 So a lot of what I'm going to talk about actually resonates a little bit with what Andy has said. And basically what I'm going to talk about today is kind of results from two different projects. One project that's been completed that is work that I did with Fin Tarpe and other colleagues called Learning to Compete project, which has a lot of lessons for jobs and a lot of lessons for job creation in particular in sub-Saharan Africa. And I also want to talk a little bit about new work that again with UNewWider and with National Treasury in South Africa where we're looking at issues of resource allocation and particular resource misallocation and the importance that that has for the creation of jobs too. So as Andy has highlighted and just to motivate what I'm going to talk about, basically the reallocation of labour from low productivity to high productivity activities or kind of structural change is an important source of growth in developing countries. And what this means of course is that there's a lot of job churning. There's a lot of jobs being destroyed and a lot of new jobs being created. So what is important from a developing country perspective is that we have job creation, which is kind of like the extensive margin of this, but we also want to create better jobs and that's at the intensive jobs, intensive margins. But pay better, have better terms and conditions and so on and so forth. So an important question in relation to this then is in order to create more jobs, in order to create better jobs, where should the policy focus be? Where should aid efforts be focused at? And what I kind of argue and we argue in some of our recent work in sub-Saharan Africa in relation to this is that it should not necessarily be with the micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. We're focusing more at the larger formal sector enterprises in terms of creating new jobs and creating better jobs. As we know, most of the jobs in developing countries are in the MSME sector, estimated to account for about 90% of all workers and in fact about 75% of workers in sub-Saharan Africa are kind of in a category of vulnerable employed in that they are involved in unpaid work or their own account workers. And if you look at the numbers, some of the research that some of our colleagues in our team have done has shown that the MSMEs don't really create jobs on net. So they're responsible for a lot of job churning. So on net there's not a huge number of jobs created in this sector. They also offer much less secure employment and they also pay much lower wages than large firms do. So I guess what kind of proposing is that it's unlikely that there will be the source of more jobs and will be a good source of better jobs in particular. So what our work points to is the fact that there is a strong case for focusing efforts on larger firms. They, as I've said, create higher paid jobs, more secure jobs and in fact they're more innovative, they're more productive than small firms and engage in much more technological development and technological expansion. And also as we know from the literature on firm dynamics, productivity matters and productivity matters for firm survival and for firm growth. So one of the challenges in many developing countries is that lots of these micro, small and medium-sized enterprises don't graduate to becoming larger enterprises. So they remain small. So what are, I guess, the questions that we ask is, what are the constraints to enterprise growth in developing countries? So what is preventing these small firms from growing and becoming larger firms? And what our work and our research has pointed to is that one of the main factors here is that firms often lack the capabilities to grow and to develop. So I'm going to talk a little bit about our research in that area and what we have found in relation to that. The second area that I want to look at quite briefly because it's just a new work relates to resource misallocation and the misallocation of labour and capital resources and the existence of distortions in the economy that prevent labour and capital from going to the most productive firms. And that's really evidenced by the very wide dispersion in productivity that we see among firms in developing countries, this dispersion that is much wider than in developed countries. Okay, so speaking first about firm capabilities, just to talk briefly about this project that we've been involved in for a number of years. That's a collaborative project with UNewWider, African Development Bank and the Brookings Institution. It involved Finn, myself, and John Rand, Monsuda, Brum, John Page, and the baby shimless. So basically what we did was we had very detailed case studies of industrialisation and the evolution of public policies. We brought together a bunch of quantitative data on firm level data and surveys from a number of different countries. And brought all of this together looking at a number of topics that we felt were of relevance to developing countries. We also did an interesting qualitative survey that I'll talk a little bit about. So it involved nine different African countries and two Asian countries, and the project teamed national local team members with global experts in terms of coming up with our research findings. So I guess one of the motivations behind this project was the question we were asking was, why is there so little industry in Africa? And certainly, you look at the job creation that we've seen in Southeast Asia in particular, that was very much manufacturing sector-led, industry-led. And we've not seen that in Africa. And this is kind of the deindustrialisation that Andy spoke about and the fact that manufacturing only accounts for about 10% of economic activity. So you don't see the job creation happening in that sector. So this is the question that we wanted to answer. And one of the kind of answers we came up with was that in many cases, Africa and African countries lack the capabilities, lack the firm capabilities for the same type of growth and expansion of the industrial sector that we've seen in other parts of the world. We've seen that Africa lacks capable mid-sized firms, and a lot of that has been linked with management and the capabilities of management. But also, a lot of the lack of development of these firm capabilities is linked with two things that I'll talk about. One is the fact that firms learn capabilities from exporting. And second is that firm-to-firm knowledge transfers are a very important source of