 Yes, yeah, that's why I think you plan to have your presentation like 40 minutes or something ready No, I see okay do it so that they see that's fine. That makes sense. Good. That's helpful actually. Yeah Yes, perfect, I will not need to move Are we ready to go? Yeah, I'm taking this a clicker is here. You can go Okay, I am told we are ready to start so welcome. Good morning to everybody Thanks very much for coming to that session. I actually think it is a critical session critically important Because it's the biggest picture possible jobs and structural transformation with an added covid context and whatever that entails in the context of thinking about development I must a few a few confessions first is I already said it is a very important session And it's heavily World Bank centered session, which I'm very proud of as being a global director for social protection and jobs in the in the world bank but I think it is well deserved because we are doing a lot of thinking about the jobs and structural transformation the team Here I will introduce our colleagues in a moment is working on a new jobs flagship Which is trying to address the big questions of development In a moment in which I often hear talking about About how are we doing in the World Bank? I often hear the answer Oh in so many areas you are doing so well Including social protection like here given what happened in covid and the expansion of programs, but in jobs We still don't know where we are there. It's really no clear even what the development paradigm is What drives structural transformation? Is it you know jobs through growth or other way around? So so it is a very important moment I think it is also an important moment is this conference because I think I was quite inspired by by by yesterday Oriana's In a way reaffirmation of the old development paradigm But in a very creative way by outlining the paths from home to market from self-employment to wage and then within wage the whole concept of Specialization and new jobs emerging within firms and all along increasing variety of jobs as being a driver for Development, I think this is something quite inspiring and also Oriana admitted that we have new thing going on with the fluid relations in the labor market Which is specialization and new jobs emerging outside firms as maybe the last stage in development So so in this context, I am I'd be very happy in a moment to To give the floor to to my colleagues. We have here Ian Walker the manager of the jobs group in the world bank We have Federica Saliola who is lead economist in the jobs group We have under us ever had to use who is economist in the jobs group And we are absolutely thrilled and proud that a legend of labor economists that is Garry fields Professor Garry fields joins us and will be will be will be commenting on the presentation which will be given in the in a moment by by Ian and Federica. So that's the plan. They will do the presentation about 30 40 minutes Then I invite professor fields to comment on that presentation And then we open up for discussions question comments and if needed and when needed Andreas will also participate in this discussion Let me let me maybe maybe finish by trying to say something more provocative So that my colleagues from the world bank can feel the fire under a feet or something Which is that it seems to me that there are there is there is there is a There is a question which is in a way always in the room those days when we discuss development And I am myself even quick curious how this question will be addressed by my colleagues Which is the role of manufacturing in development? It is a on one hand Obviously it is there and when you look at Oriana's presentation all those Varietization of jobs everything I'll happen through this phase right so it cannot not be there on the other hand We have the whole so called I hate the term But I use it premature the industrialization be premature with respect to what I will ask That's why I hate it because it's premature with respect to history Which is not all not a good benchmarking But it is it is the industrialization that is happening against our expectations and the question is what does that mean? Is it a new pattern in which we will be jumping without manufacturing phase to services phase or not? So I think this is a challenge for my colleagues from the world bank to deal with this with this very very important very very important problem and Also, I think the second challenge and even a bigger one is we have been discussing You know development for many many years. We have so many mental models in mind from harris todaro model We talked about moving across sectors agriculture manufacturing industry urban to rural And then there are other dimensions organizational occupational. So what is new is the question Is it michel novisub solem or is there something new emerging after covet? So these are my two provocations to my colleagues. They need to tell us about manufacturing They need to prove to us that there is really really new stuff there and with that I'm sure ian and federica You feel very excited to start your presentation Over to you Thank you very much michael, michael I should say It's lovely to be here and thank you all for for coming Many of you will know that about 10 years ago that the world bank produced a world development report on the on the issue of jobs and It had some important Takeaways, I mean michael was asking us. Okay, so what's new in this new study? Let me remind you two things that were new in the world development report on jobs One was the idea that there's an intrinsic merit in generating better jobs that their externalities Associated with them and that successful development processes don't just produce growth. They produce better jobs I think that was a very important idea another important idea that stayed in a lot of people's minds was that The regulatory settlements around the process of generating better jobs are relatively complex and that there isn't a single size fits all solution so that the The notion of a regulatory plateau Along which different settlements might make sense in different countries was introduced and I think became quite popular as opposed to the idea that there's One perfect set of regulatory solutions, whether it's one that the iLO might approve of which is Stringent regulations or one that some people in the bank might have promoted, which is very low levels of regular regulation But neither of those extremes might necessarily make sense that we needed to think in a more intelligent way about The regulatory arrangements that might promote better jobs. Those are two of the ideas that stayed in my mind From the wdr 10 years ago. So why are we doing a new jobs flagship now? Well, the short answer is that a lot has changed in those 10 10 years and and Some of the things that will be in everybody's mind. Mikal has just referred to to to one of them are The fourth industrial revolution and the implications of the fourth industrial revolution for the sectoral composition of economic development trajectories is manufacturing no longer relevant or Is there a place for manufacturing in in the future development strategies of those regions that haven't yet managed to generate enough Good jobs Is is a really important question the disruption to global trading patterns Associated with the covet pandemic or accelerated at least by the covet pandemic They were ongoing well before the covet pandemic is another thing which has changed So between them those two things suggest that the paradigm of Development established in the most recent successful phases of development in east Asia where you get rapid jobs transformations driven by manufacturing growth feeding global value chains All of that seems to have been shaken up and not to be plausible as a way forward for for for sub-Saharan Africa Something else really important that's happened is the acceleration of the global climate crisis and and the effort of policymakers nationally and globally to respond to that by accelerating the green transition That will create new It's a challenge, but it's also a new set of opportunities for for businesses that want to grow and Will create lots of new jobs and we had a very interesting session about that Yesterday afternoon, which i'm sure many of you participated in With with with colleagues from the martin school in in oxford. So in short And this is why we're given the report this title New opportunities, but old challenges the old challenge is to generate better jobs for workers in developing countries the new opportunities arise from these new Shifts in economic potential across sectors and and across spaces and so What we're trying to do in the report is to start this to frame it With a conceptual framework that allows us to see What has been common across the patterns the successful patterns of economic development? And what things Have have varied across countries that have been successful. Um, and so if I can make this work Let me start with the conceptual framework We're using a framework which has four dimensions I didn't invent this, but I think that the emphasis it goes back to kuznets, but the emphasis on four dimensions is perhaps Not common in in in recent discussions When people think about sexual transformation Structural transformation they often mean sexual transformation. Sometimes that that's actually The the definition of structural transformation, which