 Thank you very much, Holger. I'm going to address some of the policy issues here around the macroeconomic area. First of all, just to say what macroeconomic management is, it's those good things of taxing and spending, it's public debt, it's exchange rate policy, it's monetary policy, all the things that governments have to grapple with. All the things, of course, that governments in Europe do terribly well. Gŵr o diddydd a delt yn cael ei ddwyliadoliol wedi dnog f anarchidol os y Florry混adolol, ac mae'r gym觀眾w sees hon dechrau per OWs. Dai nid wrth gwrs mae hynny dimael trwy'r program honna yng Ng employedo'r dymaeth diweud yna cymryd rydaw. Mae'n philwch ymryd gynnwch yn ddweudio. Mae'ch ddath lŷodau sy'n dod am Wah49, sy'n siarad honno b 준� hwn cwrs yn cyfrhedegach hyd yn y frannม acrofin. If a country is not taxing and spending effectively, it can't use aid very effectively. A great deal of criticism of aid alleges that aid has negative macroeconomic effects, some of which we've discussed already. But also one reason why we need to think about the macroeconomics of aid is that these countries get other financial flows. And these financial flows are becoming increasingly important, particularly natural resource revenues, and donors are clearly interested in how they can best help countries that are getting, for example, new oil revenues and all of the issues that come with that. And so the bigger macroeconomic picture around aid is actually changing. It's changing quite dramatically from what it was 30 years ago, certainly, to even 10 years ago. That's simply a graph showing you how important natural resource revenues have become relative to aid. They dip in 2009 because of the global recession, but then, if you look at the more recent data, you'll see that they're back up. So countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Mozambique was a large discovery of natural gas announced last week, another one. These are receiving increasing flows from the resource sector, and that's a new context within which aid has got to work. Still, these countries have quite low revenues. Revenues in Africa are below average. Low-income countries have low revenues. There has been some success, partly supported by donors, in raising domestic revenue mobilisation, but until these countries grow and they grow their tax base, so it's quite difficult for them to increase their spending on all the good things that we want to see in development. So we have seen progress in macroeconomic management. Countries are now less reliant on aid. There's more foreign direct investment. There's more issue of sovereign public debt, which is attractive. Public spending programmes and frameworks have improved in many countries, again through technical assistance. Ministries of finance and central banks are certainly better in Africa than they were. I started my career 30 years ago in Tanzania amidst the crisis of the early 80s, and certainly many of us who have worked on Africa have seen a great improvement in the equality of policymaking in the region, which is a tribute, obviously, to African policy makers themselves, but there has been a large amount of technical assistance that has gone into that. Countries are now becoming less dependent. If you look at a country like Uganda, the oil that's now coming on stream will add significantly to the public revenues. Ghana now receives as much in foreign direct investment as a proportion of GDP as it does in aid. The sovereign debt of Ghana is a very attractive investment. It's now backed by oil revenues, certainly a much more attractive investment for your pension fund than much of the debt of Mediterranean Europe. So the macroeconomic prospects of these countries are looking much better than they were. What are we going to see in aid dependence? We're actually going to see a lot of countries shift down that curve to become less aid dependent. Finn mentioned the graduation from IDA, for example, of India, shortly. But on the other hand, we're going to be stuck with some very hard cases at the top end. The smaller and poorer countries, the fragile states and so forth. So what are our challenges? Well, in the countries that are doing relatively well, for example, the Ganas, we really need aid to focus more on helping those countries get more out of the resource boom that they're experiencing. We need to help them achieve much more structural transformation because although they may be moving up to middle income status to a degree their economies are still relatively undiversified. I personally think that obviously Botswana is a success story. Botswana is a degree, is a success story for aid in its early years. One of the great lessons of Botswana is having a very carefully articulated national plan for using your resource boom, in Botswana's case it's diamond, or for using your aid resources. So I think we need to think much more about effective national plans. I think donors will want to step up their dialogue with society parliamentarians on the use of natural resource revenues and aid within the macroeconomic framework. Some donors may well wish to retain budget support, even to countries that are now receiving quite large oil revenues, simply to maintain a place at the table in the discussion around the macroeconomic framework. When you talk to some of the technocrats and the ministries of finance and central banks in those countries, they'd actually quite welcome the continuation of some budget support because of course they're having to head off on a fairly daily basis of politicians who wish to spend oil banansas on palaces and pyramids and all those things that politicians wish to spend them on. The resource envelope for these countries is getting a great deal better but we all know the risks of large oil discoveries. As I mentioned the tougher cases are the small and poor, the Malawi's etc, the conflict deflected which we've talked about earlier. But still when we look at fragile states I always think of Bangladesh which had many things going against it but which has been in some ways quite a success story over the last 30 years including for some of the aid that's gone into that country into infrastructure. Just to say a little bit about the real economy of aid from what you'll have got from the previous presentations we think the balance of evidence shows that aid has generally had a positive