 Thank you, Carlos. I also joined the previous presenter to thank you, you and your organizer for this wonderful conference and for giving us the opportunity to be here today. Okay, so today I'll present the preliminary result of a joint work that I have with Dominico Moramarco from University Libre de Bruxelles. This is, again, an empirical paper trying to make light on the existence of a possible relationship between the profile of inequality and trust in public institutions by endorsing a worldwide perspective. So why did we decide to work on this subject? Well, because we were observing a common trend. First, everyone in this room knows that we have been experiencing high and increasing levels of inequality in the last few years around the world. And there is a huge amount of work done by the literature to understand the causes and consequences of high inequality. However, a lesson explored phenomena is this slowly deteriorating level of confidence toward public institutions. But this is a relevant aspect, instead, because trust toward institutions is, first of all, fundamental for the sustainability of social contracts. And in fact, as the crisis following the recent pandemic as well as the crisis following the economic recession in 2007 has taught us is that institutional trust is fundamental for the successful implementability of recovery procedure. More in general, we need institutional trust, strong institutional trust, to let government act without having to resort to coercion, for instance, and also to make people being more compliant with public rules. So once we agree that it is very much important to understand institutional trust, then we think that maybe some work can be done to identify what can be the determinants of this deteriorating path. And in particular, we think that a role can be assigned to inequality in the distribution, especially against the background of increasing populist voting. So as I told you before, this analysis about the determinants of institutional trust is a bit scarce. And mostly, the literature has already tried to understand the link between inequity and trust, but by looking just at interpersonal trust. And however, we can argue that interpersonal trust and institutional trust are different phenomena. Actually, there is one way of interpreting institutional trust that argues that institutional trust is just a positive externality of interpersonal trust, but it is not always the case because there are situations in which, instead, individuals have low trust toward the other member of the societies, and they have, instead, higher trust toward public institutions because they know that this public institution will actually represent their interests if a conflict arises between members of the society. So we also argue that institutional trust and interpersonal trust are different aspects. Their origin may be different, and therefore, we argue that it is relevant to understand if there is also a role for inequity to understand institutional trust. Furthermore, we do not only consider aggregating equality, but we consider the full profile of inequality because there is actually a relatively recent branch of the literature that shows that it is not just aggregating equality that matter to understand the socioeconomic events, but actually different inequalities may have a different impact of inequality, and this is also the argument that we make in this paper. So given this background of the literature, our aim is to assess the existence of a possible relationship between inequity and institutional trust by taking a granular perspective. What do we mean by granular perspective? We mean that we look at the full profile of inequality, that is, we have an income distribution, and then we take the aggregating equality in this income distribution, plus we compute inequality at the bottom, the middle, and the top of the distribution. So we compute within income group inequality, and we compute also between income group inequality, and we try to check whether each of these components has a different impact on institutional trust. So basically, we test two main hypotheses. The first is if there is an association between institutional trust and aggregating equality, but we remain agnostic on the sign of this association, precisely because we argue that the overall direction of the association may depend on the role of the different components of inequality on institutional trust. And we also argue that each of these components may actually act in a different direction, and there can be many arguments that can be made in order to support these hypotheses. First of all, we know that individuals may have different attitudes toward inequality, because there can be some inequality that are more tolerated and some other that are less tolerated. For example, in our context, we could argue that maybe within income group inequality is more tolerated if there is an incentive effect that is prevailing because maybe this inequality is a form of rewarding individual for their effort. But the other way around is that again, if we look within income group inequality, we may also end up with the opposite result that is higher inequality is actually hampering institutional trust, while because maybe there is an identification effect that is prevailing so that in cases of higher inequality, individuals will feel more distant with the other member of their group. Therefore, they will feel a sense of alienation and the sense of alienation will be reflected into lower institutional trust because this individual may judge public institution unable to observe this alienating effect. Concerning instead inequality between group again here, it is not clear what can be the sign of the association to institutional trust. First of all, we assume that maybe from one side between group inequality is perceived as a form of an acceptable inequality because between income group inequality is reflecting a form of fragmentation, social fragmentation and social separatism. Therefore, this kind of between group inequality is not related neither by the richer individuals because they know that higher inequality will generate higher negative externality in the society in the form of an instance higher crime. At the same time, it is also less acceptable by poorer individual because they are the individuals that bear the cost of buying between group inequality. But actually what is interesting is that we also