 out, whole segments of economies, not to mention the human dramatic damage that it would cause. And we know, for work that we certainly have done at the IMF, that the poorest countries will be the most disproportionately affected by climate change. And we know also, because it's everybody's business, that advanced economies will not be immune. Some industries we know will be more affected than others, and some industries will be more instrumental in addressing those issues than others. You would not suspect that, but even central banks and banks have to actually take account of climate change and measure its impact. Insurance companies do too. Kristalina, at the World Bank you spend a lot of time, effort and money on those issues of climate change. Can you address some of those concerns and think about policies? Well, first let me say that climate change is not only happening, it is happening faster than we thought it would. And Stanford University gave us a favor to calculate what does it mean if temperatures were to continue to go up, up, up. So they go up to 2.5 degrees, it shaves 15% of the global GDP. It goes up to 3 degrees, we lose 25% of global GDP. And of course the cost in terms of suffering is unmeasurable. So what we can do, what we do, and what we can do more of. First the very obvious, eliminate harmful subsidies. We have done some, we shrunk them by half for nearly 600 billion to now under 300 billion, but we still have 300 billion dollars to go. And I want to praise countries like Egypt that have done the right thing. They had energy subsidies at 7% of GDP. Just imagine this is more than Egypt spent on education, health and social protection combined. They dropped them to 3%, Egypt has more money to invest in its own people. But also by doing so the energy sector became attractive for private investments and they went into renewables, massively some 12 to 14 billion. So that is happening, it has to happen faster. And of course when we do that we have to be mindful of the impact on poor people. When that is done in that fashion and I go back to Egypt, we helped Egypt to have social protection policy that reduced the negative impact of energy subsidies removal on poor people. We have to move also in agriculture where today most of the agricultural subsidies contribute actually to climate change and it do not help the energy sector to be part of the new low carbon economy. Secondly, it is absolutely paramount that we recognize a shift to the new climate economy is great for the economies themselves. We had a commission on the new climate economy, I was very honored to serve on that commission. We came up with a very attractive pathway. We would see 26 billion dollars created in renewable energy, new mobility, low carbon mobility, low carbon buildings and 65 million more jobs as a result. So those who tell you, oh going to low carbon is really scary and bad for the economy, don't buy it. And then comes the third part of the policy action that in my heart I believe is actually from the perspective of fairness most important. Help countries and communities that have done very little to contribute to climate change but are already living with its consequences, adapt. And I'm thinking here of Niger, Chad or small island states or coastal areas in West Africa. It is morally right but it is also absolutely essential for the sustainability of our world that we lift up action on adaptation. And here is what we have done at the bank. We have done two things, one we have lifted up our commitment to climate action. We would do 200 billion dollars as World Bank Group, as investments to say to people when we talk climate we put our money where our mouth is. And we will place investment in mitigation, things like battery storage, wind, energy, low carbon mobility, rail. We would put this on equal footing with investment in adaptation, agriculture that is climate resilient, coastal areas that have the mangroves and the coral reefs being protection against search and hurricanes investing in resilient cities. It can be done. It can be done. And I want to ask the audience how many of you believe it can be done and it must be done. Raise your hands. Let me test you. Good. I can just hand over the moderation of this panel, it's okay. Okay, we saw lots of hands. Thank you very much, Kristalina. You know, we have heard in the last few days, particularly from the private sector, leaders say it's also good business for me. So does the World Bank actually cooperate with the private sector to leverage your position in order to encourage investment in those segments? I'm so glad you're saying it. I was watching over there and I'm saying I'm going too long. I need to stop. I didn't shut you off. I shut myself watching the clock. It is absolutely fabulous that many business leaders are stepping up. Yesterday I had a meeting with the business leaders, CEOs that are committed to climate action, very impressive group, and what they do, they do it for their bottom line. They do it also for their reputation. Many companies have recognized that climate action is actually fabulous for their profitability and how we can help them from the policy side by relentlessly pursuing price for carbon. When price for carbon is introduced, it becomes much more attractive for businesses to act. We have now some 70 jurisdictions, countries and regions, that have embraced carbon price. By doing so, they give a win in the sale of