 Hi, I'm Greta. I'm the module convener for poverty reduction. I'm one of the newest staff members of SIDEP. So I thought I'd use this opportunity to talk about what we can learn from business history research, given that this was the topic of my PhD, which I recently finished. So my PhD was on Indonesian Small and Medium Enterprise Development since roughly the late 1960s. And I started this topic because I was initially interested in industrial policy, the Asian miracle, tiger economies. But then I started discovering questions like how does this affect the economy at large? How does the average person participate in this process? Do they participate in it at all? Given that we know a lot about large enterprises and conglomerates, but we generally don't really talk about the average for small and medium enterprises, and do they change? Are they part of this industrial transformation and on this path towards economic development? So in my first paper, which is now a couple of weeks away from journal submission, which is very exciting, in the life of a young academic, I look at the fact that one of the features of the East Asian model is the principle of shared growth, which included various reforms, including small and medium enterprise target support policies. And in the case of Indonesia, Sahartus new order government, which was in place between 1966 and when it was toppled, and Sahartus finally stepped down in 1998, which restructured the economy along similar lines, which included strengthening small business to promote income equality. And yet, despite all these government ambitions, it's commonly argued that Indonesia suffered from a supposed missing middle. So Indonesia's missing middle and this perceived inability of indigenous firms to grow, especially vis-à-vis Sino-Indonesian businesses has been highly politicized and subject to a recurring heated public discourse. So I thought this would be worth to look at in itself to establish is this true in the first place? Do we see this missing middle? So I analyzed the emergence of the missing middle, and I discovered that this develops as the Indonesian economy grew. From a kind of pinpoint when I asked why this happened and attempt to identify the main barriers. So in the case of Indonesia, what this business history research revealed is that there was a shift in firm-sized distribution, as I would have expected. You would expect firms to grow larger as an economy develops, but that this shift was mainly from micro enterprises, very tiny firms towards small enterprises, while there has been this persistent gap in the medium-sized firm sector. And in this first paper, I built a comparison to South Korea and Taiwan, both also tiger economies, but also to have a reference point. What does this all mean? And you will find this in your research as well. There's an advantage to taking a comparative approach, given that it immediately allows your reader to kind of situate what your findings actually mean, what are the implications. In my case, working in firm-sized distribution, is this a lot? Is this normal? Is this a part of their regular development trajectory? And in my case, this comparison shows that this missing middle that I find in Indonesia cannot be explained by Indonesia's stage of economic development. And rather, what I find is part of my analysis, where I look at the value added per worker, I find extremely low value added per worker and micro enterprises and small firms, which I say is indicative of a dual-economy model. Dual-economy model is something you'll learn if you choose to do your masters with us at CIDR. So this is kind of a bit of an insight of what I'm currently doing. This is my main project. My next project looks at the issue of development of access to small-scale business credit in Indonesia, which is often identified as one of the main constraints for small and medium enterprise development everywhere. So I look at this in the case of Indonesia, but it has important implications for governments all around the world and how do you choose to support the sector, what works, what doesn't. In Indonesia, for example, you see quite a lot of investment in to subsidize SME credit schemes, which I find don't work very well, if at all, given that they tend to lack the incentive structure for customers to repay and for banks to collect on that debt. So you can see that you can learn quite a lot from business history research about what... Well, my personal angle is government policy, but how do they work? Is it worth investing? Often there's a huge discrepancy between the ambitious goals and what you then actually see implemented in the field, and that is an observation you'll probably make in very many areas and fields, far away from business history research, if that is not your thing. So I hope that gave you a little bit of insight. It was nice to meet you and I'm looking forward to chatting to you soon. Bye!