is used in quite a lot of the literature That this is structural transformation and this other thing is some something else And we know that as countries develop they move from agriculture to services All of the graphs on this on this screen Are about the shares of jobs in the economy. Let me just make make that clear So these pie charts have the shares of jobs in agriculture Industry and services and you can see how it starts with the predominance of agriculture And it ends with the predominance of services as you move up through the process of structural Transformation and this is associated with countries moving from low income to lower middle income to upper middle income to high income status There's also a spatial transformation And this is also Part of the of the traditional literature that that process of moving jobs out of agriculture is also a process of moving jobs out of the rural economy Into the urban economy, which becomes predominant by the end of the process and facilitates agglomeration facilitates therefore productivity growth and increased earnings and Better better quality of life But this is also a process in which Occupations change now there's been less discussion in in the recent literature of occupational structure as as being part of Of the process of structural change, but we we think it's an important part of the process because and Orianna was talking quite a lot about this yesterday the the the process of improving productivity is Substantially a process of introducing a division of labor Combining workers with different skill levels. So you start off in an economy where everybody has the same skills and she talked very eloquently about this yesterday very small numbers of skills everybody doing the same stuff And you move into an economy where there's a much higher level of task complexity So that people with different tasks and different skill levels are combined together They're not all people with very high skill levels, but the system becomes much more skillful I wish tried to remind people to remember Old Adam Smith's pin factory the people who are working in Adam Smith's pin factory Weren't people with very high skill levels? They were highly specialized people That's what made the whole operation more productive and we should never forget that So occupational division of labor and tax complexity is an as important a facet of the occupational transformation As is the accumulation of higher levels of human capital So quite a lot of people are getting quite a lot more skillful But the less skillful people are being combined with the more skillful people into systems Which are hugely more productive than the than the previous agrarian system And then there's organizational development now I was very happy sitting in Oriana's presentation yesterday that she put such emphasis on organization And I promise you I didn't prepare this slide after I listened to her presentation We brought it with us. So we're saying the same things that organization Is a really important part of the process of structural transformation? And it's actually possibly a part which has been latent in our discussions Possibly it's so obvious that there's no need to say it, but we want to say it that In the beginning at the bottom There is no organization Everybody is mostly self-employed. They look for their inputs. They look for their markets They solve the problem or try to solve the problem themselves. They're very unproductive Therefore because they're self-employed and they earn the whole of the value of their production They earn very little the whole of very little They have almost no capital to work with because they're not capable of accessing capital markets And they have no wealth of their own so In low-income countries the average level Of capital per worker is four percent of that which you observe in developed countries You can see that in the pie chart at the bottom bottom right right hand corner here And 80 percent of the workers are self-employed by the time you get to high employment Only 10 to 15 percent remain self-employed And the level of capital intensity is obviously Much much much much greater 25 times greater than it was in the low-income country We think that that process Of organizational development which is associated with the formation of firms and investment by firms which then achieve economies of scale and can generate benefits through Innovation spillovers and all of these things that the modern growth literature is is full of this This is a really important part of the process of Structural transformation and for me oriana's closing question really resonates when you remember what she asked She was going very fast. Let me remind you what she asked. She said well Are we disorganized because we're poor Or are we poor because we're disorganized? And this has important ramifications for how we at least as development professionals Preparing programs in institutions like the world bank think about our job because if we start with the first proposition We look at Africa. We say This is a poor continent. It's inevitably disorganized and that constrains what we can do and let's think of what things we It might make sense to do in the context of disorganization. What can households do to do better? Given this mess Or do we say We've got to get organized. We want to develop. We need to get organized We need to find ways with public policies not so much to help households to do better in the mess But to clean up the mess to start to support those actors in the economy that are capable of forming and developing organizations Which are capable of preparing of offering better jobs for the poor people who at the moment have to employ themselves in subsistence Self-employment. So that's the fundamental idea behind the framing of this This this conceptual framework We've done a lot of work on data And it's interesting. We're reaching very similar conclusions to the ones that Oriana presented yesterday But using different data and i'm kind of happy about that because after you've been messing around in development economics for a long time Which I have you you you realize that the devil is often in the data And it's good to look at different data sources and ask the same questions of them And if you get the same answers from different data sources, then maybe you're on to something So we've we have a global macro indicators database Based on pen world tables It incorporates key indicators on structural transformation Dimensions the labor indicators come from iLO stat We've developed a global labor database Which is based on harmonized labor force surveys, which we've compiled compiled in in the bank group By the way, there are academic initiatives doing very similar things that we've discovered as we go along and we're working to to To collaborate with them and see if we can produce a single Database that we can all use in the future and we've dug down deep into 12 Focal countries where we've been able to harmonize data at subnational level Something else that Oriana commented yesterday is that if you're trying to get into the causality stories in these data It's often useful to have subnational data available I don't want going to the methodological reasons, but those of you who are methodologists will understand the point and based on the gld we've also developed a database of labor market indicators, which we which is available on the on the bank's development economics Website to anybody who wants to look at the indicators that are extracted from the from the raw data. So This is a serious empirical effort We've put a lot of a force into trying to pull these data together. So what are some of the numbers and patterns that are emerging? well Firstly, the the patterns of jobs transformations in general associated with development are clear, but countries Progress along different paths and they progress a different race now in all of these graphs that i'm going to show you These are scatter graphs which show data points from from the 150 countries for which we have data this is Dating from around 1990 to around 2018 The same country may appear multiple times if we have multiple surveys for the same Country and when the same country appears multiple times for some of them We've we've highlighted them in different colors So you can see what's happening to a trajectory of a country within the distribution And we've highlighted some of the ones that we think are More interesting in all of these graphs that i'm going to show you the horizontal axis is the log of gdp per capita in 2017 dollars But the vertical axis And and and the vertical sorry the vertical axis are also the same the vertical axis show the structure of total employment in relation to the indicator which is being reported in the graph So the first graph here on the left shows you what's happening to agricultural employment across The countries for which we have data and the the five countries that are highlighted are china, india, mexico, south africa and Thailand China is the dark the the black dots india is the blue dots Thailand is the green dots south africa is the dark blue dots and mexico is the orange dots And these are some of our deep dive countries and we think that they're they're very interesting china at the beginning of this This time period was a low-income country as you all know It's now far from being a low-income country. It's a country that's had a very