it controlled many large SOEs and the SOEs again they monopoly in many industries and also in the past several years we see the government's fiscal revenue has been increasing to all three times of the GDP growth rate which means the government can choose more and more resources but we know in our economy there are three parts the individuals, the companies and the government but it is individuals and the company that really create the values and the wealth the government is nothing but a cost so which means the smaller is the government the better and also because the government now nowadays the government is so deeply involved in economic activities this creates a big opportunity for corruption now many local governments they are becoming not government they are becoming big companies they build big projects they are so deeply involved in the economic activities they are not official they are becoming the CEOs of big companies that's why we see there are so many corruption cases associated with economic activity especially in the real estate sector in the stock market and also in the infrastructure projects so if China want to solve the income inequality we must reform our current government system to be brief the government must give the power and money back to the people for instance in the stock market financing should be the rise for all companies because every company needs a capital but in China IPO is becoming a privilege only if you have a special relationship you try to get some special relationship it is possible to make an IPO easily so this created a lot of distortion in China and also I think the government need to reduce the tax and also they need to take further reform with SOE because many SOE they are not creating value they are wasting money and also inside SOE there are a lot of corruption cases well in the interest of time I am going to squeeze two questions into one and this question is for Mr Seidman Doctor Liu talked about the disparity issue and also the ethical behaviour required on the part of the CEOs or the companies US although we tend to think of US as a developed economy a rich country it also faces a serious disparity and you emphasised the importance of leadership in achieving better growth what are the roles for the leadership there well it is a great question and putting this into context leadership used to manage people when we tried to shift their behaviour if you give me enough carrots and sticks I could get someone to come to a factory and act like a quasi robot to do the same job over and over and over again when you live in an interdependent social world we are asking people to elevate their behaviour and leadership is no longer about shifting your behaviour instead of carrying your suitcase wheel your suitcase don't drink coffee drink a cappuccino we are now in a time where we are asking of people to elevate be responsible be principled defend your company on Facebook collaborate with people in a globally interconnected world who come from a different culture have pride in your company you can't pay for pride you can't scare people you can't say you go in a room and don't come out until you innovate and you too go in a room and don't come out until you have an idea now the only way to elevate another human being is with a mission worthy of their commitment and dedication with values that inspire them and guide them so leadership today has to go on a journey from formal authority the boss or from a country listen to me because I have more tanks or listen to me because I have more oil or listen to me because I have more land leadership has to go on a journey from exercising power over people to exercising power through people which comes through values and it's a shift from formal authority to moral authority leadership that itself is rooted in values where people believe in you because first and foremost you're principled I want to mention one leader at this conference, Paul Pullman, who's one of the mentors here, the CEO of Unilever. He and I had a conversation not too long ago, and he was asking me not an academic question, but a business strategy operational question. He said to me, it took them 17 days to get rid of Mubarak, and Mubarak had a military. I don't have a military at Unilever. What if my consumers and my employees didn't like something about how we were behaving or running the company? Leaders like that are our future because they are willing to step back and rethink their leadership itself and go on a journey to translate this moral authority into how they lead the company and relate to the world, and that's what gives me hope, speaking of hope. Well, it does seem that the moral leadership is all about engaging people and making sure that everybody is on board. Dr Bargawa, if I can turn to you, India also has a serious problem of disparity, but you have spoken about inclusion and exclusion and that the society cannot be happy if there is a large pool of people excluded from opportunities or jobs or whatever. Perhaps you could elaborate on that? Yes. Of course, if you are excluded from jobs, from schooling, from education, on economic grounds or on any other grounds, such as your culture, your language, your creed, your religion, anything like this which becomes the basis of exclusion is bound to lead to profound unhappiness in the people who are excluded in this way. Therefore, it is absolutely important to build an inclusive society, to build a society where people have access in a fair and equal way to all kinds of resources and goods which are essential for them to lead their life in the way in which they want to lead. Any society where there are these completely