found some motivation for this hypothesis if we explore the experimental literature where they shows that there are situations in which actually higher inequality to work cooperation will be reflected into higher level of institutional trust because in this case, what is happening is that with higher inequality richer individuals will have higher share to be spent on public good and poorer individual will condition their behavior to the rich behavior and they will actually be engaged in the pro-social behavior because they will observe higher involvement of the richer toward the provision of public good and they will mimic this behavior and this will be reflected into higher institutional trust. So, given this theoretical background, how we proceed, the empirical strategy is very simple. We just run a linear probability model because our outcome variable is an ordinal variable measuring the level of trust that each individual eye has in country C at time T. In particular, we consider trust in national government and our main explanatory variable is INEC that is in the first hypothesis is aggregating equity in the distribution at country C at time T and in the second hypothesis is a vector or four indicators that is between income group inequality and then the within income group inequality at the bottom, middle and top part of the distribution. Then we also add some individual control and country control and then also some country and time fix the effect. Our data sources are for concerning the inequality of course, the world income inequality database and we consider in the main analysis the gene index but then we have also robustness check with the Milo-Garit deviation. For the profile of inequality, we used again the weed because it provides for each country in each period of time, the percentile income distribution which is very much useful because all of us to estimate the whole profile of inequality for each country in each year considered. And for doing this, we made use of the composability property of the gene in Milo-Garit. Because notice that here given that the income distribution is divided into percentile, we don't have overlapping across groups so that we could actually also play with the composability property of the gene coefficient having within and between inequity component. Concerning the trust variable, we use the integrated value survey which combines world value survey and the European value surveys. And we ended up with the sample made of 82 countries going from 1981 to 2020. Okay, so these are our main results. The first three columns refer to the first hypothesis. As you can see, the results are quite surprising because we got that aggregate inequality is positively associated to institutional trust and this association is strongly significant. So we were also surprised when we saw the result but we played a lot with this data and we always get the same results. So we say, okay, let's then explore what is happening if we look at the whole profile of inequality and in fact, the result report in the last three columns and in fact, what we get is first of all is a support to our hypothesis that is looking at the profile of inequality does matter because each single component has a different impact on the equity. In particular, we notice that inequality between group is a component that is affected in a negative sense institutional trust. Maybe because again, it is the component that is less tolerated by individuals while inequality within group is actually positively related to institutional trust with the exception of inequality within the bottom individuals because this is more associated with too higher risk of poverty. Okay, then we did some method of native analysis. The first analysis that we considered is dividing the countries according to their level of development. Again, some surprising result is that the result I discussed before are only valid when we consider the poorest countries while they are completely reverted when we consider high income country. What is interesting, however, is that the profile of inequality always matter. So each single component will have a different impact on institutional trust. The second heterogeneity analysis that we run basically divides the sample according to the support for a distribution that each individual expresses. And again, here, while aggregating equality is robust across the two sample, the profile changes a bit. In fact, the profile ends up to be not relevant for individual that do not support the distribution while it is relevant for the other sub-sample in our society. Last interesting result is to give to support to our idea of going beyond looking at interpersonal trust and also focusing on institutional trust. Here, we consider two measures of interpersonal trust and again, we run the same regression and notice that we get completely opposite result with respect to what was happening when considering institutional trust. Therefore, again, a confirmation that interpersonal trust and institutional trust are different. So it is important to look at both form of social capital, I say, because these are two pillars of social capital. Okay, robustness check, considering the main explanatory variable, we, in addition to the Gini, we also looked at the mean logarithm deviation. For the outcome variable, we consider trust in political parties and national parliament. Then we add something trend and we perform some Jack Kniff test and our results are always confirmed. What instead we are a bit annoyed of is the identification issue. It's not clearly how to solve this issue because we have the data cross-sectional and furthermore, there are more than one variable that would be to be instrumented. So at the moment, we say that we don't pretend to interpret our result in a casual way, but we are trying to look if there is a possibility to better identify this effect. So to sum up, the contribution of this work is first to make light on the possible determinants of institutional trust and in particular on the role played by inequality. And not only aggregate inequities at all, but the whole profile of inequity and this is the first work doing this and doing this by endorsing a worldwide perspective. The other instrumental contribution is that we provide, let's say, a complementary database to the width because we provide for each count and each year estimates of between and within inequality. Okay, I stop here. Thank you very much.