business leaders that are going to transform how our economy works. Yeah, because the less carbon tax they pay, actually the more they can spend in innovation. We'll go to innovation in a little while. Thank you so much. So public-private partnership is doable. Large institutions like yours and investors, the investor arm ICL of the World Bank is doing a lot of that, investing and committing directly to those initiatives fueled by the research and the technical assistance that you do. Could I just say one more thing very quickly? When you think about climate, my advice to you is get the picture of your children, your grandchildren in front of you. I guarantee you it would change your perspective. I did that and it works. APPLAUSE So we're going to move swiftly from climate change into another big challenge that cannot be addressed in a very... Well, that can be addressed in short order, but that clearly where we see the impact much later on, and that's demographics. And my privilege is to have a high-ranking representative of an aging society. And that's a privilege that we all have. Thank you very much, aging. But Japan is clearly one of those societies that is aging. Korea is another one. China will be in short order, and all societies will, as we see current developments. And a representative of a country on the continent where the demographic boom is also both a challenge for good and for precautions. So without further ado, Governor Kuroda, tell us a little bit about this aging population challenge. Yeah, as you said, already some advanced and emerging economies have experienced aging and even declining population. And their impact on the economy have been gathering increasing attention. So much so that already the G20 has set demographic changes as one of their major priorities under the Japanese presidency. Although there are many issues, I would like to briefly touch upon three issues, economic, fiscal, and financial implications of demographic changes. First, on the impact on the macroeconomy, an aging and declining population decreases labor force and thus put downward pressure on economic growth from supply side unless some countervailing policies have been made and effective. Second, on the impact on fiscal conditions and social security system as aging proceeds, expenditures on social security services increase while tax revenue and social security premiums might decrease. This would make fiscal balancing act so challenging. Third, in terms of the impact on monetary policy and the financial system, if long-term growth rates declined, together with demographic changes, the natural rate of interest will decline as well. This would increase the risk that central banks face the so-called zero lower bound in the future. In addition, as low interest rate environment persists and create demand become stagnant, financial institutions might accelerate their search for yield activities, potentially making the financial system less stable. That said, even though demographic changes have negative impact on the economy, economic growth could be stimulated, and the deligency of social security system may be enhanced by ensuring appropriate institutional settings and policy responses. You may know that in Japan, labor participation by women and the elderly has been increasing through work-style reforms. Can I just stop you for a microsecond, because I know this is something that you care deeply about. Because society was aging, because of the workforce need that you had, there was a sudden realization that there was a pool of amazing talent out there, untapped, and new government took actual measures to encourage the flow of women towards the economy. In the last five, six years, female participation ratio has increased tremendously, surpassing even the labor participation ratio in the United States, although still lower than the Nordic level. But this provided substantial stimulus to the economy in the last five years. And in addition, faced with serious labor force shortages, firms, companies have been increasing tremendously labor-saving technology and investment in the last five, six years by using new technology, such as AI and IoT. By the way, you may know that in the last five, six years, Japan's labor productivity increase has been the fastest among G7 countries, faster than in the United States, faster than in Germany. So while aging or demographic change could have a big challenging task to the country, to the economy, to society, I do believe that there are ways to overcome and even transform these challenges into opportunities for the society. So aging is a blessing from the productivity point of view. If you can invest in innovation and replace the absence by robots or other artificial ways. In Japan, not only companies but also labor unions not against labor-saving technology, robotics, AI or IoT, they favor the introduction of new technology, new labor-saving technologies to improve the economy and the living standard of the people. And yet robots cannot join the union. This is a very interesting philosophical issue. All right. Thank you very much. Moving from, but at some stage it has to, you cannot replace the entire Japanese population with robots. So somehow population has to turn around, right? OK. So, Desichi. Well, let's flip this around. I think moving from aging populations to a continent which has got a young population and just want to turn this thing around because the