successful trajectory along the horizontal axis South africa and mexico and thailand all started off at higher levels of income and you can see And this will be true in all all of the graphs. They've not moved a long way on the Horizontal axis in all of this period. They're somehow stuck in a development trap And i'll come back to the notion of development traps later later on India is kind of intermediate as you can see if you look at the the first graph the horizontal space Covered by india in this period is about half of the horizontal space covered by china It's grown, but it's grown much more slowly and bear in mind that the horizontal axis is a axis is a log axis So china has grown enormously more than india in this period, but india has grown Anyway, look now. So those are the kind of general parameters of all of these graphs So that you understand them as I go through them the first graph what it shows is China and india have both been shedding agricultural employment in this in this period and also the overall scatter Around the trend on agricultural employment isn't particularly big There's a there is a variance, but it's not enormous If you look to the right hand side, you can see that the trends in manufacturing and this comes to michael's Question from his introducing introductory remarks the trend around manufacturing is much less clear Look at look at china. For instance, this kind of surprised me when I saw these numbers Everybody has the idea that china has developed into from from agricultural into Manufacturing industry, but actually china's level of manufacturing jobs Today isn't much greater than it was at the beginning of these time series. Why because what's really gone on We think is that they've shared a small scale village artisan manufacturing and replaced it with large-scale industrial organization in the in the free zones and so on and so forth and not only in the free zones So little u shape in the china trend here is interesting India has as I said grown much less than china, but it has grown and it's hardly increased manufacturing at all And the the other countries they're just a mess in terms of manufacturing trends And they've not only have they not been increasing gdp per capita at least south africa and mexico thailand's increased it a little bit more But there's thailand's increased manufacturing Some somewhat but but there's there isn't a clear powerful trend and if you look at the overall scatterplot of all of the dots on the chart it's clear that I mean if you fit a curve through it, it will probably run up slightly but the the The the variance is enormous and so there are all sorts of stories about what's been happening in manufacturing in particular countries And there you can see the levels of the variance in these two graphs in agriculture It's around 30 percent in manufacturing. It's actually it's only 20 percent bear in mind that the scales on the on the The vertical axes are different So the and so keep your eye on my vertical axes Actually, we go through these otherwise you can be misled by by by by by by the eye Two other trends which are very clear is that waged employment and urban jobs both grow quite clearly and and strongly In most countries as they as they get richer But again, there's a lot of variance now here the variance is a very big um Waged jobs are as Oriana was saying yesterday Probably the best statistical proxy that we have available For organization is this person self-employed or are they employed by an organization that's paying them a salary of some sort Whether it's a formal or informal organization. By the way, these are all wage jobs These aren't just formal wage jobs and that's important to bear in mind But you can see two very different stories for india and china here um In china We saw on the previous craft that the trend in Manufacturing jobs was down then up different types of manufacturing jobs. Perhaps the trending wage jobs is very clear indeed China has moved from an economy with only 30 waste jobs to an economy with around 50 Wage jobs. That's a that's a major change India on the other hand has remained at the bottom of the global distribution and not growing very fast at all There's a whole story around that. I haven't got time to get get into it We can if people are interested we can come in uh, we can Talk about it in the discussion But the question of how india in particular since 2005 has managed to grow so fast without Really increasing the number of wage jobs and maintaining the high level of of informality in the economy is an interesting and important story um, the spread on urbanization is again very big, but you can see um china's development of wage jobs has been associated with urbanization And india's failure to develop wage jobs is associated with a much flatter curve in urbanization um South africa and mexico are much more urbanized. Thailand has been urbanizing very rapidly A very steep curve on the green and it's also by the way, I should have said It's of these countries. It's also one of the ones which has grown wage employment fastest Mexico has also managed to grow wage employment quite fast from 50 up to 70 But without managing to generate much in the way of gdp growth whereas thailand has done a lot better on gdp growth Of all of the curves that we've generated all of the scatter plots that we've generated the the tightest Bunching around the trend is the one that you can see on the left-hand side here This is net capital stock for workers. So if I had to choose from the data that we have available for us Indicators of organization They would be wage jobs and capital debt that capital debt the stock for worker So this oriani yesterday talked about two ways in which firms Enhance productivity and earnings one was through the horizontal division of labor, which I talked about earlier The other was through The vertical Process which I I understand to be analogous to capital deepening One thing that comes very clearly from all of these these graphs is you don't develop if you don't deepen capital I think that this is a really important takeaway Especially it's an important takeaway for everybody who's been schooled in thinking that the whole story is about total factor productivity About allocative efficiency about getting more out of the resource endowments that you've already accumulated What these graphs say is that the big story is about accumulating more productive resources and in particular More physical capital because if you look on the right-hand side You can see the accumulation of human capital And what you can see is that the the countries that have succeeded have accumulated more physical capital They've also accumulated more human capital, but the variance around the accumulation of human capital is Much much greater so that you can do better With different types of human capital strategies And this is consistent with the idea this big idea, which is so important that Workers can become more productive not because of things which are intrinsic to the worker the skills of the worker but because of things Which are intrinsic to the the place in which they work the way that their work is organized Now as I started my life as an economic historian And I always like to remind people that the industrial revolution in england was a process of de-skilling They took relatively skilled rural artisan workers from the the the the Home-based Weavers and they put them in factories where what they did was a lot more simple But the factory was a lot more productive and the home-based weaving industry was wiped out in the In that that process So we need to think clearly clearly about about this the productivity of workers in jobs Isn't just about the characteristics of the worker. It's about the characteristics of the job and so The story about skills and how skills evolve with development is a complex story But it is true that as countries develop and as I showed in the first set of pie charts that I put on the screen The share of higher skills in the mix is generally increasing and obviously What is called for in that regard also depends on what's happening in technological change in the in the surrounding world The first industrial revolution was perhaps de-skilling the fourth industrial revolution appears not to be de-skilling So these stories do change through through time, but you can see here that medium skills Which we did this this by the way isn't educational attainment These are the isco codes for those of you who are used to working with with with these data So high skilled is is professionals middle skills is The jobs are in the middle skilled technical spaces and then low skilled elementary occupations and And farm workers. So that's The middle skilled is rising But again, it's rising in different ways across these countries So look at look at india very little growth in middle skills. Whereas china a big growth in middle skills This is people who are moving into factory jobs or into jobs in organized service businesses Look at high skills on the other side China almost flat on high skills and now almost at the bottom of the distribution The black line on the right hand side china Which seems to me to suggest that if the chinese don't do something about the production of more high skilled Workers, they're going to start to hit bottlenecks in their future economic development india on the other hand has done Has increased high skilled employment a lot