 Well, thank you all so much for being here. I'll be presenting my paper on the Legacies of Armed Conflict, offering some insights of the difference between states and returning forced migrants. This work is co-authored with Carlos Vargas Silva, who's also at the University of Oxford. And just to sort of give you a way of how we motivated, like what motivated us to do this study is that when thinking about sort of the impacts of trust and violence, the impacts of conflict on trust and violence on attitudes, we typically do not necessarily think about where people were at the time of conflict, or the differences between refugees, returnees, and states. There's, in fact, a large literature exploring the impacts of armed conflict and violence on trust, reconciliation, and community engagement. But these attitudinal differences between individuals from same communities of origin that were located in different geographical countries or areas during the conflict is very much absent. And we argue that this is a major gap in the literature as the end of conflict often involves the return of large numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons to their community of origin. So that's very much what's sort of behind what we want to understand here. In this paper, what we do is we want to look at these differences in views and attitudes because we know that these can have long-term implications, not only for peace building, nation building, but also for economic performance, right? We know that trust and the sentiments of reconciliation and sort of all these dimensions that are part of large social capital are quite important, not only for sort of economic development, but also sort of the peace process itself. So what we do in this paper, and this paper is very much a descriptive paper, we are documenting the differences in indicators of trust, reconciliation, and community engagement between those that stayed in their communities of origin during the conflict, what we call the stays, and those who were displaced both internally and internationally and returned over time. So the returnees. So we're gonna talk about the returnees, but then we're gonna also make the difference between the internally displaced and the internationally displaced. And we're going to explore the differential impact of violence exposure for each of the groups. And what we do here is we're gonna use data collected in Burundi, which as many of you know, has been a conflict-affected country that has experienced large levels of displacement and return. So the way we sort of started thinking about the framework of this paper was in terms of bringing, there's not like a unifying literature that we could find that would explain the differences in attitudes between returnees and stays, but we wanted to sort of look at the literature in trust, reconciliation, and community engagement. And we find that in the trust literature, we know that personal experience can have major impacts on individuals' inclinations to trust dollars. The work of Alessina, for example, has shown that traumatic events are associated with lower levels of trust. And in this context, if we think about stays, for example, they have to protect that limited resources during the war and may have or may form different notions of trust as a result. But on the other hand, the returnees had to escape conflict, adopt a life elsewhere, sometimes even growing up there and returning home and many forced to return home. So they could also develop different attitudes and notions of trust. And there could be even a difference between the international displaced and the internally displaced. Now, the literature in reconciliation has shown that experience in violence can lead to cause for further violence, right? Those that have been more exposed to conflict have greater levels of distrust, security concerns and resentment, but there's been other sets of studies that in fact show that greater exposure for violence has led to greater support for peace. So in that sense, greater experience of violence makes them more aware of its actual costs and more likely to favor options to avoid it. But then again, what's the role of displacement and return and how can we understand those differences in here? And finally, in terms of community engagement, exposure to violence also often leads to more prosocial behavior as being found in the literature, including community engagement. However, most of the findings have pointed at that increase in prosocial behavior tending to be towards one's own identity group. So there's been also some evidence that states and returnees may see each other as outgroup members. So we've done some work on this area for Burundi and this could potentially be expanded to international returnees seeing each other as outgroup members. So what we do in this paper is we look at Burundi, which is a country that has three very important characteristics for this kind of study that we wanted to do, which is a country that experienced substantial internal as well as international displacement and return. And then it allows us to compare the two groups with those that stayed. The volume of repatriation in Burundi was substantial relative to the size of the country's population and a large portion of those that were displacement a substantial amount of time away from their home communities. So this time away, we argue, may have been conducive to the development of differences in trust, reconciliation and community engagement. Whether this is only specific to Burundi, obviously sort of our results speak very much to the case of Burundi, but there are other countries which also have had these three characteristics and for which their results could be relevant. If you think about Afghanistan, Somalia or South Sudan. So this is just to give you a sense of the number of people displaced during the conflict in Burundi in 1993 was the peak of displacement. Then by the end of 2014, most people had returned home. We see then in 2015 a new wave of displacement and I'll get back to that because we're not gonna get into that part in the study but it can be relevant to our findings. So we collected data during January and March of 2015. These, we interviewed 15 households in 100 communities across the 17 provinces of the country. Now the person providing the information, trust, reconciliation and community involvement was the household head. So our analysis is gonna be at the household level but there's also information from local leaders which were interviewed in each community. This is just to geographically give you a sense of all the communities that were interviewed. And I'm gonna quickly show you some of the questions that we use, the question of trust was to rank one to five, the extent to which the person or the head of the household trusted the following people or institutions. So we ask about community leaders, ex-combatants, other ethnic groups, others in the community or returnees. In terms of reconciliation, we gave three statements. One being I feel justice has been done to those who committed crimes during the war. I feel reconciled with the atrocities that I experienced during the war and I feel the reoccurrence of conflict in Burundi is a real danger. Again, this was run from one to five as to how much they agreed and we reordered so that values would indicate more reconciliation. And our question on community engagement was a variable indicating that at least one household member is a member of a group or organization, right? And we included a couple different organizations that were relevant in that sense. So let me just move to the estimation. We conducted the analysis in two steps. First, we look again at the household level, the measures of trust, community engagement and then we looked at the differences between stays and internally displaced and the refugees, right? So we're interested on the coefficients beta one and beta two. We control for the number of land disputes that the household had, the number of people killed in the household and for some household specific characteristics. And then in the second step, we add some interactions. So we're interested in beta five, beta six and beta seven and beta eight, which is the interactions with these measures of land disputes and number of people killed in the household during the conflict as a sort of exposure to conflict. We included control variables at the household level, including age, primary education, whether the household was female led and so on. So I'm going to, I just realized, this is my first presentation since the pandemic started in person and you tend to forget that these are not necessarily the best way to present the results but I'll walk you through the results. So these are the results in terms of the differences between stays, IDPs and fraternities in trust levels. And what we find is that the internal fraternities tend to have lower levels of trust compared to the stays, right, as for the international fraternities, these are negative, but they're statistically significant. And then in the second panel, we have... Isabel, you have two minutes left. In the second panel, we have the interactions with violence and then we, I'll talk about the finding in there in a minute, but that we find a positive likelihood of having higher levels of trust for international fraternities and international and international fraternities. Now, our results in terms of violence and reconciliation always also show that it is the internal fraternities that want driving the negative, sort of the negative levels in here. So the negative results. So the internal fraternities are more likely to think that the justice has not been done or that are less reconciled with the atrocities. And they're also less likely to belong to different organizations compared to the stays or compared to international fraternities and the stays. So I just have a couple of few minutes, but just to talk to you a little bit about the robustness tests, we also included some control for pre-war conditions. We had collected data in 2011, so we knew pre-war land hectares that we had asked and education level of the household head. So we control for these and the results sort of are very much constant. So just sort of to wrap up my results in my probably one minute left, what we find is that international fraternities have significantly lower levels of trust, reconciliation and community engagement than stays, whereas the different with the international fraternities and stays is mostly insignificant. And greater exposure to violence has a more positive effect on trust for fraternities compared to stays, but a negative effect on community engagement. Now I show you, I won't take too much, but the relation with the new wave of displacement, we collected this data right before the new wave of displacement happened in Burundi and there could be potential differences that can make it interesting to study this case. I won't have no time to go into that, but there's been interesting dynamics that we're seeing with the previous conflict and this would be something that we're sort of losing in our paper that it would be important to try to understand what is going on here in terms of this attitude in our differences. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.