 And this actually draws on work that's Maggie and Roderick did. And of course, it was also part of a project that's Maggie and Roderick led. But of course, structural change in Ghana is interesting for a number of reasons. One being the fact that indeed when one looks at economic performance in Africa today, Ghana will usually be some of us the Kutongkut class act. But also interesting is the fact that Arthur Lewis, who is very well known for his work on the dual economy models, was an advisor to the first president of independent Ghana. And it is reported that Lewis actually advised Ghana against the path that it chose at the time. And so Lewis actually suggested that in terms of the sequence in Ghana, it focused more on the agriculture sector rather than the industrialization push that it actually pursued at the time. And so Ghana is, and of course, Ghana is always an interesting case. So in terms of outline, just briefly introduce the paper. Talk a little bit, set the context by talking a little bit about the patterns of development in Ghana. It's even boring to talk about it because everybody knows it. Just highlights the methodology which was suggested by Maggie and Roderick, and then discuss the results and then present some concluding comments. Of course, the standard structural transformation models will typically distinguish between the labor push, labor pull models, where essentially for the labor pull, you're expecting that with industrialization, labor is drawn from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector or the manufacturing sector. For the labor push, it's a result of the green revolution, and therefore the agriculture sector then releases labor for the modern sector. In either one of the two cases, what happens is that labor is actually released from a low productivity to a high productivity sector. So for this paper, what we did was to essentially ask the question of what the patterns of structural change has been with respect to Ghana over the last century. The nature of the change in particular, whether the source of the productivity changes emanated from just economy-wide changes in sectors or the sources actually emanated from changing resource allocation with respect to labor, i.e. moving labor from low productive areas to high productivity areas. And indeed, of course, whether the changing structure is growth enhancing. Now this is interesting for two primary reasons I'd suggest. One being the fact that indeed understanding whether the current growth path that a country such as Ghana is on is sustainable is important. But also understanding what the employment implications are for the growth path is also something that interests many. So this is just to show that we are down here and we want to get here. Now for Ghana's per capita GDP in terms of its evolution from 1960 to 2010, we identified at least three, but there could be more, three interesting turning points. One during the early, well, to mid 1970s when the very consistent coup d'etats started or actually persisted. And then of course the very well documented collapse of the Ghanaian economy in 1983 and the resurrection which resulted from the structural adjustment program. But also a very interesting one relates to the last decade or so where we've begun to see some signs of an acceleration in growth. So not only have we recovered from the mid 80s levels of per capita GDP, but the GDP per capita growth seemed to be actually accelerating or has accelerated over the last decade or so. In terms of the composition of GDP now, okay, so this isn't very clear. The very dark line is the services sector. The nest in that order is the aggregate. And if you look at the composition or the share of the three sectors in GDP in 1960, you do find that aggregate was contributing over 40 percent. And by the late or by 2010, aggregate's contribution had dropped quite significantly by over 10 percentage points. Now, industry you can literally ignore, nothing has happened, right? In terms of the share, well, something has happened in between the two periods, but in terms of the share, the share in 2010 was about the same as the share of industry in 1960 in terms of GDP. Now, again, if you look at it in terms of the employment, again, industry is a loner. It's down there doing its own thing. But what has happened with respect to the services sector is that it has increasingly picked up with respect to its contribution to employment, whereas also the aggregate sector seems to have experienced a decline. So for the agricultural sector, both the share in GDP as well as in employment seem to have declined. It's not so obvious immediately the implications for productivity, right? But we'll see what has happened. For industry, probably there is little change in productivity, probably. For services, we've seen an increase in the GDP share. We've seen also an increase in its share with respect to employment. So again, the question is whether indeed that has resulted in employment in sort of productivity changes over the years. Now, if you look at the individual sectors, the sub-sectorial compositions, you do find that the decline in the aggregate sector part of that story is due to the cocoa. OK, cocoa sub-sector. But also, so the cocoa sub-sector has actually declined. For the forestry, the decline has been relatively marginal. OK, for the industrial sector, the construction sector has actually picked up after actually dropping significantly in the mid-1980s. For manufacturing, you find that the levels in 2010 is not significantly different from the manufacturing share in 1960s. For the services, which is also the very interested one, you do find that transport storage communication has become very important. But also, what seems to be moving upwards, at least in the last 20 or so years, is the wholesale retail trade sector. So within the sub-sectors, again, you do find not significant movements, except for the fact that your cocoa sector, which has been the dominant sector over the last half-century, seems to have gradually reduced in importance in Ghana. So this is, in essence, the result with respect to productivity. Sectorial per capita, sectorial GDP per capita, we find that the services sector has actually picked up somewhat, or quite a bit, compared to the early 1960s levels. Agriculture, compared to the 1960s levels, has actually declined. For the industry, you find, again, that there has been some marginal increase, at least in the last few years. And it is not too difficult to