more But is is near the bottom of the distribution on middle skilled and that seems to me to correlate to The absence in india of of growth in waged jobs in middle skilled wage jobs in in business organizations And again, there are variances here. There isn't only one path that anybody can follow But the the overall trends seem to be clear and you can also see in these graphs That once you get above a certain level of development You get into hollowing out space in which middle skilled jobs start to fade away And there's there's a on the other hand something of an exponential curve in the other direction in the high skill Scatter plot so that as you get into higher income space, although the spread remains big There is a tendency for high skilled jobs to to to to accelerate Okay, so what do we make of this as a story for for development? We tried we wrestled with this graph I don't know you'll have to tell me how persuasive you you you find it but It tries to capture the idea and again, I'm pleased I have an s-shaped curve here Oriana was talking about s-shaped curves yesterday and and I think that there's a lot of of truth in In in that the idea that at some point and this goes back a long time in the economic literature You you you achieve takeoff How many of you red roster on takeoff for well then actually go to the top of the class And And then you grow very quickly and then at some point you you start to to to to let to level off And the the transformations that are driving this this now these axes are now different Time is on the horizontal axis levels of development and income growth are on the on the on the right hand side And on the left hand side the the correlates of structural change We think that What drives this process what ought to drive this process are the incentives for for firms to form and produce particular things households to to to Buy different things as their incomes develop And also and by the way, this doesn't appear often enough in these narratives the public sector changing its expenditures and its policies to create different incentive frameworks within which firms Can can can can operate and these things drive sectoral spatial occupational An organizational change well, but organizational changes But we kind of think that it's the organizational change Which is primus into Paris and these things that if you don't have the organizational change The other things are difficult to get and we also think that countries can start and then get stuck And and and there's a whole literature on development traps and what what what they might mean Time i'm a latin america specialist i've worked most of my life down there and Latin america is kind of like a stuck continent where they managed using the import substitution strategy to to develop organizations and that was consciously what prohibition his colleagues were trying to do They managed to get to a point where they had quite a lot of industrial organizations But they didn't get past the point of removing the protection and moving and getting them into international competitive status and they allowed the The the productivity that was being generated in the modern sector was redistributed In towards the workers in the modern sector through the regulatory arrangements that were imported from europe reduced the profitability of the modern sector Reduced the rate of capital accumulation and left lots of people on the fringes of the cities Looking for better jobs, which they were qualified to do, but they couldn't get because there was a demand deficiency and So and Harish Todaro described that process make all made a reference to them earlier for kenya But the model is highly germane to to to latin america by the whole literature of the around the cities of peasants and all of all of that all of that stuff So there are development traps that's one the one that Into which the import substitution model in latin america fell and there was also a macroeconomic dimension to that as well having to do with export markets The need to address export markets, which that model didn't didn't do but i want that's a digression and i won't get into it the general idea that i want you to take away from this is that the The process Can be accelerated and you can get to the top, but you can get stuck along it and that There's the same graph just as a reference on the right hand corner Oh, sorry. How'd one and that this is This process depends first on drivers And the drivers and this is well known and many of you all have read this literature Many of you may have contributed to it the the drivers around changing patterns of demand A well known element of this is that as household incomes rise Um Preferences are non-homothetic. I used to think that that would that had Something to do with political correctness, but it isn't about political. Sorry. You don't get my joke. Never mind Um He got it now Very non-homothetic preferences for those of you are not used to the arcane terminology mean that The share of your expenditure on different types of products changes as as as your income grows and in particular Engels law you consume less food or more of other things and that changes the pattern of demand Which is available for firms in the economy to address so But another way in which patterns of demand can change is because of the opening up of trade markets The east station model took huge Advantage of of global trade markets in order to address a pattern of demand which was quite different from what their own Uh populations would have been able to to to to to to demand themselves Um, and also as I already said the development of governments is an important part in in the evolution of the pattern of demand Both directly, you know, once you get to a situation where governments are spending 20 25 30 percent of GDP That's part of aggregate demand what they choose to spend money on Affects the areas of business in which firms can can cannot cannot operate and also indirectly through regulatory mandates For if governments have the power to tell households and firms to do or not to do things That affects thing what can be demanded and what might not be Demanded the second thing which changes is is technology But so you get waves of technological change first second third fourth industrial revolution all of that sort sort of stuff and then there are also patterns which seem to be stable through these revolutions about The rates of technological growth in different sectors so in particular the rate of technological progress in In services tends to be lower or at least of productivity growth in services tends to be lower than it is in manufacturing industry and so Some of you will be familiar with bow malls law bow malls paradox. He asked the the famous question How can you make a symphony orchestra more productive? And of course, I mean, maybe you come by putting them on a cd I didn't we didn't have cds when he asked that question. But the The the idea these two things work together, right? So if As we move through time the pattern of demand shifts from food towards manufactured goods towards services And if at the same time services have the lowest rate of productivity growth, then it follows Totologically that the share of the labor force that works in services has to grow Faster than the growth of services demand. And that's why you saw in those early graphs that I showed you the the the the The declining shares of the other sectors and the increasing share of services And I don't think there's anything about the fourth industrial revolution that has changed that basic takeaway the AI is basically accelerating productivity in manufacturing a lot faster than it's accelerating productivity and services And then there's public policies, um, which I already have referred to and so I won't talk about them again So those are the things that might drive these processes. And then there are a series of of of constraints. There are I'm out of town. Okay, I'll shut up There are there are policy and regulatory failures There's the under provision of public goods that are market friction Transactions cost all of these things Work together to determine what firms and organizations can do to create better jobs as they respond to market incentives They move jobs between sectors products technologies and places become more complex and more productive. So that's What we have in the conceptual framework So I'm now going to hand over the baton to to Federica Who's going to talk about in more depth about why we think that the organizational dimension Of structural transformation should be regarded as dreamers into paris as we think about these things Thank you. And good morning everyone So I'll walk you through some of the key concept that that will be the chapters of this flagship But you know, we welcome feedback Especially on this organizational dimension that it's something that we try to unpack With the very limited Firm level data. So the first question is, you know, why we need an organized Market like we know that people in in most low middle income countries are employed Informally, so there are already a household informal enterprises and formal businesses So what are the mechanisms like how for what are the benefits that firms and organizations bring In terms of the creation of more and better jobs And I wanted just to clarify that we talk about firms and organizations So value chains Cooperatives like they all matter, but I