kind of narrative that you have on the continent tends to go something like this. We have got young people, they are unemployed, and this is a big problem. Now, once you see young people as a problem, clearly the aptitude is different. But let's turn this around and say that the continent has got a young population and as such has an opportunity. So now you turn this around and say that young people then are a resource for a country. And how does the country use the fact that it has got a young population and that, in other ways, reap the demographic dividend? Firstly, I think that we will have to increase our investment in the capabilities of young people. Because if you invest in the capabilities of young people, then they are able to embrace the new technologies that are actually emerging. And we have got to be cognizant of the fact that the future of work is going to be different. And just going through the different regions of the continent, it is very clear that young people are embracing technology on the continent and actually have a lot of creative spirit. And that if you have to unlock that creative spirit, you have got to invest in the capabilities of the young people. And secondly, is that we're going to have to broaden the skills base. And if you are going to broaden the skills base, we are going to have to think differently about education and the education system and the kinds of education outcomes that we actually have because they have got implications of the kinds of young people who are coming through the education system when you are going to be asking the question, does the curriculum that we have in various institutions cater for the needs of the changing economy? And that when these young people come through the education system, they are able to engage with an economic system that is increasingly being driven by technology. And that becomes crucial. And thirdly and probably lastly, is that the type of labor that is going to be required in the future is going to be different. And the fact that we have got these new technologies that are coming that are embraced, the rate of technological change is so fast that even these skills themselves might become obsolete. And so from a policy perspective, we have got to be thinking about how you make the transitions. And coming from a country with a very vibrant trade union movement, the attitude is always that we must protect the jobs. But that's wrong. It's a wrong attitude. You can't protect jobs. And my common example is you cannot protect the job of a Britannica encyclopedia salesman. They happened to be main in the May because the internet took the job away. But what you could do is to protect people. That is what we should be focusing on in that transition. How do we protect people rather than how do we protect jobs? Because if you think about protecting people, then you would think about what are the policies I need and what are the kind of interventions I need to transition people to the new economy that is actually emerging. Listen, Cicci, tell me something. Protect the people, not the job, is critically important, has been debated. And I think there is a lot of agreement around that. Are the unions in South Africa that are a powerful player on the scene? Do they agree with those principles? Do they negotiate whenever there is a plant closure? Or otherwise? If it's too political, that's OK. No, no, no. I will not get into the politics. I will talk to the economics. I long figured this one. So there would always be a contestation. So you were talking earlier on about climate change. And South Africa took a conscious decision to say we are going to increase the proportion of renewables in our energy mix. We have got an abundance of coal. And we have been using it. And we could talk about clean coal technologies and all of that. But we also have an abundance of sunlight. And we could use these things. And it was striking how the contestation in society manifests itself with the unions that represent the production workers seeing an opportunity in emerging industries in the renewable space. That is what they would embrace. But you can't tell that to the coal worker. And the question is always going to be in that process. How do you transition the coal worker to understand that there are opportunities that are emerging outside of the coal space? So is society having to manage those contestations and having to take people along? And one thing that South Africa had always prided itself in is our ability to structure national dialogue around complex issues. It's something that we seem to have lost in the past four to five years. But with a president who himself had come through those ranks and who actually enjoys structuring those national conversations, I actually think that we would be able to manage this contestation better. I just want you to observe how much we have been already touching on the need for cooperation, cooperation between public and private, cooperation between public, academia, unions, and how it's interrelated. Climate change opportunities, union dialogue, prepare the workforce for the future, identify the opportunities for young people. Anyway, we're going to move on. Thank you very much, both of you. And I'm going to now turn to another one, which is a perennial, or we think, a perennial question. But one that has been addressed historically and that we tend to forget about, which is economic inequality. History