 What I thought I'd do to add some value is to actually put on my hat as the chair of the wider board and say a few things along those lines. And we have of course a new director coming in, Kunal Sen, who is the director designate and he's here and many of you will have met him. And I myself have been associated with wider for the last 33 years since it started. So I've seen the turnover of all the directors and basically in my view the director needs three things and Finn has done this very well indeed. A broad big picture framing of the issues. And I think conferences like this are extremely helpful for that and your views on the broad big picture framing will be very useful to us, certainly to the board. Not this specific thing should be done and that specific thing and so on, not sector specific but big picture framing. But the second thing that a director needs is to answer the question, what can be delivered? Because wider may not seem to you from this conference is actually a very small institution. It's not the research department of the World Bank and so on. So what can we actually be delivered? Not everything can be done. And the third thing is what can be funded. So what should be done and what can be delivered is not necessarily what can be funded. So it's those three things that a director has to juggle with and that the board then advises the director on. And I think the program that you actually see is a mixture of those three things. And again, all credit to Finn and his team for having played those three things very well indeed. So from the conference I picked up two or three big picture themes, some of which have already been mentioned. So let me just put those out. One I was very struck by Martin Revalian's opening statement in the panel that he was on that I chaired, which is with income growth in many countries, the issue of income poverty, of absolute income poverty is getting less and less important. Because it was quantitatively numerically getting less and less important. And that struck me as being quite important. And that leads to some interesting issues because actually much of the funding, at least in terms of its rhetoric is for extreme poverty and the extremely poor and so on. And indeed the latest call, if many of you have seen it from DFID, is for extreme poverty funding for analysis of extreme poverty and so on. So that's an issue I think, that's a tension that Wider will have to address in the coming years. Is it going to be a focus then, if the numbers are going down on the absolute poverty, don't forget, of the last mile issue of focusing more on the concentration and where it is, et cetera, and that actually needs particular types of analysis and perhaps Wider can find a niche in that. So that's one tension that I picked up in the sessions. The second issue that I want to raise, which actually has not been discussed that much at all, although it's been pointed out by Kaushik and others, is how are we going to and how are we going to bring behavioral economics into development economics? So there's a lot of lip service was paid to it, is paid to it. But actually when you look at the Wider program, there isn't that much of it in the thing. Part of it is we've got caught up in the RCT debate, that RCTs are associated with the behavioral economics tradition. And I have quite cautionary views on RCTs, but I think the behavioral economics perspective is something different from the RCT debate. And we have a world development report on it, which was done in Kaushik's time. So I put that to you as a question. How seriously are we going to take behavioral economics in our analysis of development economics and development policy? I think that's an open question. Is that a direction that Wider should go? Another question, because actually most of the sessions are fairly straightforward middle of the road mainstream economics in this conference. The third issue which has been raised many times, a sort of a big picture framing question, would be the question of labor saving technical change. That clearly is an issue or perhaps the issue of our time. And people have discussed it from different angles, the share of labor, et cetera, and then addressing this question because it's a demand side, it's a labor demand shock, which essentially increases the demand for skilled labor and reduces the demand for basic labor. And that's how we then think about it, having effect on wages or employment or whatever. That's how we think through these things. Well, the answer to a demand side shock is to shovel on the supply side, that you build up skills and so on and so forth and that's been one part of the sort of discussions that we've had in this thing. The second type of response is that you redistribute and that's, again, we've discussed that. And there I think the issue of redistribution is really one, I think, of the overlap between the economic efficiency of different types of redistributions, different instruments of redistribution and the social acceptability of different types of redistributions. The economically most efficient way we know is straightforward cash transfer, if a steel worker is unemployed and loses $1,000, the economically most efficient way is $1,000 cash thing. Any more indirect way of doing it will cost you more than $1,000. That is the basic insight from economics. And yet that may not be the socially acceptable way of doing this. And this links back to the dignity of work, those sorts of issues that we had. And whether we're in sort of world of canes as economic possibilities for our grandchildren where, well, it's great if there's no more work, because we don't have to do this hard work. But what about this notion of the dignity of work? And that links into behavioral economics as well. So there's a supply side story, there's a redistribution type story. But there's a third thing which really hasn't been discussed here at all. And it was there in Tony Atkinson's book, The Inequality of What Can Be Done. And it was actually number 15 in his proposals, which is why should we take the trend of technology as being given to us, okay? The standard way that we do it is we take it as an exogenous trend. We say here it is, the demand curve shifts upwards. And then we follow through, then we do our economic analysis and say this is the wage effect, etc., etc. All the analysis here is basically of that, of that time. Why should we accept that as being given? Why shouldn't the technological trend itself be subject to public investment, public change? And indeed there's a tradition in economics of doing that, going back to Arrow, saying that actually technical change is endogenous. And the market supply of technological change is inefficient because of network effects and all that sort of stuff. But the focus in that economic literature, the Arovian literature and the Atkinson's signature literature is focused on efficiency, not distribution. So I put it to you that the question of addressing once again public investment in changing the trend of technological change to make it more, let's say, labor-using or distributionally sensitive is a very big picture issue. But I wonder whether that can be delivered and whether that can be funded. But that's for the wider director to work out. Thank you very much.