 Well this panel is intended to launch the monumental publication of the Oxford Handbooks of Africa and economics. And as you can see, there are two co-editors. Celestin Mongol is the senior co-editor. He was supposed to speak first, but like any African intellectual, he's so humble. And I'm a little bit older than he is. So in that sense, I'm senior, so he gave me the opportunity to speak first. And I'd like to take these occasions to thank Celestin Mongol for his incredible leadership, intellectual contribution, and entrepreneurship to gather such a large group of outstanding scholars in Africa studies. And come up this book, I'm sure they are going to be right for many, many decades to come. And I'd also like to thank all the authors for contributing to the publication of these two volumes in a very short time, in less than two years. And it's incredible in a sense. And I'd also like to thank Adam, and also Oxford University Press, for helping us to publish such a beautiful volumes both outside and inside. And the reason why we want to come up with the new handbooks, because we know, you know, Africa is a place which can generate new ideas to contribute that to the world. And certainly Africa also a place which requires transformation to catch up with the rest of the world. As I mentioned in the presentation, I think the most important thing for us to have ideas is that we want to use the idea to transform the world. And for this, we want to transform, help the transformation in Africa. And for Africa to catch up the rest of the world, I think the structure transformation and industrialization will be essential. So I'd like to use this short intervention to come up with some ideas that might study of the past in other place in how to use that to help African countries to succeed in industrialization and the structure transformation. You know, for me, I think a property is not destiny. Because I personally experienced that. I was born in Taiwan in 1982. At that time, Taiwan was poorer than almost every country in Africa. And now Taiwan became a high income economy. I went to mainland China in 1979. At that time, you get an income in mainland China was less than one-third of the average in Sub-Saharan African countries. And now China is a high-media income country. And China is likely to be a high income country by the time of 2020. Not only the places where I was born, the places where I worked, also my neighbors like Korea. In the 1960s, Korea was poorer than almost every country in Africa. And now Korea is also a high-income country. So from these experiences, some economy, some country, they were trapped in poverty for a century. But they could take off. They can become high income, modern country, like any other, you know, high-income country in the world. But the fact that African countries are still trapped in poverty. What are the reasons? We know every country in the world, including those are reaching out. They were poor a century ago. And we can look into how come they were poor at that time. They are all on agriculture and natural resources for their livings. Okay. And the path to prosperity. All the successful country, they transformed themselves from agricultural resources based economy to modern industrialized economy and then to, you know, up to the post-modernization service-oriented economies. And the reason why Africans are trapped in poverty, because African has not really complete this transformation yet. African countries still heavily rely on agricultural natural resources, both in its export and its productions. And the key issues are how to help the African country transform, right? And the reason why to rely on resources and agriculture is not a good way for prosperity, because we know the prices of agricultural natural resources has a lot of graduation. And certainly for that, you want to smooth your income, you need to have good management of your earning of resources for what we know. But that's not enough. If African countries want to be rich, to be prosperous, African countries need to transform from resources based economy to industrialization. But the issue is how to do it. And I think that a structural transformation, certainly you need to have first movers. And the first first mover, you have to compensate for the incentive. If you want to move to the new industry, you also need to improve the infrastructure institutions. And the improvement of the structural institution requires coordination. So for that regard, the government need to play for sanitation role. You cannot have a spontaneous forces of market to accomplish that. And the government need to play the role. However, no matter the improvement in the infrastructure or providing incentive, or coordination, require resources and implementation capacity. And for that, it's limited for the government. If the resources limited implementation capacity is also limited, then the government need to prioritize the use of those limited resources. So in that regard, to have some kind of industrial policy, identify sectors to use the limited resources and they can generate a policy return will be desirable. And that is industrial policy. So industrial policy should have a very important role to help the developing country accomplish the structural transformation. Certainly, you may be doubtful, because most industrial policy in the past failed. And so, how to make industrial policy work? From my perspective of the new structural economics and other studies, I find for the industrial policy to be successful, the government industrial policy should target a sector which I call the latent comparative advantage of the country. The so-called latent comparative advantage is that the sectors, if look into the spectrum of production, the country can be competitive internationally. They have low factor cost of production. Basically, they are consistent with their endowment structure. The comparative one is endowment structure. But they are not competitive because of transaction costs are too high. And for the transaction costs are too high because they don't have adequate infrastructure, adequate institutions. And the industrial policy should help the firm to enter into the sectors which they have the latent comparative advantage, but the transaction costs are too high. And the industrial policy should help the firm to reduce the transaction costs by the improvement of infrastructure or institution. But if industrial policy needs to target a sector which are the latent in the country, how the government identify the sector which are latent comparative advantage of the country. And historically, we find the successful catching up country, the few successful country, they all have industrial policy. The government all play the false sedation role, but they are wanting in common. In general, the industrial policy try to help the private sectors enter into the dynamic growing sectors in country which, you know, they are getting income somewhat higher, not very high, somewhat higher than theirs. And those are the secret of success. And that also give us some kind of ideas how to identify the sectors which are the country's latent comparative advantages. Because if a country can grow in dynamically for several decades, then the industry in the country should be basically consistent with the country's competitive advantages. But if they are growing dynamically for several decades, they