unjust inclusions or exclusions, they are also unjust inclusions, or you may be forced to assimilate when you want to stay away from a certain activity, or you may be forced and coerced into, even when you want to be included, you may be coerced to be kept out. Both have a terrible impact on one's sense of well-being and on one's state of happiness and the profound sense of happiness that we are talking about here. These are issues that must be taken into account when we are measuring well-being. Mr Tamaki, you must have something to say regarding what the panellists have said, because it does seem that the values like inclusive society with which Dr Bargaw has said, inclusive growth does seem to be the key phrase in bringing about healthy, sustainable growth. If so, how do we incorporate that idea into the matrix of measuring our lives? Of course, an inclusiveness is a quite important element of decent society we are aiming at without any doubt. Perhaps an inclusiveness is a quite broad idea, but perhaps we can focus on the inequality side within countries. We shouldn't look at the average number as we did in the past, but more focusing on the distribution within the country or within the society, and look at the gender inequality, et cetera, to carefully look at the details of the reality of the society more carefully. Otherwise, the purpose of our exercise is to support the better policies, better government policies, public policies. So for that purpose, we have to elaborate more on how the society, how inclusive the society is and how we could improve the inclusiveness in passing the policy. Can I add something else? I'm a little concerned that we're shifting to not just being inclusive, but growth, and I think the focus on growth in and of itself today is problematic. We used to have boom and bust cycles every 10 to 20 years. So you're in a sailboat, there's a storm, you pull down the sails, you wait, Sarbanes-Oxley, a few lawsuits, there you go out of business, you're resilient for a year or two, and then you say, okay, let's go grow, and we can talk about what do we grow in GDP. When you have a tsunami one week and a Greek bond crisis another and a Gulf oil spill another, when you are having boom and bust cycles, not every 10 years, but every 10 days, you can no longer talk about growth. You have to talk about something new that we've never had to do before. If you're in a storm and it's never going to stop, you have to learn to sail with your sails up in a storm, meaning you have to be able to do resiliency and growth simultaneously. I think we will never again have the opportunity to just go grow, and the only thing that's ever been invented that allows people as individuals and institutions and societies to be simultaneously resilient and be able to respond to a shock and be innovative and grow are values, because values control against what you should not do, and values like hope allow you to not to keep going, and values towards a mission propel you. And I think we need to reframe the issue of not how are we going to grow, but how are we going to be at all times resilient and growth oriented and learn to measure those things that deliver resiliency and growth. Maybe I should also chip in just here, because when we are talking about, you know, sometimes we talk about solving the problems of the world, and we think of various values and epistemic resources, which we would use to solve the problem of the world. Now, it so happens that there is only, we rely only on one tradition at the moment. I mean, there are informal ways in which we rely on other traditions, but there are basically one tradition in which we keep relying and hoping that it will, you know, give us some kind of perspective and some way forward in order to solve the many problems that we face together. I think that kind of approach should also be in some ways rectified, because there are a huge number of traditions in the world, you know, the African, the Asian, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indian, you know, various intellectual traditions, and they are also a source of values and a source of various conceptions, and they have been excluded, and that is to the detriment of the whole of humanity, right? So they should also be put back on the table so that we can really use all of them in order to solve some of our problems. I don't think we'll get a sense of well-being unless there's an encounter of a real, you know, healthy competition and conflict between traditions from all over the world. In other words, making use of the wisdom that I have there. Yes, and to the extent, I think this is something which we don't realise because it doesn't sort of come up that strongly, but to the extent that this is something which we neglect and we exclude, I think it does continue to have a profound impact, not only on the well-being of people whose resources have been neglected so far, but in the overall well-being of the whole of humanity, who continue to face problems, problems which cannot be solved only by one tradition, but must be solved by many. I see. Dr Liu, I saw you nod. You must have something to say regarding what Dr Baagawa said. Yes, I think diversity is important, and also traditional values is important. For modern society, especially with the quick growth of market economy all over the world, I think we focus too much attention on materials, on GDP. I think in the ancient society, there are many valuable, important values that probably we are in the process of forgetting. It is the time that we try to restore these important values for modern society. Right. We are trying to sort of change the structure of society or