capabilities. So one thing that we have discovered in our research related to FDI and its importance in terms of FDI spillovers, in terms of learning and domestic firms learning from foreign direct-invested firms. And within that, vertical linkages along the supply chain were found to be a very important source of that learning. And one of the studies that we did was a qualitative survey where we looked at FDI firms and we tried to map in a number of different countries the links between those FDI firms and local firms, local domestic firms along the supply chain. So those that were supplying inputs to the FDI firms and those that were purchasing output from these FDI firms. When we constructed the map for the countries in Southeast Asia, we found a very populated map of interlinkages between domestic firms and FDI firms. When we constructed similar maps for the African countries in our sample, there was virtually no linkages whatsoever. So the story behind FDI is that, you know, it can lead to spillovers, can lead to improvements in firm capabilities, but you have to have an underlying structure there that you're dealing with. You have to have capable firms and these underlying firm capabilities and complexities need to be there in order to be able to benefit from those types of spillovers. A similar story in relation to exporting, which I'll speak a little bit about. So the country studies that this is actually based on, when we did a number of studies on learning by exporting and the extent to which firms learned by exporting, we confirmed a lot of our expectations about this. We found that as expected, more productive firms select into exporting to begin with. Large firms, foreign firms are the ones that are more likely to be the exporters. But we also found a lot of strong evidence to suggest that there is learning effects from exports, so that even controlling for selection and all of these other things, that firms that export become more productive as a result of that process. We found that these learning effects were stronger for the domestically owned firms that are actually engaged in export markets, where you're exporting more sophisticated products. They're stronger where you're exporting to higher income or more complex markets. And they're stronger in the initial years of exporting. So these were not really surprises. These are what we would have hypothesized would be the case. But there were some surprises in these studies. We found that many African exporters are born global and that they don't enter into exporting after experiencing the market at the domestic level. They establish in order to service and export markets. Very few firms learn to export. They may learn by exporting. So you don't have this selection into exporting, as I've said. You have very few partial exporters and you have very few switchers between exporting and not exporting. So in general, our exporting activity is highly persistent. But we also found that there is a real opportunity here for domestic firms because the productivity premium is very high and it's very high where there is not much exporting happening to begin with. And where there are low export participation rates. So exporting from our studies is very important for productivity. It's very important for firm survival and very important for firm growth and expansion. So certainly is potentially a source for more and better jobs in the future. The second kind of main area that we looked at in terms of firm capabilities and the transfer of knowledge and this transfer of firm to firm knowledge is through agglomeration. And this is related to the fact that if you have jobs that are created in well-performing clusters, they can have additional impacts on productivity. So firms, what we found in most of our studies in this area is that firms and workers that are located in close proximity learn from each other. There are productivity spillovers associated with that. Firms located in clusters benefit from a broader pool of skilled labor, which means that you'll have better matching of jobs to workers. And also clusters and especially economic zones have the potential to help link domestic firms to foreign firms. And also help link domestic firms to export markets where further learning can then in turn take place. So I guess what this research brought together was thinking about why countries in sub-Saharan Africa have not, the manufacturing sector has not done well, why these firms have not done well and a lot of our findings could be kind of pinpointed and summarized in this kind of lack of firm capabilities. And the fact that investment there has the potential to lead to job creation in the future. So on foot of this evidence, we come up with a strategy for industrial development and I just kind of point to a few key things here. The first relates to something that Andy pointed to was the need to reform the investment climate agenda. And here is a graph about the ODA for economic infrastructure and how the extent to which it has declined over time. So the infrastructural gap is something that was identified as being a significant issue in many of our country cases. So this is kind of one of the main recommendations we've made is that you need to kind of revisit this and investments of ODA into infrastructure is much needed. Also support for institutional development around foreign direct investment. So if you're not enough to have a policy where you're attracting foreign direct invested firms, it's also important that they are linked in with the local economy. Similarly for special economic zones, we've seen a number of special economic zones in Sub-Saharan Africa fail to be, and they're ineffective in many ways. So kind of a reform of that and thinking much more clearly about how these zones operate is needed. Also obviously from what I've said, mounting an export push is something that's hugely important. There are productivity gains to be had, but there are high private costs of entry. And one of the big constraints that we identified was this knowledge of potential markets, the fact that firms do not know about what markets are out there. And that's something that policy can directly affect. So entering into these global markets, we kind of say we'll need an East Asian style export push. And this will require effective institutions from the top and will require trade-related infrastructure and trade logistics. And providing support for those is also of importance. And then relating more to capabilities and