will accumulate capital. So some sector used to be competitive. Now those sector due to the change in their environment structure are going to lose their competitive advantages. And if country are not too far away in their income and their endometrics are similar, the sunset industry in the dynamic growing high income country will be your sunrise industry. And that is the way to identify the latent comparative advantages. And in the past fail, in the industrial policy fail, in general industrial policy, two ambitious try to target sectors which are in country, their competitive income maybe five times or 10 times higher than theirs. Okay. And certainly we have many tools that are to help the country to do the development policy. But those two are from my point of view, you know, have many drawbacks. The first tool certainly is the business and environmental environment allocated by the World Bank. And that approach has several drawbacks. The first one, they, you know, try to introduce a whole set of changes. Too many changes. The government resources are limited. The government cannot implement a hundred changes simultaneously. Second, the first best institution in Hong Kong country is not necessarily the first best institution in the developing country. And a third, the third drawback of that, that they will not identify sectors. They try to, you know, make it general. But as I said, different sectors may have two different sectors, specific infrastructure and the institution. So that's the drawback of the World Bank approach. And then you had a growth diagnosis, diagnosis allocated by Daniel Rodgers. I think Daniel Rodgers recognized that the government cannot implement hundred reform simultaneously. And he advocates to just look at the minding constraint of factors. But there are some limitations of his approach because basically he relies on the surveys of existing firms and to ask what are the minding constraints. But the existing firm may be in the wrong sectors due to the wrong intervention of past. That's one thing. And secondly, for the new sectors, there's no firm there. How do we know the minding constraint? So this approach has some minding, some drawback. Then Ricardo Hossam and Edelbrook his idea of product space. You move to the sector which are not too far away from you. So you can rely on the technology in your existing production. There's something water there. But the constraint is that the existing sector may be wrong sectors. And again, new sector may not be there. And then those are the drawbacks. So I try to propose something I call growth identification and facilitation based on my new structure economics. That's the first step to identify the country which you have similar environment structure and their income two times, at the most three times higher than yours. And they bring dynamically in the past the decades and to see what are their dynamic growing sectors. And those kind of sectors are likely to be a letting compare advantage sector. As I argue, they are going to lose compare advantages. And this first step will help important function in the first one help to identify the letting compare advantages sectors and avoid the government to be too ambitious. And secondly, you can also avoid the government to be captured for the private sector because then some of the private sector will lobby the government to protect them and for all kind of reason. But actually those kind of sectors are not there letting compare advantages. And they cannot separate that, but they are a way for ransacking. So this approach can help with that. And after you had that, you can come to first that you already have some domestic firm entering into those kind of sectors. And then you may have to make sure you enter into that kind of sector. The effect of cost of protection should be lower than your competitors. But how come they cannot be competitive? Cannot be competitive. In general, the transaction costs are too high. And the government should help the private firm to reduce transaction costs by improving the institutional infrastructure. And this step has the advantage of, you know, count on the toxic knowledge. Because if you have firm there, they should have that toxic knowledge. And such that some sector may be totally new. If the sector is totally new, then you can invite firm direct investment from your competitor country because they are losing compare advantages. They will have incentive to come. But why they are not coming? Maybe they don't have the information because well maybe your infrastructure is not good enough. So under that kind of situation, the government also should help to have this investment promotion and also to improve infrastructure and so on. And this means that toxic knowledge can be important. Certainly we are in a world of which technology changes very fast. So there may be some new opportunity which didn't exist 20 or 30 years ago, but if you have some entrepreneurial opportunity. Or every country has some kind of specific endowment and you need some sectors which can be in a global market. If you only have some private sector identify that and then the government should help them to scale up that by reducing the transaction cost for them. And in a developing country, certainly in general institution are poor. In general, the infrastructure are poor. And as I said, the government resources are limited. And so you need to have a pragmatic way or improve institution and infrastructure. And I think that industrial part or special economic zone would be a good way to do that. And then you can encourage domestic firm, Wolfram Direct Investment to go into that. And lastly, the government should provide some incentive for the first movers. And here I'd like to say the difference between the incentive and in the past that the firm in your sector which you promoted should be consistent with your competitive. They should be your letting competitive. And so this kind of incentive can be very limited by tax holiday and so on would be enough. And here I'd like to have two additional points. Structure transformation certainly is very important to move from agriculture to industry and so on. But agriculture itself requires structure transformation from succession to commercial agriculture and so on. And in this kind of internal transformation agriculture, the government should also play facilitation role. And certainly, and this is also important for poverty reduction for jet generation in low-income country. And in resources of under country, resources can be course or operation. If you use resources to, you know, help the transformation by providing infrastructure improvement of institution, then resources can be operation. So let me conclude. I think a poverty is not destiny. African country like country in any other part of the world, if they have a good policy from work to target right sectors, they can grow dynamically. But for doing that, we need to have a change of mindset. In the past, we always use high-income country what they have, but they can do well as a reference to advise African country to do like the high-income country. But here I'd like to advise African country to should look at what they have now. That's their endowment. And based on their endowment, they must have some sector where they can do well. And then the government should help the private sector to scale what they can do well. Thank you very much.