refer mostly to firms just to You know to for simplicity and also, uh, the focus is Modernized organized agriculture sector manufacturing and services One thing though the tendency is that so the future will be services What manufacturing remains important and modern agriculture remain important will love to eat, right? We still need food So it's not just about services. Now with that said We identify five mechanism through which, um firms and organization employ labor more productively And the first one is what Ian extensively talk about the the capital deepening The difference in a in an economy where there are more firms and organization with one with this predominantly Informal is that in the one with firms and organization you have investment in capital and those firms combine labor with capital So normally labor it is more productive, right if you give agricultural tractors that labor productivity increases and also output start increasing in that economy And the second element is innovation, which is mostly technological. We know that firms trigger investment more in innovation compared to Non-organized type of businesses But also there is a non-technological one the way they firm the business is organized matters Now those two are really critical when we think about The the typical low income economy where capital is scarce. There is labor surplus Most of the workers are in the agriculture sector, which is not a modern one is subsistence And most of them are underemployed So because we know they work in the informal sector So at that stage it's really important to move those workers through labor reallocations to move them From out you know from subsistence agriculture into manufacturing more modern agriculture and services So these two elements the capital that will increase the productivity and the output and the innovation are very important Because if innovation is labor Augmenting then you know this the more product the increased productivity the increased outcome Absorb that labor at some point if things work well in an idea scenario that labor surplus is fully absorbed And this and the market has shifted to what more modern sectors so at that point And this is also in line with what uh, Oriana showed yesterday Then what firms and organizations start doing they start enhancing a division of labor Using better skills allowing economy of scale They also provide opportunities to workers to learn if you work in a firm in an organization Where you are exposed to technology where you know, they there's a good division of labor you advance in your career That's a learning by working by doing opportunity. So human capital is built as you work And and of course the address market demand like Ian showed that market demand is one of the main incentive for firms Think about firms that can like access also, uh, non-domestic markets like that increase really the the cake For for for the market now those type of firms Bring benefits for workers normally they pay higher wages Very often they also benefit the small firms that work with them in supply chains uh, and I wanted to Just about the data Just say a few words We're using the warpank enterprise service data and some and a combination with sensors But data the firm level data is really scarce. So given that we The audience if there are any suggestions from that standpoint on data we can use to better unpack Right this this organizational dimension. We will very welcome your feedback So think about that and this is what we face in most, uh, developing emerging economies, right? That definitely is not that those mechanisms You know, I'm not there. We don't see a lot of large firms. Actually, we see that about Two-thirds of labor force. It's in the informal sector. So it's mostly informal businesses And that that has been very stubborn Over the years we became more Technologically oriented countries grew their income by informality stubborn And and if we think the labor productivity is a key driver for structural transformation. Well informal businesses are very Very much less productive We found a different 75 percent of productivity But they also are an element of disturbance For formal businesses because they face a competition from the informal ones And this, you know, we can't address causality, but at least we can see if Economies with high share of wage jobs Have different firm characteristics. So what those four charts here show just some correlations with four key characteristics, and this is just for formal Uh, businesses using the world bank enterprise database data So you see that in economy where the highest share of wage employment what labor productivity of those firms is higher They pay a higher wages, you know, although there is a big variance They use more experienced managers, which is very important for how the firm is organized the division of labor is enhanced And they hire more full-time female workers, which is also something that we want to see and I wanted to Drag your attention on an important aspect, which is sites Like we as as I mentioned in the beginning and michael posed the question. What's new. It's manufacturing is services Well, very often we say, oh, you know A lot of low-income countries will never industrialize and you just need large firms in manufacturing services doesn't matter No, because when you correlate Again the share of wage work that we use as a proxy for organizations and We you correlate that with the dimension of firms measured by the number of employees For services definitely with a different degree, right? So we do we see a different slope It still matters as countries progress in terms of organizations Then we decide increase for both for services and for manufacturing But as we look ahead We have to think about The changes of that are happening in the services sector Like the way we we tend to think about Structure transformation is agriculture manufacturing and services Although we hear very often that services can't really offer opportunities for Structure transformation because of the intrinsic nature Like we we were used to think about services are something that is locally based Right. We think about services as retail sector and as such like we Like there is this Extensive literature that says that they won't have the characteristic of manufacturing head to trigger market shifts. Well, this is not true Because of digital technology It's changing the services sector dramatically and even when we think about services, we can identify at least four types The global innovators, which is the ICT think about India, for example, right? This is tradable Uh, it's a tradable services codifiable Then there is the low skilled tradable services think about warehousing or transportation Sites matter. They are tradable and, you know, somehow codifiable. Then there are the skill intensive social sector Those are health and education. Now with digital technology, even education is tradable And then there is the low skilled domestic services. Those are retail. Those. Yeah, one shift the market. They're not tradable Those are, you know, linked to to to the domestic market So, um We know that services are less capital intensive, but they still use some and also they use human capital and what we call the intangible capital Which is that codified knowledge that how firms combine the human capital and the physical capital And we also One important element is that services Services might have different sites, but the productive services are still the one they are linked to market That are organized by firms like this chart probably is too small for you to read But it you know, it links the average firm sites with the capital use per worker So and the blue dots are services the dark blue. You see the sum actually have like the telecom services. That's, you know, pretty Uh, you know, scalable and and they have big size firms, but even the tiny ones The the productive ones are still linked to firms. If you think about accounting, you probably can read legal advertising Those are services that exist. They are smaller, but they're still linked to the bigger organizations in the market And through digital enhancement, again, we can get scalability, tradability and innovation That are the characteristics that we identify in the path from manufacturing And that we thought could not be replicated in the services. So a whole new potential opportunities But still it services its manufacturing is organizations and it's capital different type of capital But those elements still matter And I I wanted to show this graph that we prepare a few years ago with the 2019 world development report They also show how firms Are changing the boundaries the the the way firms scale up and conquer different countries So at the bottom the orange Uh bubble is Ikea my big firm well established in any countries you go that is Ikea So for Ikea it took 30 years to move outside sweden and 70 years to to Right reach annual sales of 42 billion dollars. So one of the largest companies in the world And then compared the orange bubble with the top one, which is um, alibaba, which is the amazon of china So for alibaba it took only 15 years to Reach annual volume of save of sales 700 billion Dollars so compare the 42 of Ikea with the 700 compare the 70 years with the 15 years And compare also the different again the boundaries of the firm what what alibaba did they just connect like producers they just connect buyers