even our mentality in how we deal with things. The one other thing that the Prime Minister Wen also highlighted in his speech was how we might tackle the environmental problems in China especially. You have talked about balanced growth, balanced society. What kind of balance is needed there, do you think? How must we change the structure of society in order to achieve that balance? Yes, I think this is a key challenge for China to balance between the environmental protection and the GDP growth. I think to solve this problem, we need judicial independence because very often we see the local government, they are actually protecting pollution because many polluting companies, they are big companies, they are creating jobs, they are contributing GDP and the revenues to the local government. Because the local government cares so much about GDP and it is very difficult for them to really enforce our laws. We have many laws, we have enough laws in environmental protection but the law enforcement is very poor. At the current stage, China's court system is not independent. It is actually part of the government system. Because the government cares about GDP and we don't have the judicial independence so many polluting companies cannot be seriously punished for their wrong behaviour. So I think to solve this problem, we need a rule of law. We need a really independent court system and also the government must exit from economic activities. The government should focus on how to enforce the law. This is the responsibility of the government. We are nearing the end of the discussion already. Before we take questions from our audience, may I ask our panellists to offer a short summary of what you see as the key takeaway from this session on measuring our lives? May I start by Mr Seidman? A minute or a minute and a half? A few things. If we look at the conditions in which we live, we are never going to become any less connected, interconnected or interdependent. That is the new reality. Just because we're interdependent doesn't mean these interdependencies are healthy. We could rise together or fall together. I think we need to devote energy on a global basis to forging healthy, enduring, rich, meaningful interdependencies. And we are going to debate systems and in this part of the world, in this regard, capitalism gets attacked. As an American, I'm comfortable saying it's not clear we ever did capitalism. Most people think that Adam Smith was an economist. He was the chairman of the moral philosophy department at Glasgow University when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. People think that capitalistic competition is zero sum. I win, you lose. It comes from the tradition, competition in Latin is compitare. It means striving together. And if you strive together everybody makes the other better. In an interdependent world, I think we have to strive together. If we are going to pursue shared value, you need shared values. It's impossible on a sustained basis to create any form of shared value unless there is an ethic of human endeavor that allows us to go together. It was 50 years ago today that John F. Kennedy gave Let's Go to the Moon speech. Today, 50 years ago. And when he said Let's Go to the Moon, the most important thing about his vision is not Let's Go to the Moon. It's when he said within a decade. He realized that the future that he wanted to bring about would take at least 10 years. He offered a vision that would outlast his presidency and he was tragically assassinated early on. Which means we're going on a journey. And since this is a panel on measurement, what do you do on journeys? First you do what the Confucius tradition tells you to do. You take the first step. But then you measure progress. Not just outcome, outcome, how much, how much. If you're on a journey, we need to agree as to what progress looks like. And if we can have that vision of healthy interdependency on a global scale and agree as to what are the metrics of progress, then we'll do those things that yield progress and have the courage to chart out 10, 20 year paths because frankly the problems we face today, the answers to them are not short term. They're long term. We need to go on a journey. I think we're all agreed that poverty is a curse. I think that we have to get rid of it. We're all agreed that GDP is not a sufficient indicator of well-being. Although in some very flimsy sense it does indicate the potential of what is required to have collective well-being. I think we all agree and this is something which is very surprising to me. We're all agreed that well-being is a much richer concept, that it's much more complicated business than many of us would want to believe sometimes when we are, as you put it, in the pursuit of money and so on. There are a couple of other things which I'm not sure whether we all agree on. One is how important it is to have irreducibly social goods. There are some goods that we cannot create or enjoy individually. Take for example, tolerant society. Now we want to live in a tolerant society, but this is not something that can be had by one individual. It has to be a collective creation. We sometimes worry about the fact that we are becoming a culture where people don't read enough. Now that's something which is not an individual's creation, nor is it something that we can rectify individually. If our sense of well-being is affected negatively, adversely, by the fact that we are not reading enough or reading good quality stuff, this is again a collective endeavour. It is not something individual. And final point, we need shared values if we are to imagine the well-being of the entire humanity. But these values have