 Thank you very much, Retro. These are two very interesting and complementary presentations. By coincidence, both have worked with World Bank. And for those of you who knew the World Bank of the 1980s, must be surprised. These messages from the ex World Bank staff, but this shows how much even the financial institutions like the World Bank have changed over time. Now, in discussing this paper, I have a special challenge here because I basically agree with the thrust of the arguments. In fact, when both Justin and Celestine visited Tanzania and we had long discussions on this framework, in my Institute report, where several of us are represented here, we were doing, engaging to similar activity of focusing on socio-economic transformation in such a way that we have inclusive growth. So it came at a very timely moment. In fact, around the same time, we agreed that one of us among the researchers would read carefully the book and the articles on this subject and make a presentation in the seminar. And the presenter, fortunately, is here, Nehama Rutatina. I wish she was a discussant because she presented this model to the staff so that we can understand what challenges of transformation we are facing. But that shows that we think this is the right way to go. But there are challenges on the way. And as demonstrated by Celestine Munga, what he sees as preconditions which actually do not violate what would have been predicted, it says a lot about the point which Justin emphasized at the beginning, that these are country-specific, very sensitive to country-specificity in terms of understanding the recent endowment, the structure of the economy, where it is going. So you cannot generalize too much. However, as you know, averages have always challenges. But averages tell you a story, but if you take them too literally, you forget that averages actually are made up of diverse indicators. So what indices show hides a lot of details. One important issue which comes out very clearly is that transformation is specific to country situations, country structures, country endowments, and country decision as well the development agenda is really. And that's why it's very... The question which comes across is the risk of coping rather than adapting. Adaptation always means much as you may admire what others have done to succeed. But one must not forget that one has to adapt to the concrete situation prevailing in the country in question. A second issue which I find very useful in our own understanding of transformation is bearing in mind comparative advantages in a dynamic context. You cannot divorce from the fact that however much you transform, one must remain competitive in the global economy. Without that, you cannot be sure that the kind of competitive advantage you are achieving is going to last. So I think bearing in mind dynamic comparative advantage is extremely important here. The third issue which by implication is the centrality of innovations and technological capability building over time. And this cannot be done in a generic manner. It has to be done in the context of the industries and activities in which the country is visiting to be competent. So I think that subject has been not very much in the attention of development economists for some time. The importance of building technological capabilities. When Raja was telling me that he's a professor of innovation and technological management, I was saying in the world you must be one of the very few, maybe 20 of you remaining who are addressing that subject. But I think that this discussion here brings that to the center because technology and innovation are at the center of determining the capacity to compete. So the challenge is to not brush aside the centrality of technological capability building and innovations. The importance of price signals and the market is brought to bear. As you rightly pointed out, just in the 70s, many countries of developing countries like ours which adopted import substitution industrialization, we were actually negating the market. The policies were negating markets rather than actually using markets. When it came to structural adjustment and reforms, the other extreme was adopted, negating the role of the state, hoping that markets would do everything. So the challenge we are facing now is countries which think that the state has no role to play in ensuring that markets actually develop. Market development and the process of actually removing the transaction cost to make markets function efficiently. The state has much to play there. But the messages which many of our states now have is you are talking of remarkets, market function, they forget the function of intervening in order to make markets operate more efficiently and therefore the signals can be worth actually making use of when addressing the issues which have been raised here. So the role of the state in ensuring markets develop is something which most of our countries have actually been misled or misled themselves to think that markets are there to function. But the role of the state to make markets function is important. You address both of you the issue of industrial policy. This is a term which once we mentioned people get called because they go back to, their minds go back to the import substitution industrialization of the 1970s that that's where we are going back. So the real challenge in policy making is to convince our policy makers that no, we are talking of a different thing, not the same industrial policy of that time but the industrial policy of the current time taking into account photos of the market process in providing signals, taking into account competitiveness. It's a very different ballgame and the role of the state is very different now which is envisaged in this model compared to what it was. Now to sell that message is a challenge to all of us. In my own country we are facing that challenge when we explain it people immediately remember oh, those days, no, no, no, not those days. The situation is different, circumstances are different and the challenge here is really to be able to interpret the transformation in the context of the country's specificity, in the context of the economies of the region, in the context of the global economy which is very different from the situation we saw in the 70s but it requires capabilities of the state which were destroyed for quite some time, a decade or two which needed to be built again and I think this point may not have come out very clearly the importance of building the capabilities of the state in this direction. Different capabilities from the ones which we experienced in the 70s. I was thinking of the concept of sunset and the sunrise industries and qualifying that to avoid the situation where the policy makers will pick sunset industries and hope that we can, that's enough. It's a sunset industry maybe sunset because the wages are rising factor costs are changing over time but we have those sunset industries where technology has changed and we may need to leapfrog in order to move ahead rather than go through the same sunset industries. I hope the analysis of sunset industries will be made in such a way that we see in the context of the global competitive economy. Is this sunset industry appropriate for my conditions or has the technology changed so much that we need to leapfrog and move into other industries? So it's just to qualify that not all sunset industries may be good candidates for transformation. And I think following this model of inducing growth of competitiveness over time the way many of our countries handle foreign direct investment is like attract as much as possible. And you'll find actually the presentations by policy makers proud about oh so much FDI was attracted last year it grew FDI more and more as it's more is always better. But I think the message coming out here is FDI itself has to be strategic and targeted not any FDI is necessarily going to cause transformation. A kind of transformation one is intending to undertake goes with a kind of FDI which will facilitate that transformation take place. So it's a strategic decision as to which FDI to attract and for what purpose in terms of this kind of transformation. So it is quite informing I think that the way we look at FDI must be very different indeed. Lastly only point about the indicators of corruption, governance and other good-looking indicators but which as Restin has demonstrated they do not guarantee the final results. I think that's the what is reminding us is each of these indicators has qualitative elements corruption a country which ranks has the same rank does not necessarily mean that they have the same type of corruption. I don't want to say there is good corruption and bad corruption but I want to say if you are building a road and you have two countries where corruption is taking place in one country you find the road has been built good quality but maybe it is 10% more expensive. In another country you find the road is low quality or maybe it is not built at all the outcome may be very different. In each case one corrupt person so if you oversimplify the indicator corruption is the same but how it has influenced what the country wants to do in terms of where it wants to go is very different qualitatively and the same applies with the governance. That's why some of the countries one sites that they have done they did very well. They say oh that's a dictatorship but they don't site other dictatorships which they have done very badly. So the qualitative aspect of it if you decide on the main path to transformation what kind of governance is going to take you there or which type is going to divert you from there. The messages can be very different if one goes down to the qualitative aspects of those indicators which are shown there. So in that sense one would not be so much surprised to see that the same level of indicator conveys different results and what kind of combination of police instruments one uses how they are sequenced matters a great deal. That's why even those days when strict packages of police were given and as conditionality the outcomes in different countries which adopted those policies was very different indeed. Depending on how the packages were combined how much they were owned how much how they were sequenced so it's so much country specific I think the message I take from this is transformation of an economy must be country specific how you transform depends on the resource endowments you have and what is possible to do. If your country is wanting like Tanzania we want to be a gas economy, the kind of transformation required, the kind of skills you develop, the kind of education which you will be giving, kind of training will be different from another country which wants to become maybe particularly an industrial country in some other sector. So it's the message I take here is country specificity we will define the kind of transformation the kind of investment to be made the kind of transaction cost actually to be addressed. So if we take this message the challenges on each one of countries to we adopt the key messages here to their concrete situation. Thank you very much.