shows that the right policies can actually make a difference. And Anglophone countries have seen a U-shaped trend in income inequality of the past century, from the Gilded Age to a low around 1980. The big question now is, are we going back to the Gilded Age? And what's wrong? So we are privileged to have with us you, Mariana, and your topic is clearly on both inequality, or your favorite topic. You've got many topics. But your favorite topics revolves around inequalities and the role that innovation plays in relation to inequality. So I throw at you the two topics. You can play with them as you wish. And we'll interfere if we want. OK, so I think the one thing economists agree on, because there's lots of disagreement, is that innovation is a key driver of long-run growth. And how that growth is then distributed, if it is, in fact, in proportion to the collective generation of wealth, or whether it gets captured by particular actors, I think, is one of the key issues when we talk about inequality. But it's OK to just pause a bit on innovation, just to make sure we're all on the same playing field in terms of what we're thinking about. Innovation, often, we think about technology. And we forget that some of the most important technologies that we all use today across the world that are inside our smart products actually came out of trying to solve a problem. The technology was a spillover from actually having framed these problems in quite inspirational ways. So the internet was a solution to the problem of trying to get the satellite systems to communicate. GPS was a solution to a problem to know where the ships were, if you want, in the sea. There was multiple solutions that could have actually solved those problems. So the real opportunity I think we have today just coming back to the discussion we just heard, whether it's about climate, around the clean growth strategies in cities, around aging, or a huge problem that we have in our oceans today needing to get the plastic out, SDG14, is how could we actually link up this notion that we have to, we believe in innovation led growth. But if we can actually frame the SDGs, which are these 17 incredibly bold inspirational challenges, into concrete missions as bold as the one that was to get to the moon and back again in one generation, what would that look like? And there already, if you pause a minute and ask yourself what got us to the moon, this word cooperation, collaboration, bottom-up solutions was key. Diversity. Diversity. And it was very interesting how it also required changes in how we use government instruments, so procurement to really kind of crowd in bottom-up experimentation. But to get to the moon, many different sectors were required. This was not just about aeronautics. You needed innovation and nutrition and textiles in many different sectors. There was about 300 projects that got us to the moon, of which most of them failed. So the willingness to experiment, explore, to welcome uncertainty. We shouldn't forget that risk and uncertainty are two different things. But again, what could be different moon shots around not just renewable energy, but sustainable cities? Again, getting the plastic out. And I think this is a really important question in a forum like this. But the next point is that's almost impossible to do if on the home base, on the ground in different nations and cities, we don't have what's called innovation systems. And there's lots to learn from what was happening in the 1980s in Japan and the Soviet Union. You had the Soviet Union that was actually spending a lot of money on innovation. So their R&D to GDP ratio was one of the highest in the world, but they actually didn't achieve innovation-led growth. Japan had less R&D to GDP. It was still high, but not as much as the Soviet Union. But they had strong systems of innovation. So these dynamic horizontal linkages between science and industry, patient long-term capital. We sometimes forget that as nice and sexy as venture capital might be, the fact that it's so exit-driven, they want to exit in three years through an IPO or a buyout, that didn't actually help us get the nanotech, the biotech, the internet revolution. VC was very able to come in after a lot of different types of patient finance. So when you actually look on the ground at places like Germany, where they have patient finance, they have the Fraunhofer Institutes, these dynamic science industry linkages, very strong vocational programs and apprenticeships, I think there's been a lost opportunity in Europe, for example, to really learn from those lessons. We always talk about the core and the periphery. So Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, the periphery, some of them were Northern European countries as the core. But we didn't ask, what do they have? How could we actually learn from how the KFW, the patient bank works in Germany? What might be the lessons for a country like Italy, which does have a patient bank through the Casa Depositi and Presiti, but it's not really been about cooperation, but just handouts, handouts to sectors? There is also the role played by public finance of that deep research, which requires timing. That's the point, right? You have both public and private finance, but the ability for public, patient, long-term, committed finance often lead the way, but in a particular way, when it's just handouts to sectors, the businesses that shout out the most give