multiple sources. They do not come from one single source. They have multiple sources. Many of these sources are still lying hidden. They are not even in people's views. Even those people who come from traditions which develop these values have more or less forgotten what these values are. It's very important to retrieve these traditions, to reinvent and reimagine them if we really rediscover a richer sense of well-being that we can all in some senses share. Thank you. Now I'm going to sound very unfair because I have to ask you to be brief and shorter. Dr Liu, what is your takeaway? I think people nowadays are talking too much about the current economic slurring down of China. I think the real challenge is not economic slurring down. It is time for people to think about the real meaning of economic growth to really calculate the cost of the current economic growth model. Of course, the government has put forward a very good plan for the next five-year plan to build a sustainable economic growth model. But the real challenge is to put it into action. I think this is a big challenge. This is mostly for policymakers in governments who are thinking and worrying about better policies for better lives. So for them to know their lives, people's aspiration is crucial. But as we know today, this is quite a huge challenge, a very complex issue. Secondly, 2015, three years time, the year of target, the year of target, the millennium development goal, that 2015 is now approaching. So perhaps I hope this exercise, this type of exercise will be contributing a lot to elaborate some new targets beyond 2015. Right, because it's an ongoing process. Well, let us take questions from the floor. Maybe two questions, one there and a lady from there. My name is Andrea, global shaper. Of course, being one of the members of the youngest community in the forum, I'm going to talk about young people. We live in a world in which more than half of the world population is under the age of 30. In Asia, we've got a very big portion of this. For example, in Japan we have a more ageing society. It means that young people are even a scarcer resource. Now, this being said, I want to link this to what Maslow said. There are people who need to basically satisfy their basic needs. Then we go beyond this to material needs. Then we go beyond this to intellectual, aspirational and spiritual needs. So when we are measuring indexing, what you basically presented, we are somehow looking at what is the world population portion, which is still in the basic needs sector, the material needs, and then they think about making money and then the aspirational intellectual needs. That's the 3% you mentioned. So what about investing in young people in basically moving forward directly to the last part, intellectual, aspirational needs, basically using our passions to recreate a better world? Thank you. Any volunteers? First thing I'd say is I'm inspired by your question. I'm deeply inspired. Young people are doing something today that the world has never seen. They are creating freedom from dictators, oppressors, having to listen to corporate communications, do all the talking they're talking to, freedom from micromanaging bosses and freedom from command and control readers. The way you create freedom from being in a box. I tell people it's not a compliment to say, think outside the box, take the box away. It's not a compliment to empower people, because when you empower someone you say, I've got the power and I'm bestowing some on you. Young people today want to be included and participate and they are deconstructing and doing even revolutions and they are creating freedom from all of these things. But the real tradition that we really celebrate is not freedom from, but freedom to pursue happiness, to innovate, to rise up Maslow's hierarchy. Freedom to is always about education, inspiring people to go on a journey and frameworks of values that allow you to do something together. I think young people are doing their part by creating the need for this freedom too. I think leaders have to fill this vacuum and include young people on this journey or young people will be not just angry, but they will be filled with anguish and have a pain and that will be really bad for the world. And the next question, please. Hi, I'm Jackie Wong from China. I have a question for Mr Tamaki. Your better life index has anything with women's status and feeling about life in a society. And if yes, what makes women feel life better? Thank you. This is quite an evident answer. Yes, we are quite mindful in measuring the role of women in society. This is not only a participation late in labour force, but also the social connectedness or education in many aspects. We could compare the men's data and women's group. Eventually, we are seeking, of course, it depends upon the culture, but we are seeking, of course, as a policy level, we are seeking total genuine gender equality. Thank you very much. I hope that you will continue the discussion perhaps in the corridors or during the coffee breaks. Thank you very much for coming to the session. We've debated on measuring our lives, a profound and challenging subject, and one point that all panellists could agree on was the need for indices that go beyond more GDP figures. Justice national security has taken to the individual level as human security. It seems that the social relations or relations between individual and individual, between individual and society, will be the key word when rethinking about well-being. This concludes our session. Thank you very much for your attendance, and please give a big round of applause for our panellists. Thank you very much.