although sometimes modest impact in promoting economic growth. Aid of course is a large increase in demand in an economy, the flow of resources in the economy adds to demand. Whether the supply side of the economy can respond is often very differentiated for example you can think of a large farmer versus a small farmer in their capacity to expand their supply in response to the kind of rise in aggregate demand that aid brings. But of course aid is about much more than raising aggregate demand in the economy it's about infrastructure investment, it's about reducing the remoteness of remote regions it's about strengthening institutions and it's about helping to prevent conflict which is all in essence improving the supply side of the economy. I should say in passing here that while we think growth is extraordinarily important partly because it raises the tax base and allows you to spend more on the good things that you want to for development what's also important in these countries and this is where the structural transformation side of aid comes in is actually reducing the variance of growth the fluctuation of growth as it goes through time. So for example if we compare two countries this shows the variance of growth in Equatorial Greeny which is an oil dependent economy and Vietnam both have had actually similar growth rates but they have very different structures of economy. What Vietnam has been able to do is to structurally transform that economy so it has many more sources of growth than say agriculture which means that its growth is less volatile over time whereas the problem with the oil producers of course is that they remain very dependent upon a single source of revenue and therefore their growth is very volatile. So one of the tasks is not only to raise economic growth it's also to reduce the volatility of growth and as we know in Vietnam the donors have had some success in supporting the Vietnamese government to do that. On the supply side as we've already mentioned some of the effects that you have from aid on the supply side are rapid for example you can rebuild a bridge and a war destroyed economy within a year or two but transforming education and then getting the benefits from education is a much more longer term process. That of course has implications for how we allocate aid aid of course at the moment is very much driven towards the social sectors particularly in the light of the MDGs but it also reflects some difficulties we have in the aid community about thinking through projects selection and the kinds of projects that most benefit growth. Some have argued for a greater emphasis on infrastructure spending and perhaps more investment in the productive sectors in the allocation of aid. That's something we might want to talk about after the break. The issue of Dutch disease rears its head very often in the literature. I don't know why, well I do know why actually that such a charming people as the Dutch are associated with having a disease called after them maybe we should have called it the British disease because we've been far less successful actually in managing our oil as compared to the Dutch with natural gas but you'll be familiar with the sad tale of Nigeria where basically Nigeria pretty much destroyed its real economy particularly its agricultural sector when it discovered oil and increased oil in the 1970s. Many people in their criticism of a age that aid is having those Dutch disease effects as well but we've seen from the cross section and time series evidence that that seems actually unlikely and on one reason it's unlikely is that aid is about improving institutions and infrastructure and supply side whereas unfortunately oil is often about building the pyramids and the palaces and has led to very little structural transformation of those economies. So we really have to think very carefully about the kinds of resource inflows countries are getting and the ways they use them and certainly the task for aid in the new oil producers of Africa is to help them use those resources much better. So a good performance in terms of exports it's a rather undiversified export base. What do we conclude from this? Well I think we can conclude particularly for people like me who've been and others obviously in the audience who've been in this business a fairly long time that we have seen an improvement in macroeconomic management since the 80s and the 90s. I remember participating in a number of World Bank missions in the 80s and the 90s where the situations in many countries were extraordinarily dire. The IMF and the World Bank themselves learnt a lot about that experience about thinking much more about the supply side of the economies. We're seeing that growth is raising public revenues but we need to ensure that those are well invested. Taxing and spending has to be right. The debt management has to be right. Those good things that you do in macroeconomic policy have to be right. There's a lot of scope for technical assistance there by the donor community. And we're seeing success in graduation through the process of economic growth Ghana and other countries moving up to low middle income status but we need really to think hard about what we're doing about the fragile states where certainly one aspect of fragility is that they have much less ability and capacity to manage the macroeconomics of development. In that sense, in some ways, wider as a UN institution would always assert that peace building is good economics. It provides the background for effective deployment of economic policy and management. As a last point, I think we can expect these countries to do a lot but at the end of the day many of them remain very small in terms of economic size and really very vulnerable to the fortunes of the global economy. At the moment, you could certainly say that the system of international monetary governance, the system of global economic management is not encouraging for poor countries. It never really has been. But it is extraordinarily weak. Many central bank governors, for example, have built up very large foreign exchange reserves, part of using aid, because they're just waiting for the next big shock to come and those big shocks will come. So, you know, my story is a story of progress. It's a story of improvement. But these things are extraordinarily fragile both at the country level and at the global level.