me finance, that doesn't necessarily work. When it is about transformation, then it works, where you're actually picking the willing, not picking the winners. Anyway, there's lots of really interesting, I think, lessons we can learn about when innovation systems have been strongest. And I do think today in Europe, where there's so much instability again, in terms of the European project, how to really think about the European region as a place that could also learn what works, what doesn't. And in the African continent, of course, where there is the African Development Bank, we also have the Asian Development Bank, we have the Chinese Development Bank. It's not just about public finance, it's the structure of these public organizations. And the more that they can really catalyze new forms of public-private partnerships, but also lead the way in the high-risk capital-intensive areas, which then crowd in private entrepreneurship, I think that's key, and that doesn't always happen. And the problem is if we just think of public versus private, austerity versus infrastructure spending, it doesn't actually help us get the more granular understanding of what innovation systems require. Terrific. So if you had, we'll come to the policy section a bit later on, but if you had a research and development tax credit system, you would make it very, very granular and you would actually pick the willing rather than the winners and not spread around. Well, you know, evidence is useful and R&D tax credits as well as other types of tax credits for innovation tend to only work when they're icing on the cake. So that's basically an indirect mechanism through which you can, if you want help, businesses innovate, but businesses innovate, businesses invest when their expectations about future growth opportunities are high. So the real question is what do we know about the kind of smart policies that have actually increased those expectations and it tends to have been through direct investment in bold new ambitious areas. And definitely the climate area is a very important one. And if you look at what's happening today in the energy vendor space in Germany, even though it's sometimes been criticized in terms of the renewable energy part of it, but the fact that it's been able to really transform manufacturing across the board so that the steel industry has lowered its material content through repurpose, reuse, and recycle, that was not done through a tax credit, that was done through a bold ambitious plan to lower the material content of the entire manufacturing base. And R&D tax credits, the reason sometimes they don't work is because they're not necessarily making you spend on R&D that you weren't gonna be spending anyway. They might affect the marginal spend. But how to devise them smartly again, we should learn about the granular instruments. So in Holland, for example, they focus that on the labor hired, not on the profits generated. And that's why the patent box policy, for example, doesn't work because patents are already a 20 year monopoly you're giving the private sector. There's no reason you would wanna lower the taxation on a 20 year monopoly profit, especially when profits are at record levels. What you really want to do is to stimulate those profits to be reinvested back in to the real economy. And there's very little evidence that something like the patent box works. It simply increases profits and potentially coming back to the inequality question just fuels that problem. So we're going to move into the inequality aspect of these long trend challenges and we'll come back to innovation. But I want to go first to you, Kristalina, because while there have been many changes about inequalities and reduction of inequalities between countries massively, predominantly driven by a few of them, still the numbers that you have recently published seem to indicate that there is an increase in extreme poverty. And that's an inequality that is in our face and not looking very pretty. So tell us a bit about that. Thank you, Kristine, for bringing it up. When we talk about inequality, the most, I think, shameful for us as a human race, the civilization is the existence of extreme poverty and hunger. And yes, we have seen over the last 30 years, the dramatic decline, the share of people in extreme poverty dropped from over 40% to under 10%. But my professor of statistics used to say about averages, you can put your head in the refrigerator, your feet in the oven, your temperature would be average, but you will be dead. And the reason I'm saying that is because for those nearly 800 million people still living in extreme poverty, the fact that we have been successful somewhere else means nothing. And what is most troubling is what you pointed to, that in a growing number of countries, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Middle East, North Africa, affected by conflicts, the number of people in extreme poverty is going up. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it went up between 2019 and now from 273 million to 415 million. So we talk about war on extreme poverty, it will be won or lost in Sub-Saharan Africa. And here is the positive side of this not so positive story. We have been talking with African leaders and we actually strongly believe that the weapon of choice in this war ought to be digital. And we came up, Mariana, actually with President Kagame, we were talking about it with digital moonshot, digital moonshot for Africa. And what it is is to leapfrog by making sure that every African, every business in Africa, the small farmers, the governments are connected to the internet and use this connectivity to do what China has been so successful to do, link small producers to markets, create entrepreneurs. So we see digital ID as a game changer. We see e-payments and mobile banking as a game changer. We see the 800, nearly 800 million phones in the hands of people in Africa as a game changer. But it ain't gonna happen unless we act decisively. And as you said, we do it collectively. So we have our moonshot and I am actually optimistic that if we all align, and actually from the bank we said, we are going to put $25 billion investments from outside, we would mobilize at least another $25 billion. And of course, through private sector, and of course, we will be successful if we also effectively, as you said, invest in people in Africa. Now, seems very, people say, oh, how could that be done? But that was the same with Kennedy's moonshot and it got done. And Mandela said it best, impossible until it is done. And that I think, I mean, I do hope that we would keep our eyes on that war and that we will be victorious. Okay, but the picture you're painting is clearly concerning because the number of extreme pours is growing in absolute number. We also know that the convergence between very low income countries and higher income countries is slowing down. There is convergence, but it's slowing down. You wanted to add something. I just wanted to say that we know the reasons why extreme poverty is growing when we see it going up and they are a combination of four. Conflicts, natural disasters and climate is not gonna help at all. Population growth in some countries, and I think it's a Niger chat, and bad governance. Now, we clearly have to have strategy how to deal with all those four, but we also have to have determination and belief in people in Africa and especially in the African women. Empower them, help them to help themselves. Okay, couldn't disagree with that for a second. There's another inequality that abounds and that is much talked about and that I would like us to address as well because it is critical for the social contract and for some of the critical reforms that we've identified, such as carbon tax for instance, such as focusing fiscal space for education that will actually only succeed if inequalities are dealt with. Few numbers that you've heard about in the last few days. Top 1% earns 10% of total income in many G20 countries. Bottom 50% of the global population has close to zero health, which is why the other half is held by a very, very small group of people. You've read about that. And clearly that's an issue that we have had that has been addressed over the course of many decades ago and which is getting worse as we speak, certainly in some of the advanced economies but also in some of the emerging market economies. Mariana, would you like to address that point please? And I know that you have a link with innovation as well. Yeah, I mean, my view is that it's strongly linked actually to what we've seen around corporate governance. So we shouldn't forget that David Ricardo who was writing back in the 1800s already thought about the whole question, for example, of robots, jobs, wages, employment. And he had this chapter 31 called On Machinery, 1821. He was writing this and he said, we've got a problem because he was living through the Industrial Revolution. All these machines, modern day robots are taking jobs. There's gonna be downward pressure on wages. But then what we saw for 200 years up until I'd say about 20, 30 years ago is that as long as profits were being reinvested back into the economy generated, let's say from machine A, reinvested in another part of the economy, new jobs arose and also there was new, if you want, pressure on wages to rise as long as also labor, if you want, was organized. What happened in the 1980s with this predominance at least in the Western world with maximization of shareholder value is we saw different things happening. One is a fall in the reinvestment of profits back into the economy. We see this especially in recent decades with this extreme form of financialization of the real economy in terms of share buybacks. I mean, over $3 trillion worth used to buyback shares, boost share prices, stock options, surprise, surprise, executive pay in terms of this 1%, 99%, that's a very high number. Many companies like Apple were not doing any share buybacks under leaders like Steve Jobs. This year they announced a 100 billion share buyback scheme. The question of what that actually does not only for innovation, and there's a big question about is Apple also, if you want, reducing its ability to innovate by not reinvesting back into the productive structure, but also to inequality, because in fact innovation historically has been the result of a collective effort. And so this idea that you're maximizing shareholder value and not stakeholder value, which of course would include the shareholders. You don't get rid of the shareholders, but it would include workers. It would include government agencies, which as I mentioned before, have been critical to investing in areas like internet GPS, but also Elon Musk could not do what he's doing today without massive amount of government investment. Tesla itself received a 500 million guaranteed loan by