 I'd like to also start by with a big thank you to the organisers for inviting me here. And especially to Tony for sort of taking the care to have the session. Thank you Tony. So I'm going to be really, really brief. So the standard line to take when you say that is to say that I'm going to be brief because I'm standing between you and lunch. But since you've just had your lunch, that one's not going to work. Another attempt might be that I'm standing between you and your next meal. Well that's a long time to go. So that one's not going to work either. But I really do have a good reason for being brief. And that's because not only am I standing between you and Ravi, which sort of by itself would be enough for me to be brief. But I'm in the unique position of basically standing between you and Ravi, but also Amartya said. So there's really good reasons for me to be brief. So what I thought I would do would be to take what Marty had done and talk through what are some of the big conceptual ways in which we've thought about the informal economy. And then to link that with a bit of the reality that we see in the wego network. And to link it back to some of the detail that Marty had outlined. And I'm kind of going to go back to the earliest kind of thinking about the informal economy and try to draw out what are the ways in which the development economics community has thought about the informal economy. And then I draw out what might be some of the development thinking that you would take that you would sort of take out of that framework. Pass that with what we see in the informal economy now. And then try to draw out what that might mean for the sort of policy debate. So I picked five things I could have picked a lot more and I'll try to go through it quickly. So if you go back to the earliest thinking on the informal economy and for that you would have to go sort of back to the sort of back to the ILO report, you'll pick up this kind of idea that the informal economy is something that's a sort of temporary phenomenon. And that as we grow and as we develop, we'll sort of move people from the informal economy to the formal economy and therefore with time the informal economy will no longer exist. And if you believe that world then what you should be doing from the development perspective is to promote the informal economy and basically stop sort of new entrants from going into the informal economy. So what Marty laid out seems to be sort of not at all in line with this conceptual model. In fact, if we look at the employment trends, not only has the informal economy grown but it's sort of taken a larger and larger share of the net new jobs. And if you believe that reality then you should really think about the development issue in quite a sort of different way. I've kind of drawn out here four possible reasons why the earliest thinkers views might not have sort of come to be true. So I think they didn't really foresee the massive increase that we've had in the last sort of 40 years or so in the labor supply from female workers. So we've had a large ship. I think they've not really seen massive changes in sort of male employment, including massive reductions in male jobs in the formal sector. I think part of the reason is that we now sort of counting workers in the labor market a lot more smartly than we did then. And I think we also sort of better understand now the links between formal and informal. So that's the first example of what I think has been quite a large shift in the way that we think about the informal economy. So point two, which is partly linked to the first point is this idea that the informal economy operates as some sort of a residual and therefore the labor market sort of policy should be focused on not the informal economy, but the formal economy. So that's what I was thinking throughout the 70s and 80s was. And once more we've seen quite a large change in the way that we see informal work. And I've kind of tried to draw out that that means that we have to be a lot more nuanced in the way that we think about sort of government intervention in the labor market. So point three and Marty's drawn this out as well. I think lots of the earliest thinking and lots of the kind of thinking now as well is sort of based on this notion that the informal economy is made up of a group of sort of people who are trying to hide from some sort of regulation. So they can try to hide from labor market regulations, they trying to hide from sort of tax regulations, or there's something that they're trying to hide from. And if you believe in that world, then your sort of policy prescription should be to sort of basically deregulate. So sort of get the regulations out of the way. And then all of these sort of budding entrepreneurs would then serve. The kind of reality that I think we all see is not an informal economy where anyone's trying to hide. In fact what they're trying to do is to be seen by sort of policy makers. And a fair amount of the problems that informal economy workers face is largely because they outside the regulations. So what you need instead is regulations that are appropriate for that world. And I think Ravi's work on notions of regulation and enforcement who's inside the regulations who's outside has made great advances in the way that we think about it. So sort of point four, most views of the informal economy think about the informal economy is made up of enterprises that have low levels of productivity. And if you believe in that world, then you should really be trying to push people from these low productivity sectors to higher productivity sectors. Once more I think some of the work that's been done in the last while shows two things. One is that there's an enormous amount of heterogeneity in these enterprises. And two, at least sometimes when the levels of productivity are low, it might be because of the way small scale informal workers get incorporated into global chains. And I think if you see that world, you see a substantially different agenda for sort of policy makers. So point five, much of the thinking in the development economics will seize the informal economy as something of a sort of cushion. So when times are bad, people move into the informal economy. I think some of the newer thinking on the shows that much of the brunt of the depressions sort of tend to be felt in the informal economy. So those are five kind of broad changes that we've seen. So let me end with three concluding remarks. The first is I think we've had some amount of traction in this newer world about the informal economy among researchers and among people who do advice in the policy world. But I don't think we've had much traction among those who make the policies. And I sort of wonder about that. I think at least one part of the explanation for that is that if you're making the sort of policies, I think your first instinct when you see the informal economy is to try to make it as to try to move it from being informal to being formal. So the first instinct of a state official is to try to make something, you know, we wanting to sort of tax it or we wanting to sort of count it or do something that will make it formal. Point two is I think we have some amount of acceptance that there's heterogeneity, but I don't think we understand much of it. And I think at least some of the reason for that is that much of our understanding of the informal economy is in fact drawn from household surveys. And the problem with household surveys is that most of our respondents don't really draw much of a distinction between their household accounts and their sort of business accounts. So it's all a bit of a black box. And I think a lot more enterprise surveys would help. And the last sort of point is once more, although we understand that it's accepted, it's changing, I don't think we know enough about those changes. And therefore I think we need a lot more panels and I'll stop there.