 For my part, I got involved in writing the chapters about the academic literature and to consolidate that I didn't necessarily always find that a very easy job but it was also to push a bit the conventional thinking. So what those chapters cover is very much related to the box, the B-box. Can I go one back? That Alan pointed to, if we have made some improvements into companies as well as governments moving into that box B up there, it's still no easy job and the three chapters on the literature contribute basically linked to that. So the three chapters are covering the stocktake of the resource curse and propagating that the curse is... There is also a curse of a one-size-fits-all fix that some of the international initiatives have perhaps focused on. Then there's a chapter on political economy and governance and a chapter on industrial policy, a new industrial policy in the extractive industries. The first chapter was written by our colleagues from Chatham House, Clyde Glader-Lan and Professor Paul Stevens and they essentially asked the question, what do we really know about extractives and economic development looking at the literature going back so they really evaluate where we are there. And they take stock, there was a growing interest in extractives and economic development from the 1990s onwards with initially a strong emphasis on all the bad outcomes associated with the extractive industries and various hypotheses around why that was so. That prompted then the question, how could we overcome those negative outcomes? What would be the sorts of remedies and medicines that countries could be prescribed to make something better out of their extractive industries and the notion of good governance, good institutions, that simultaneously came up as the remedy and that allowed us to turn to a more positive story of extractives-led growth, which on the pins ultimately many of the international initiatives, at least those that target national governments promoting best practices. Paul and Clyde-Lan say that we have a mixed record on what has been achieved with that and whether the proposed remedies have actually worked and they see a challenge in the tendency to prescribe certain types of targeted measures that only focus on certain aspects of resource sector governance. And the argument there is that diverse contexts, as Alan has pointed out, and you don't compare Brazil with the DRC, demand diverse solutions and that should guard us against the quick fixes to what we might see as positive institutional change or better governance of the sector. And they point to two, three critical things that they see as important and from looking back is that fast project development, which is typically in the interest of the industry, is very challenging for countries because institution building, preparing the country for taking trade-off decisions takes time. And the other argument is about diversification, is key, you don't want to become more dependent on the sector, but ultimately success could be measured by how well you are diversifying away from the extractive sector and can build domestic capital in whatever form that benefit other economic sectors. That's also the question about how to build linkages and perhaps the respective limitations of linkage building depending on the sorts of endowments that countries have and how fast or how well they can improve internal arrangements. Then the chapter on political economy and governance is perhaps a bit more a challenging one, but it very nicely fits to some other things that Professor Stieglitz and also Professor Basu were saying as part of this conference, it takes on the proposition that good governance and good institutions are a safeguard or alone can you be a safeguard against poor outcomes by turning to the question, what do we know about positive institutional change? Because it's one thing to say we need good institutions, it's another way, it's another question altogether, how do you get there and what are the learnings essentially from history? How institutions in their complexity can be changed within the context of particular countries? So it takes a bit of a critical view there on the sort of quick fix, builds on the quick fixer challenge that Paul Stevens and Gleilalan emphasises by also looking at some of the explanations why we have focused on good institutions and good governance have looked at structural, structural variables to explain variance in outcomes across countries, but those variables are very difficult to change, they're usually hardwired and so that sort of doesn't offer immediate solutions. So turning the question from how to prevent poor outcomes to what do we know about positive institutional change, it's not necessarily helpful and I think I heard that over the last two days to look in the literature of economics. There is the historical economists, the behavioural economists, but also a lot in the remit of the science of public administration and from the wider social sciences about positive institutional change, which probably has got much less attention in the context of these questions that we are asking about the extractives and development. And so if one looks towards that sort of deeper literature into that deeper sort of institutional literature and to inform us about what institutions are from a social science perspective, how they have come about and how they have changed, we reach another level of complexity that sort of guards us against looking for the quick fixes. And I guess that chapter then sort of is along the lines of what Professor Basu said is sort of analytical methodological because it then uses a framework from the historical economics institutional literature from Oliver Williamson to point out some of the flaws and emphasise the deeper institutional improvements then often suggested are key to where the countries can transform, structurally transform their economies on the back of the extractive industries. And I very much heard that resonating this morning too. So the resource sector governance literature, as much as it has grown, has not actually offered too much help on these questions at stake. For example, how to diversify on the back of the sector in a particular context and with particular types of endowments. So I guess the good news is, we don't have all the answers, we have a lot of good questions still. Then the last chapter came about that at some point we thought, well, we need, there's a lot of talk about industrial policy. We better have a chapter in there about industrial policies and how they link to the extractives. So that's a bit of a broader literature review that looked at what this newer literature on industrial policy says and what relevance it has for the extractive industries. And so there are sort of three reasons why I've seen industrial policy come back. One is because there's some disappointment with the proper development agenda that hasn't led to a thriving private sector. Particularly if you put that in the context of our main problem is to get jobs for people in less developed countries. Then there is a climate change concern, of course, calling for green industrial policies. So that's another sort of set of literature that pushes in that direction. And then there is the disappointment more generally with neoliberalism and globalization, pushing for proactive industrial policy and the role of the state, particularly developmental states, and bringing up that. But there's no consensus because the opinions are still divided and as we have seen over the last two days, there is a lively debate on that now. And so at best I could pick up a number of themes that run across this literature such as how worried are we about the risk of state failure versus the risk of market failure, the process of discovery and learning, what's opportunities for learning. Joseph Stiglitz's paper covers some of that. Then setting and issuing, pursuing socioeconomic objectives, the all-of-government approach that Katharine will talk about, how to improve productivity, comparative advantages, which this morning were pointed out. They are immobile, so it's not only natural resources, it's also the institutional environment, the other forms of domestic capital, and then the politically common enemy of institutional change. So I guess the conclusion is that this point, the industrial policy debate raises more questions for the extractives than it provides answers, but it points us into certain directions. If we look back, we have trajectories of the phases where the extractives have been related to industrial policies, such as the promise of state-led industrialization, trust and sector liberalization, so looking backward. Much of the debate is around complying or defying comparative advantages, and I guess what we see there is a lot of them. You look at, you focus on the natural resources, but at the same time, the diversification means you have to build other types of advantages on the back of it. There's a local content discussion which essentially is industrial policy by a different name, but it takes a very specific narrow focus on backward linkages, which I think is not that helpful. We ought to broaden that out and look much wider, and then there is the environment policies and the green economy, where essentially structural transformation at every level is required, and there will be interactive resources differently, and there will be winner and losers, and at least it will be driven by the investment choices of the financial sector that drives towards more renewables. So, in summary, as I said, there is more questions for us to ask, and perhaps less we should be conscious that we don't have all the answers.