the taxpayer, just kind of really recognizing that collective effort and making sure that the rewards from innovation are in fact distributed as collectively as the risks taken. That requires us to really link up our thinking and new thinking around corporate governance, innovation policy, competition policy, and it'd be really great actually I think if the World Economic Forum could show some real leadership in this area, given that it has such a voice from the business community and not all businesses engage in this extreme form of financialization. Can I just mention that if anybody has actually talked, written about the stakeholder approach value, I think it's Professor Schwab. So what you're saying is actually proving his point that you made a few decades ago, that the development of an enterprise and the success has nothing to do with pure shareholder value, but has to do with stakeholder value and making sure that everybody actually participates. And that's a clear link to what you're talking about, innovation at the center, inequalities on the decline. Absolutely, there is a link if you want between the relative inequality, we should remember that there's a difference between absolute inequality and relative inequality and this 1%, 99% is really talking about that. And by the way, people like Wilkinson have shown us also that it's that form of inequality that is also really bad for your health. It causes real stress if you want when people see that their own efforts are not if you want being rewarded compared to others. But I think that there's a real opportunity then to ask ourselves, what would it look like to be addressing these sustainable development goals at the value chain level? Because that does mean bringing it to the shop floor. It's not just about talking about the climate and the oceans as much as we all like to address those huge challenges. What does it actually mean from how you organize production for how you distribute the rewards from these... And some companies actually do that. Yeah, I mean that's also I think the hope that you see real heterogeneity. So just in telecoms for example, you have Huawei number one company in the world which I think sometimes forgets to tell the world it's a cooperative, it's like John Lewis in the UK. You have Ericsson which is I think more or less run by a stakeholder value notion. So the trade unions are on the board and then you have other companies like Cisco which are extremely financialized. So there's choices to be made. And remembering that there's agency in the economy. There's not just these global, if you want deterministic forces that we talk about like technology and globalization, but there's choices to be made within governments but also in the private sector. If I was to ask each of you four panelists whether you think that innovation is actually going to be value enhancing from a stakeholder point of view. In other words, will everybody benefit from more money invested in innovation rather than on share buyback schemes? Will it affect for good? Will it create more challenges, more difficulties as it's often talked about? You have a very short time because I want to move to the international cooperation. I'm convinced that it would require policies for I would call just transition. Perfect, that will take us into the policy requirements. Listen, Che. Well, I mean, it's a good question. Basically, innovation would benefit everyone including the shareholders themselves. And I think that going forward what we are seeing now with all of these emerging technologies it is what is at the heart of innovation. I think the one thing that you would find amongst economists is that innovation is actually good for technological progress and that's good for a future growing economist. We've certainly seen it in finance where clearly the combination of mobile and payment becoming e-banking and mobile payment has enabled a lot of people to actually go into commercial transactions, go into business using just their cell phone. Maybe. Just one anecdote, she mentioned David Ricardo who argued that industrial revolution, development of machinery may replace labor but he emphasized that that is in the short run. In the medium to long run, increased production, increased income would be spent and eventually jobs would increase and wages would increase. And I mentioned this Ricardo's argument in one of ministerial meetings and then one finance minister told me that yes I understand but politicians are more interested in the short run. So I'm basically optimistic about impact of technological change, innovation on income distribution or whatever in the medium to long run. But in the meantime, some government actions to guarantee a more equal distribution of benefit among the people may be required. That will take us into the policy sections which will be my last three minutes because we are very short on time and because when you have two economists sitting next to each other, they have to find a little area where they disagree so I'm not going to ask you Mariana to respond to your neighbor eminent economist comment about Ricardo. So I want to move on very quickly to the last issue which I think is in a way captures the sense that there has to be cooperation. There is interlinkages and there is huge value to be leveraged out of that. In the face of what has been a bit of a common diagnosis here, which is that we are seeing unfortunately too much