with with Suppliers what they had to invest in in technology But the way they link the markets they change completely the boundary the idea of geographic proximity And these of course affect labor relations. We talk about gig jobs gig workers We talk about that yesterday too. That has a big impact of how people Are hired how suppliers enter the market. So this is really changing the way we think about Market dynamics and and of course organizations And one one important element I would like to briefly because Ian already explained that but I wanted to show you a couple of slides It's very important that we balance the the investment in capital and the investment In what we call the human capital. So the labor supply and the labor demand We tend to focus on employability like people are to be employable. We skill people We educate people but that there are no jobs and that actually creates even Worst outcomes frustration. They all had a spring was triggered exactly by by this. So this is an example of Mexico the green Line it's the capital labor ratio and the orange is the average year of schooling that we use as a proxy for investment in human capital See how the orange goes faster than than the green What the blue on top Show the down wording one it is the return to education So see that as the two grow at different speed and actually the difference grows The return to education decline. So you we we get a the the opposite outcome of what We would like to get if we don't think of the two sides of the equation And here we compare so when we think about return to education We normally measure the return to education of wage workers We went an extra step and we also measure the return to education of self-employed And you see that there is a huge difference between the two self-employed earn much less than Wage workers and the difference the paid are the dark blue The self-employed are the light blue and as for for low-income countries this different. It's much bigger Why is much bigger? Well, then to do that we need to go an extra step Inspired by the work by gerry and kunal You might be familiar with this exercise that we We apply to a large number of countries So what they do they look at different type of self-employment Not all self-employment is the same think about the people who sell Food like in the streets in some low-income countries and think about lawyers in high-income countries So that were self-employed So we have to unpack and understand whether it's self-employment because there is no other option in the country Or whether it's self-employment because you know, I want to be an accountant the work for a large firm And what we find is that of course most of the workers are in lower tier informal self-employment, which is like The ones where there is no other choice or wage employment, which is low-skill Of course, no social protection and there is a 30 percent wage difference between the number one and the number four and five So it is it is quite significant And of course women Most bad jobs are women jobs and Eliana Oriana spoke yesterday about this u-shape So we are familiar with the u-shape when as you know countries progress with income and more better jobs Become available women tend to enter back into the labor force But I want to draw your attention on the spread in the middle like the u-curve also needs Additional work like why there is so much so much variance Other things kick in when we think about women like like social norms So I'll speak for five more minutes because I think we went beyond but I wanted to Talk about two more elements two more aspects One is the approach to regulations. It's very important That we develop that organizational dimension So as such we have to think about regulations accordingly because we know that for For firms and organizations regulations matter But as we think about regulations, we have to think of a dynamic approach as countries evolve You remember the first chart that Ian show that for pie charts house country move up Then we need different approaches to regulations and we can't just think about labor regulations We have to think about business regulation and product market regulations Product market because of the lack of data we mostly have for our high-income countries They're never in the picture But those regulations are very important because they are the one that Really govern the cost of entry and exit the level of competition That really the one that shape market contestability The same thing for business regulations, of course When we think about labor regulations We know that they introduce a cost for the firms And so even with that we had to be very careful how they are designed they need to be balanced Especially at the beginning what firms start forming and establishing in low-income countries If the cost of labor is too high like we have I show you a clear correlation that Formal work goes up right because firms can afford it But in the world development report 2019 and in the report that we published right after they're protecting all we also push forward the idea that Social protection has to be rethought At the moment is mostly for formal traditional workers So if you think about social protection It doesn't cover formal. It doesn't cover gig workers because those are not the nine to five open-ended job So so rethink is social protection in a way that is decoupled the link from where and how you work And that pair that with more balanced Labor regulations it is the way to go and very quickly I wanted to show you just Those are the correlations that I show when this is the Middle Eastern North Africa region When the fighting cost is very high we see clear A relationship with formal employment that goes down and self-employment that goes up And I think I don't have time to show you What the product market regulations are in the region? That's a region where the labor force is highly educated But the private sector is not dynamic at all So so it can't absorb the firms can absorb the labor force And and when we collected for the first time product market regulation And we found all sorts of subsidies privileges for state-owned enterprises And that's what we face in that region. Just focus on the color Blue is where in that region you have the presence of state-owned enterprises And see that in a lot of industries where in High-income and upper middle-income countries you don't have presence In MENA they the predominant and this is industry construction trade where there is no Reason for government to be so present um Of course the the digital uh technology the digital platform forces us to rethink about policy approach competition taxation Uh, because those are those are not the traditional firms But I would like to conclude just by showing you How we thinking about green transition because this is a new Elements a new dimension of structure transformation And so it's a very complex one though especially for for um low-income countries where they of course um rely on on Resource intensive polluting type of activities They don't have the technology to move like into green technologies. They lack innovation. They lack capacity so and more importantly in in developing countries Most of the bad jobs are the one that are environmentally polluting so so One message that we would like to put forward is that has we decarbonize as we green Our economic activities we have to think about jobs Because the carbonizing has implication for jobs But because there are also great opportunities from green activities And if those agendas are not connected that we won't get the you know What we call the double dividend or the two externalities of getting a better environment and better jobs And these graphs just show that the two dimension go together We we thought I think I don't have a lot of time to show this But we talked about how greening agriculture would actually impact structure transformation and our four dimension And and although there is a cost an investment in technology In the end it has a positive impact of structure transformation with better productivity more people employed Also creating jobs or farm but still in the food system So it's really shift in the market toward modern agriculture And I just going to conclude by showing that we did some simulations What if just thinking this is a complex agenda is is multi sectoral, but what if we think of Traveling investing like in green activities in green efficiencies But also thinking of introducing a carbon tax And using the revenue from the carbon tax to finance refinance those investment But also to lower Payable taxes so firms Have faced lower labor costs so they can hire more workers, but at the same time we invest in greening And and we find mostly positive results. We did this simulation It's a modeling exercise that is very much in line with what was presented yesterday in the just transition session A we we run this simulation for all the countries that you see here for a country like Indonesia where there are good investments in greening we find actually that Reinvesting the payroll tax that sorry the carbon tax in payroll and investment Actually leads to a 3% labor demand increase Which is driven by labor intensive sector like manufacturing trade and agriculture But that's a very important indirect impact Right because you have other sector the services that I was mentioning earlier professional technical activities that has those