see or to imagine where that change is coming from. Okay, the mining sector, but also the fact that Ghana has become an oil producer. And from 2009, we started, actually, the oil revenue started hitting the accounts, and therefore it started reflecting in the industrial sector. Now, so just by looking at the shares with respect to GDP, with respect to employment, you do find that, well, there is some action with respect to services sector in particular, becoming increasingly more important, but also the agriculture sector losing its importance. But what about the export composition? Now, if you look at the export composition, as I mentioned earlier, the cocoa sector has actually declined with respect for the last few years, compared to what it was in the early 1960s. But mining, as I mentioned, has actually picked up particularly... Your blue line is a tall one. No, so you have non-traditional exports. So these are just the traditional exports. These are the main commodity exports. So we do have the non-traditional exports, but that is not plotted. So the difference between, let's say, 2010, which is around 80, and 100% would be the remaining exports? Absolutely. So I get extra five. No, no, no, that's fine. Just not five. Okay, so also just a plot of the economic complexity in this, which essentially reflects the export composition, but also would suggest that there hasn't been much change with respect to the structure of the economy. So when you're looking at the shares, the contribution of the shares, there seem to be some movement with respect to services with respect to agriculture. However, when you're looking at the composition of exports, there has been some movement, but that movement hasn't been great. So as I mentioned again, this we don't need to waste time on this. The per capita GDP is a component of two-thirds, right? Labor productivity and the activity rate. For Ghana, the activity rate has remained at about 40% over the period, and so it hasn't changed by much. So for the per capita GDP, what it suggests is that what is actually changing is the productivity. But which arm of the productivity? Now, the changing productivity is decomposed into the within productivity, within sector productivity growth, but also the productivity growth, which results from the reallocation of labor across the different sectors. And so, and that's some of the results that Maggie showed essentially based on this decomposition. So based on that, we can then address the question of what has actually been the driver of productivity changes in Ghana over the last half century. Okay, so employment data, we've used some employment data based on the living standards surveys as well as the sensors that have been contacted over these years. Now, the first interesting point, okay, so I think I'll try and finish. That is excluding the one minute. Okay, so I guess the main point worth noting here in this table, well, two main points. One, the fact that overall economy-wide productivity in Ghana is about 10 times less than the world average, or the average for the set of countries that is in Macmillan and Roderick 2011. But also if you look at the respective sectorial productivities, you do find that the respective productivity respective sector productivities are much lower than that for almost, for the average for all the other countries as well. So generally suggesting that productivity, there has been some productivity changes in Ghana, but really it hasn't been spectacular. In terms of the decomposition of the productivity growth, so this is the annual growth in productivity over the respective periods here. This is the within productivity contribution for that productivity growth, that is the structural change, the contribution due to the reallocation of resources. Now, you note that for the period up to 1970, there were some changes due to the reallocation of resources, but it wasn't great, right? It wasn't in terms of the magnitude, but it still was reinforcing the overall productivity changes within the economy. However, generally up to 1992, I think that the results point to the fact that the reallocation of resource effects here was generally growth reducing. So the change was not actually enhancing growth, but rather growth reducing. And indeed, over the 1784 period, not surprisingly you saw the first graph, the productivity changes even within sectors, on average, had actually declined over the period. So productivity growth, mainly you can say in terms of the structural change of it being growth enhancing, there has been some effects probably from the 1992 period to date. However, again, the structural change components remain quite low, concluding comments. So the results for Ghana clearly are not entirely optimistic, right? So Ghana has witnessed significant growth from the mid-80s to dates. And as I mentioned, there seemed to be some acceleration in growth, particularly over the last 10 or so years of the sample, where growth has averaged over 5%. Indeed, the plazas are that there has been increased productivity growth after 1992, and the structural component seems to be mostly positive, which means that allocation of resources or reallocation of resources or labor resources have been actually growth enhancing over the period. But if you just oppose that to the decline in the economy in the 1980s, essentially you note that productivity changes haven't been that high in Ghana, given that literally the economy collapsed in 1983. So of course, once you are at a very low level, the probability of growing fastest should be higher, right? So the productivity changes haven't been that high. The economy has experienced some structural change, but it hasn't come with any form of industrialization. It hasn't come with any form of green revolution. In terms of moving forward, there are inherent structural difficulties with respect to the economy, even if it were to experience a green revolution. Now some of those structural change, Marcus talked about, some Maggie also talked about, relates to the human capital. So the human capital in Ghana, even if compared to sub-Saharan African average, it's not too bad. Still there are rigidities with respect to moving labor and block from say the agricultural sector to manufacture because of the literacy or educational levels. But also policy coordination, high labor costs means that Ghana is not necessarily going to be sexually competitive compared to some of the Asian economies. And therefore, that is the end. Thank you very much.