fragmentation. Fragmentation in trade, fragmentation in trust, fragmentation in technologies and if it's not happening then there is that threat of it which is looming out there when we know historically or prospectively that the flow of goods, the flow of services, the flow of data would actually be conducive to good things. How can international cooperation help? And I'm not asking you to reinvent the Bretton Wood institutions, thank you very much. They work not badly and they do their job but how can we just stimulate that international cooperation and is it by bringing together public and private? Is it by identifying the landscape of tomorrow if there is cooperation and the risk if there is fragmentation? What do you propose? I'll start with you, Lise Ciccio. You'll start with me. Yeah. You know, I would first start by restoring our trust in multilateralism because you see, we have got global problems and which cannot be dealt with just by individual actions much as individual actions contribute. Let's take climate change. We know that it impacts the whole planet. And if we say still contestation about reducing emissions or that kind of thing, then we have a problem because it pulls all of us together. So it pulls all of us off the agenda. And for me, the very first step would be that we must restore the faith and trust in multilateralism because that is where I think that we will make a meaningful impact. Would you agree with me that there has to be a strengthened collective endeavor but that the action in the main is going to be taken domestically? That is the exact proposition. And that is the point about globalization. We have got a global economy, we do not have a global government, right? So decisions have to be taken at a domestic level. But as we have seen, what you actually need is leadership at country level to embrace multilateralism and take concrete action at country level to give effect to international agreements. Okay. Kristina? We have to be much more mindful that there are winners and losers on any issue that we are discussing here today. And for international cooperation to be successful, much more attention has to be paid to those who may be losing. And this is why I put an emphasis on any issue that is moving us forward. Think of those that may be left out or behind. And how a just transition can be successful and that I think would make us more effective internationally. And if I may add to that, for that success we ought to have more women like you in the high corridors of power. Put these decisions in the hands of women, the moms and the grandmothers and very good things would come out of it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There are lots of great men as well. We know that. We know that. I'm saying that very lovingly to all men in the audience and those on the panel. I love you. Okay. Aruiko, you too. Yes. As all of us know, after the war, World War II, for international finance, the international community established Britain's institutions. And for trade and investment, initially GATT was established and now we have WTO. And for international taxation, there's no international global institution. Instead of that, there are thousand of bilateral tax treaties. But now tax on digital economy has become a big international tax issue. And now OECD and G20 are engaged in finding global solution for taxation on digital economy. So I do think that free flow of data, information in the world, we may need some global, if not the institution, but global framework. On the one hand, guaranteeing the security, information security, data security. On the other hand, data could flow cross border freely and certainly public-private partnership is necessary. But still I think Aruiko, I can predict something out of this World Economic Forum I predict that there will be some public, private, strong discussions on that very topic. And if the outcome is that we find a new fiscal system to actually address digital economy, its value proposition and where it's sitting, it would be a fantastic achievement. Mariana, I'm going to give you exactly 10 seconds because we're out of time. Just to say that the climate challenge which just keeps coming up is the most obvious lens through which to answer this question. Of course it has to be international. Whether it's cleaning up the oceans or cleaning up the planet in terms of pollution has to be an international effort. But on the ground what it means is transforming cities, transforming regions, transforming production, distribution, consumption, and the role of nations to actually still provide these kind of mission-oriented lens and literally transform everything that government has at its disposal from prize schemes, grants, procurement policy that I mentioned to drive through that experimentation to reach those goals. That happens on the ground within particular countries. And that's, it's, you know, and governance structures really matter. You can tell that we would have needed at least another hour. And the best is yet to come because you have to remain seated and there will be a concluding proposition that will be presented by the president of the World Economic Forum. So don't go, can't go, the doors are closed anyway, you can't go. Yes. But with all our goodwill and humility we try to address an enormous set of challenges and I think that our panel members deserve a big, big round of applause. Thank you. Thank you.