 Thank you, Carlos. Thank you for the invitation to all the organizers of the conference. Thanks for being here. So this is a paper, it's joined with two colleagues of mine at the University of Bari, Nicola Conilio and Davide Vufcio, is on the relationship between international migration and income inequality. This is an empirical paper, so we ask some questions, we try to answer to these questions by two different empirical exercises. So these are the two questions which motivate the paper to which we try to give an answer. The first is, so it's the first direction, does income inequality in the origin and destination countries shapes international migration? So is inequality in the destination and the origin country an important factor in explaining the flows of immigration? And the second question is the other way around. So does international migration affect substantially global inequality? Okay, so we try to address these two questions empirically. Now, on the first one, so this is an awful slide, sorry, I'll try to... So most studies on determinants of migrations focus on the difference between countries in terms of per capita GDP, okay? No, there is one scientist by Milano which really captures what we have in mind that when an individual makes a choice so decides to which country to migrate, basically they are choosing at least two public goods, as Milano which says, which is the average income of the country, so the standard of living in general country, and the distribution of income. So with all the aspects of the distribution of income. So in a sense we model this choice as a choice under uncertainty. So the idea is that an individual chooses where to migrate and looks at the full distribution, okay? And you can model this as a choice under uncertainty, so imagining as roles in the original position that the individuals know the distributions but they do not know their positions in the distribution. Or it is also a legitimate hypothesis. Individuals can make some assumption or where they will locate in the country they will arrive. In any case, the distribution of the country they go is relevant for their choices. Either if you model this as a choice under uncertainty and then there is the isomorphism between risk and inequality because you know that you are going to be in a distribution, you are going to locate probably in the lower tail of the distribution. So it's interesting for you what is the distance between your position distribution and the average, okay? So whatever is the way you want to model this choice, inequality plays a role. We discuss this in the paper, we use standard results to justify why when an individual makes a choice they take into account the inequality, okay? And we obtain some standard results, we apply some results. So we estimate a set of models on the determinants of auto-migration and for the period 2004-2015 basically we consider about 100 countries for which people migrate and about 30 OECD countries to which individuals migrate, okay? And we use this database. So one is the database that Carlos just introduced and then we have this database we show here, okay? Now, there are different theoretical mechanisms that in the literature have been proposed to show why the inequality in the origin country may play a role, okay? And we discuss this in the literature. Although I must say that we are more interested in explaining why the destination country inequality does play a role, okay? So in a sense, if I have to say our paper is characterized by an accent on this second aspect. And on the, is there a, yeah, and on what we call inequality similarity. So the difference between the inequality in the destination and in the origin country, okay? Now, what do we know? We know something in the literature. Basically there is evidence that the inequality in the origin country plays a role. There is empirical evidence for that. There is evidence that also the destination inequality matters. But I would say that that evidence is indirect, mainly indirect in the sense that discussion has been mainly focused on the distinction between skill and skilled individuals and how this composition plays a role in shaping the inequality in the destination country. And that's why we have this discussion in the paper. We just talk about inequality in the food distribution, okay? Although of course that mechanism on the composition can be behind the results that we can see we can obtain. Now, these are the models we test. We are still within the first issue, yeah? The effect of inequality on migration. So we test these two models. Model one, the total odd flow from country i at time t. So this is the total odd flow from country i at time t. And we test if this depends in addition to some controls also. So these are fixed effect. We have the fixed effect of country i and the time fixed effect. And we test if this depends on the inequity in country i. And then the model two, which is the only one I'm going to show you later on. We have different specification basically to test if also the inequality in... So this is bilateral flows from country i to country j, okay? And so we have inequality in both countries, i and j, okay? And then in this last model we have inequality similarities. That is the absolute difference in the genie of the two countries, okay? That's the similarity. Sorry, I had the... Yeah, just to add that in this X vector we have the usual variables that are used in these gravel-like models. So the GDP and the population of the country. And then as I said, okay? Yeah, we tried different inequality metrics, not just genie. But I represent only the genie. Now these are the results. Carlos, are you going to give me five minutes at some point? Five minutes? Yeah, thank you. So let me focus on what I think are the main results here that could be interesting. So first of all, the first model is the one when we have just the control. So the GDP, the population, the GDP in destination and the population