clusters and promoting firm capabilities and building firm capabilities, our studies have pointed to the fact that exporting is an important component of that. FDI and linking with FDI firms or domestic firms is an important component of that. And in particular strengthening the domestic value chain relationship, so linking domestic firms into these global value chains is also a possible source of productivity growth and job creation and the creation of good jobs. Likewise, in relation to the special economic zones and creating clusters, the SEZs in Africa are certainly not up to the world standard. They have not performed as effectively as they have inside these Asian countries. So strengthening these links between firms in the SEZs and the domestic suppliers purchases is another way forward in relation to that. So this is just some of the outputs from that. With a couple of books, a special issue has just been come out on learning by exporting the Journal of African Economies. So you'll find the results of all of these studies in those areas, which I'm doing in time, doing in time in another few minutes. So the second thing I wanted to speak briefly about, this kind of points to some of the, I guess, the trade-offs that Andy was talking about. And this is a new area of research. It's an old issue, but it's really, I would say, a huge gap in relation to our understanding of resource and the extent of resource misallocation in developing countries. So as we've said, it's the reallocation of labour across sectors as an important driver of productivity growth, but there are and there is a lot of evidence for significant resource misallocations within sectors across firms. So this is where you have distortions in the economy that prevent the flow of capital and labour from the less productive to the more productive firms. And this is really evidence by the fact that there are, there's a huge dispersion in the productivity levels of firms in developing countries. The fact that low productivity firms can exist alongside high productivity firms points to the fact that there are these distortions and these misallocations of labour and capital resources are actually happening. One of the similar pieces of work on this in 2009, the Shenkino who look at the potential TFP gains for China and India, if the resources were allocated, reallocated as efficiently as they are in the US, are in the region of 30 to 60%. And our early work from South Africa on this are pointing to similar potential gains in TFP if resources are reallocated to their optimal level. So on the one hand, if you're developing policies to try and favour particular types of firms, developing policies to try and push for exporting and so on, you also have to be very careful in designing policy not to create or introduce distortions that can prevent the reallocation, the efficient reallocation of labour and capital across firms. Some possible channels of misallocation relate to that have been found in the literature so far relate to things like credit constraints, which leads to a misallocation of capital across firms and this has been one of the main sources of misallocation that have been investigated to date. But also you can think about things like rigidities that prevent firms from formalising. If it's costly to formalise, it means that firms will remain informal and this means that more resources may be allocated to informal firms even if they have a lower marginal revenue product of labour. So there you're not getting an optimal allocation of labour resources across firms. Similarly things like gender or race discrimination can affect the allocation of talent and an interesting paper also by Shea and others looked at the removal of gender and race discrimination in the US and found significant productivity gains associated with the efficient allocation of labour. And also labour could be misallocated due to policies that affect the size distribution of firms. So if you have policies where you are supporting large state-owned enterprises for example that can also affect misallocation. So I think that this is just to point to an area of research that where there's a lot more work needed. Particularly in developing country contexts most of the evidence that we have is from developed countries. So here there are strong data constraints of course but I certainly think that there's a lot to be learned from this literature in terms of coming up with policies for promoting an efficient allocation of resources. Okay so I'll conclude. So I guess my conclusion points to the fact that to really address the jobs crisis we need to focus on creating more jobs but also on creating better jobs. And in Africa there is a real opportunity for Africa and Sub-Saharan African countries to break into the global market for industry and goods in particular. And in our work we highlight three reasons for that. One changes in Asia and changes in the cost of manufacturing and in Asia in particular in relation to labor costs. So there's an opportunity there. Also trading tasks and the fact that the supply chain has been broken up into a number of different tasks. It gives firms the opportunities to specialize in one particular task that maybe is not so complex and build economies of scale in that task. So the integration of the global supply chain and global value chains I think represents an opportunity there. And also thinking about industry not so much solely in terms of manufacturing in the traditional sense but industries and sectors that mimic manufacturers are similar to manufacturing such as for example, you know, traded services. They have a lot of the characteristics of manufacturing sectors. We can also think about the agribusiness sectors and so on and so forth sectors that we call industries without smokestacks. And as I've highlighted we feel this requires a new direction for industrial policy that focuses on these three key areas of infrastructure exporting and developing and fostering especially economic zones. But at the same time I think that we do need to be very mindful of the extent of misallocation of resources in developing country contexts and designing policies that remove those distortions can really I believe represents a hope for future productivity growth and employment. But here's where a lot of researchers needed in terms of explaining that very large dispersion of productivity that persists within sectors at the firm level in many Sub-Saharan African countries. So thank you, I'll leave it at that.