 This is a paper which we are doing with Channing and the Christ. It's about the Madimensional Poverty Analysis for Tanzania trying to use the wealth indicators and apply the fiscal dominance approach. The sort of motivating is that we saw that it's well known that the high economic growth will lead to poverty reduction. This is what happened in most parts of the world. But for the most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Tanzania, that is not what happened. For example, Tanzania has achieved very impressive economic performance including economic growth which has been growing at 70% since 2000 to date. And yet poverty has not gone down that much significantly. And then people wonder what is happening, why are there mismatch between high economic growth at one hand and still the level of poverty that remains the same. And what we are trying to do here, we want to try to understand. Is that because of what the time in economic growth? Or is that because we wrongly measure the poverty comparing to the economic growth and the wealth indicators? And we are saying measuring poverty and the concern with other indicators is really a very complex phenomenon. And although the poverty monetary, the one dollar per day, give a very good insights of all things that have been happening over time, that in its own has got a number of challenges and shortcomings. One is when you use poverty or monetary measures, it's not consistent over time and across space. That's number one. There are many, many challenges in terms of the methodologies which I cannot go through here. But more than that, there is more to poverty than money. And therefore poverty by nature is the dimension. And we are saying although measuring poverty using monetary measures, the dimension has a problem yet that can give even much more a better and accurate assessment of what is poverty. And this is what we have been doing here. And we are saying that the main challenge of using many indicators measuring poverty is that it's quite difficult to do the so-called upgrading the welfare. So waiting is a problem. You have to put a lot of assumptions in the subjectivity, whether education is better than health or what is important than housing. And we are trying to use an approach which does not suffer much from that normative or subjectivity, which is the first order dominance, which in a simple way it says it's better to be better. It's better to be not deprived than being deprived. If you have two populations, let's say in 1990 and 2000 and you have welfare indicators, you are trying to see whether the welfare in urban is better than in rural area. If you can do some sort of reallocation within urban area and yet urban areas tended to be better than rural area, then you can confirm that people in urban are doing by far better than those in rural area. This is what we are trying to do. And we are doing so using Tanzania demographic health service. For this service, we are defining four population categories. The households, the children under five and the young women. And for each population categories, we are defining five welfare indicators. For instance, for the household, we are defining water, sanitation, shelter, education and information. And what you are saying here, and also is not deprived from water, if the source of drinking water is from pipe, a tap or a well protected well. And the household also is not deprived as far as sanitation is concerned if the household is deprived in terms of sanitation, if the household does not have a flush toilet or ventilated improved ventilator. Also we are saying that the household is deprived in terms of shelter if his or her house is constructed using the flow material which are either made of dead sand, dank or planks. And in terms of education, the household is deprived if the head of household has not finished primary education. And in terms of information, if that household has no radio or TV. So those are the five welfare indicators we are using for the household level or children. And we are starting by doing some simple, this is a six year, trying to see what is happening with these five welfare indicators. So if we compare from 1992 to 2010 for the international level, we are saying that with the exception of water, all other indicators have done very well. You see that in 1992 it is only 2% of the sanitation, improved sanitation. But by 2010 it is 11%. As far as shelter it was only 11, 18%. By 2010 it is around 30%. By education it is only 31%. But by 2010 a big improvement is 60%. So the same can be said in terms of information. What really has not been improving is as far the access to water. And that is very well known back in Tanzania. In the recent report show that by 2025 station will be even worse. That there is rapidly urbanization and the government is not that much sharp to supply more water. This is as far the five welfare indicators. And then we are trying to combine all these welfare and see what happened if somebody is depriving all welfare indicators. Or is not deprived in all other indicators. And we are seeing that many people really exit out of poverty. It was 34% in 1992, around 15%. The people were depriving all welfare indicators. Those who were not, they were doing good in all indicators. It was only 1.6 in 1992, it is now 6.31. And these results compare very well with what we use in terms of monetary measures. Because we see from 90 to 2007 poverty has gone down by only 5%. And here we are seeing those who have been doing very well is only a difference of 5%. So there are some more very close. But when you decompose further you find that there has been a huge improvement for the rural area in terms of those who exit from the severe poverty. But more improvement in terms of in the urban area for those who are doing good in all indicators. That is what we see. And what is summarized that poverty remain to be a rural phenomenon in Tanzania. Thank you very much.