destination. Now in model two we add inequality. Here we have inequality in the origin country and inequality in destination. And you see that the inequality in destination is significant and is negative. So the sign is the one you expect in the sense that the higher is the inequality, okay, the less is the bilateral migration to that country, okay? So it's exactly what one would expect. Then we put together, let's go to model four, please. Then we put together the inequality in the origin country and inequality in the destination country. And they are both significant and again in the right direction, in the sense that inequality in the origin country has a positive sign. And that is what the lecturer says, okay? That is a pull factor of inequality. So more inequality in the country, the more you want to live. And inequality in the destination country is a force against the decision. And here you have this similarity index. We are in model four, which is quite significant as a negative sign. So here I leave this for discussion because I'd like really some help to interpret these results. Because think of this dissimilarity. That is the absolute difference between inequality in the destination and inequality in the origin. Sorry, the other round. Anyway, it's the absolute value. Sorry, whatever the place. So there is a mechanical aspect here in the sense that how this dissimilarity can increase, either if the inequality in destination is higher, okay, or inequality in the country of origin is lower. Now both cases would play against the immigration, okay? So that sign is not really the sign one would expect. But in this equation, I mean, this inequality in these two countries is already taking into account. So this is the second of the effect one could interpret. So the question is what is behind that could be captured? Okay, then we test for some other distributional aspects in the destination country, which are interesting, but I don't have time. Okay, let me go to the second question. What is the effect of international migration on global inequality? So this is just to say that there are differences between distribution of countries in the world, we know. So I think I will skip that nice slide. And let me tell you another thing. So first of all, when we say global inequality, you know, we can think of different. So there is the inequality in the world, the population, which can be the component inequality between countries with or without population rates and within countries. Now, Wales, very neatly and nicely summarizes one thing that comes from the literature, that may be a trade-off between the global and internal effect of migration on inequality. So what is the idea as summarized here? That migration could have an effect on reducing inequality between countries and increasing inequality within countries. These two effects may counteract each other. So may explain why the effect of migration on global inequality is very low. So this means that the effect of migration on global inequality is not negligible because it doesn't have an effect, but because it affects two phenomena which are different within and between in a very different way, in opposite way. So that is, in fact, I anticipate our results. And so one thing I'd like to spend some time, but I don't have time, is a puree. Of course, I have very much taste for this theoretical issue here. So from a theoretical point of view, the effect of migration on inequality is you have different distributions. You move a mass from one distribution to the other. So the point is, what is this effect on inequality? And that was possible because there were no papers I could find to see exactly what are the conditions under which the movement of one individual from one distribution to another does increase or decrease the inequality in the station country. Then I found this paper by Peter Lamberth in 2006 where he basically isolates the condition under which the movement of one individual from one distribution to another according to the inequality measure we are using is inequality increasing or inequality decreasing. So from a theoretical point of view, this issue can be treated. Of course, empirically, it's not as simple as that because you have some indirect effect when you migrate. You have a remittances. You have the change you induce in the distribution. So it's not as simple as that. But still, this can be treated in a nice way. So what do we do? Basically, we compare two distributions. One is the real distribution. So the world income distribution with migration. Here we have two different specifications. One is the real world income distribution that we observe with migration. And then a world income distribution we construct in order to keep the population of the countries as if there were not migration. So the population size is the same as if there was not migration. So we have two specifications of this world income distribution. And then we compare these with the counterfactory of distribution in which there is no migration. How do we do that? We allocate the individuals who migrate so that they ask for us in the origin countries and in the percentiles from which they come from. How do we allocate to the percentiles? Here we use a very nice database completed by Clemens and Mandola. It's not a database, but they worked on the Gallup data to allocate the individuals to income designs of the origin countries. And then we compute inequality between and within countries and just go to the results. So these are our results. Immigration has an effect on the between income inequality of 9.2%. What is that? That is the reduction in the genie between countries. And it has an effect on the genie within countries of almost the same size but different size. So these two basically cancel out when you sum them up too. So basically the point is that the effect of immigration on income inequality is not irrelevant, but is the compensation of opposite forces. And zero, so I stop here. Thank you.