sectors developed more They're linked to that but also low payroll taxes increase labor demand House of consumption because more people get the jobs and that has we know has the good positive impacts on on on The economy so I leave you with that because we would like to get feedback and Give the floor back to michael and we thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you very Thank you very much. Ian and Federica for a very comprehensive presentation for adding two o's to two s's We always focused on sectoral Transformation spatial transformation adding organizational and occupational is an interesting development and you explained it very very well We will now move to Comments from professor gary fields. So gary whatever is convenient place. You can go here or can sit here and I give you the mic We are very interested in your commentary on that comprehensive presentation. Please It was a very comprehensive presentation and so Because we learned so much i'm going to speak for a very short time And i'm not going to try to summarize main main lessons or Or takeaways because there there were so many things there. I think the report is very rich in that in in that respect the uh Okay, a couple big picture points is that first of all, I think it's a great thing that this whole thing is happening That there is a jobs group and you're focusing on more and better jobs and coming up with a comprehensive analysis of what can be learned this is going to be a great resource for Not only those of us who are professionals in in this room, but for newcomers I think i'm thinking of of students and thinking of Development economists who are not interested necessarily in jobs, but ought to be and so there's there's a great there's a great deal here Old challenges new opportunities. I like that line Because the old challenge the old challenges are how to get more and better jobs How to get people out of poverty? Things like that Yes, those are the same challenges, but we live in a different world now than before and and I think the report is very successful in Taking us to to that that new world One of the things about that I know so i've been working very intermittently with this group Uh In trying to offer comments as i'm doing at this moment and uh, one of the things that I know that they Have been working on Did not come out in this report is a focus on labor demand. That is what is the constraint on more and better jobs? firms and other employers and so employers is a nice Shorthand especially when you're focusing on jobs. We don't have to talk about firms organizations and et cetera, et cetera It's called employers. They're not employing enough people Who want to to have? The better jobs and are capable of performing them and so uh That is that is a major challenge that focus on labor demand as the binding constraint on Uh, uh on employment I know you're planning to bring that out. I would I would highlight it. I would put it front and center and and Okay, there there are finally I want to point out two things that I found confusing and and uh, I've talked to you About these but I want to talk to the audience about these the first is The use of the word productivity Now when I think about productivity, I can think about Physical productivity. I can think about marginal revenue product. I can think about total factor productivity I can think about value added per worker And those different ways of thinking about productivity lead to almost directly opposite conclusions about what we want if we want more and better jobs We certainly do not want to maximize value added per worker by eliminating workers In order to get more value added per worker, you know, we are Downward sloping labor demand curve is based on diminishing Marginal returns to employing labor. We don't you know, we and and so I think the whole use of the word productivity I personally don't use the word productivity in my own writings But if you're going to use it, please add a modifier in front of it Call it labor productivity Call it physical productivity call it total factor productivity, but don't just call it productivity, please Because I don't know what you're talking about When I see that word By the way, I've run into that a lot in a lot of my writings about things like mobility I don't know. I don't know what economic mobility is either Until we put a modifier in front of like like directional income movement and things like that All right, so that's one thing. The other thing is is the introduction Of the of the word organization All right now organization I'm not sure that I know exactly what you mean I think you're I think you're talking about how factors of production are put together And organized now that's that That's a production function if that's what you mean, but sometimes you talk about organizations as As a broader broader than just simply firms Uh And and then that organizational dimension that I love I love those those pie charts Except I don't like the heading of the fourth column. It's called Organization. I don't know why it's called that but you know, I like what's in it I just don't think that that that that that is helpful. So so what I'm what I what I'm asking, please Is that for ordinary human beings who just like to you know use words in particular ways Please please use them both consistently With our with our ordinary speech patterns, but also don't use the same word to connote different things And I think those two those two words that I highlight productivity and organization Are our problem it would help bring out your messages a whole lot more at least for at least for me So those are the things I want to say I'm really delighted you're doing this. I'm looking forward to the report Coming out. I'm looking forward to the labor demand chapter Which I haven't seen yet And it's going to be great. So thank you very much Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much gary. We open up in a moment for questions and comments I was just listening to gary. I was reflecting on this organization thing and I was reflecting that for years We struggled in looking at growth empirics how to call things because when it becomes clear in cob daglas production functions that Where the rubber hits the road is the residual and this residual could be called technical progress But it's not about technology. So it was called technical and organizational progress And then we have also the concept of total factor productivity Which is not dissimilar from the residual in the production function So I think there are many names that could be used here And I leave it for ian federica and the team to find the name that accommodates Diverse views on the proper vocabulary with that. Let's open up I suggest that you introduce yourself even if you think you are known that would be even you know easier to To know who's speaking and I see Here, please go ahead. I see the hand here and then raise your hands and count on my That I can see them. You please thank you very much. Thanks great presentation. I can't answer on the international labor organization Two two points one question one comment. The question is You insist quite a bit on this organizational restructuring And I remember in the past the world bank had a lot of work on financial development I was wondering to what extent you want to take this up I know that has fallen out of fashion with the global financial crisis But I think the question about mobilizing domestic savings is very important Especially when you think about china versus some african country something I mean just to have maybe a comment on this what you how you think you plan to To take this up the comment is I would add a fifth column to your to your structure, which is on Market versus non-market work We had heard this yesterday that work is much broader than just market work And one of the things that you actually see when you look at times view surveys over the development spectrum for low-income countries a large part is a home production Very small part is market work and there's almost no community work When you increase the development You increase this the part of the market work And when you even go further to the high-income group you increase the community work the part that is non-remunivated But still very essential volunteering work, etc. That is not home production And I was wondering to what extent that could actually also explain some of the productivity Or whatever you want to call it Now the well-being aspect of of high-income societies. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's collect a few questions before we get back There is one over here and then the one will be on my left Thank you very much. Sam Jones here you and you wider just two Brief comments or questions. So the first is the I think what gary was talking about perhaps is this distinction between within firm organizational capabilities versus between firm organizational capabilities and I would like to are you guys focusing more on the between firm? I don't know. It's the the institutional ecosystem that encourages people to engage and grow firm size Versus, you know managerial capacities within the firm and the second out, you know Be interested in understanding a little bit more about the policy implications here I mean, I I see a potential tension between a focus on say capital deepening. It might be quite easy to say well, let's Encourage entrepreneurs or small the self-employed to gain capital through, you know, let's say better input choices or fertilizer Versus the organizational part which is engaging in larger firms and moving towards You know larger kind of more complex organizational structures So I'd be interested to to hear where where you sit on those that potential tension between focusing more on capital deepening versus complexity of organization. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from my left here, please Paulo Thank you. That was a really thought-provoking and comprehensive presentation. Thank you so much two questions. One is about Labor augmenting as opposed to labor saving innovation. So traditionally, you know, as you showed in agriculture Innovation has always been labor saving. So you see over time the the share of people work in agriculture decrease And this was true from the initial industrial revolution Now for for a long time in industry And also in services we've seen labor augmenting innovation So more people able to be absorbed for example in the industrial sector Now what we see over the last 20 30 years is sort of a partial reversal of that trend So a lot of the of the innovation industry has been labor savings And so for example take the mining sector in this country or another country That is a sector that over the last 20 years has consistently shed labor because and and those remaining in the sector have become more and more productive But the sector is not able to absorb nearly as many as people as they used to So I wanted to have Your thoughts about it And what are the implications of this? Second question I I saw in one of your graphs really like the The high variation in one of your graphs you had output per work as opposed to wage No, and and there was a high variability there So again, this is something else that I wanted to ask of you and your your wisdom on this No, that there are also senses seems to have happened like a sort of a delinking over time Of the of the of those two measures like output per worker and wages used to be quite Correlated no as productivity as measured by our worker went up also over time wages would go up And then that at least for some categories of workers seem to have been sort of a link that has been much weaker over time So that in many countries now they There is there seems to be like Yes, the linking between these two measures. So again, I wanted to to to hear your views whether that's true first of all and or and and whether that is is a symptom of something happening also in the let's say in the Division let's say of the of the distributional aspect of the let's say of the economy where where for example A greater share of of the overall Value added is taken by profits as opposed to wages very much. It was paolo belly from the world bank. We have seven minutes left The answers need to be telegraphic guys I want to start with Federica and go through andreas and then and then and then we invite also Ian and gary to comment if there is still time and they want it. So Federica, please go go first Yet be telegraphic seven be very telegraphed Very cool, and I know that there are some questions Ian is ready to respond So I'll touch on two points One is the this tension with technology labor augmenting the labor saving So this is a debate that has been going on for a while Like automation is shedding jobs And therefore like we should not almost embrace like innovation because we shade jobs Well, if you look at the countries, they're actually Automating or embracing technology. You see that that automation is a company by innovation And so a certain jobs are replaced some others get created and in fact But in most of the many of those countries you see that then there is no workers that can meet the demand by the new jobs so If in an ideal world, right, it would be good to the the challenge it is to Reskill or move that Group of workers that lose the job because it is true technological change Replacing certain jobs that the tellers in the in the bank do not exist anymore But there are people writing algorithms there because now when you you know Submit the demand for a loan there is not the person that analyzed the loan Like the unfinancial in China it takes three minutes to analyze a loan request So what they do they don't hire tellers or loan Officers anymore, but they hire people who can write algorithms So so the challenge it is how you can embed the workforce with the skills That that are in demand by this innovation and this is not a static process Unfortunately, that's the real challenge that things because of technological progress change overnight And as always the the formation process is disconnected from labor demand So firms change they they need overnight think about the app that develop every day So so it is that's the real challenge to make sure people get strained and retrain constantly like what what we call the You know the the learning process that it accompanies workers Over the lifetime. It's not just one time Formation. So in fact companies like microsoft Complained because of a shortage of worker They have so many positions open that they can feel because they can't find the skills in most of the markets Including the high income countries. So so I think rethinking this you know tension between Automation and worker shedding in a way that it is automation and innovation and it's the battle between these two And now government respond to that that I think will determine whether people will be absorbed You know market chiefs the future is not just about Again replacing and we see how many new opportunities are coming up from the services from the new combination of services and manufacturing The greening there are opportunities I think what it's the the shortcoming is always how we train people how we form people and the disconnect between formation and and Labor demand and I just want to say and then I'll pass the the microphone is that It is true when we think about organizations No, we think about profit driven entities and firms like they really don't do things because they want to hide workers They do because they want their own profit and that won't change Uh, the tension is between having the right firms in the market because it's not any firms that can just shift the markets We need market shifts and market shifts toward modern sector and modern sector is a relative definition It can be agriculture depend where country are on the technological frontier You know, it can be countries that have no firms or very low firms So that shift of course is different depending on the context But not any firms can do it otherwise informal businesses that we know are the main employers Enlarging some countries would have done it. So you still need that incentive for the firm We need the profit. So because otherwise the firms that innovate The firms that invest in capital won't come and in fact, that's an issue that in most low income countries We don't have those firms But at the same time again, it is true that we need you know, the Combination of capital and labor that is labor augmenting especially in low income countries And that's again something that needs to be accompanied by the right Set of policies But not a one fits all approach It really depending where countries are if their firms the firms are growing If the market is shifting and what kind of workforce again very often Those two are not connected. We don't think Like gary teaches us it's labor and demand right in the market and very often From formation to capitalization. They're always disconnected. So that's all I want to thank you Federica I'd like to ask andreas whether you have anything to add in 45 seconds, which you have left I'll just touch on one point Which is some work that we've been doing in relation to gender which touches on I think the gentleman of the ILO what you asked with respect to Market versus non-market work. Now, we're we're not capturing The whole breadth of that issue because first because time use surveys are very difficult to come by in developing countries But we are the the way we are looking at it is trying to understand, you know, what happens on the supply side meaning households Of the labor market As as as countries develop. So, you know, how is this how is labor supply? reorganized As as as countries go, you know, move from stages From one stage to the other thinking In the sense that, you know, you that was Oriana's point yesterday in this this first transition Moving from unpaid work or home production Happening within households To a situation where some of the members of the household will have to leave the household and and and and go to work Outside of the household and that obviously creates then friction and creates issues That we then have to also think very carefully about In terms of existing gender norms and we see that These things can play out very differently depending And in which kind of context we are so in context where Gender norms are very restrictive You know, you're going to see different responses by households Than in in settings where where where the you know, these issues are less binding But I leave it there because we're running out Andrea. So let's move for short closing remarks Ian and also I ask Gary whether there is anything you would like to add You don't have any so Ian it's for you to to to be brief, please Okay, let me try to be brief without being cryptic So in answer to to Gary's three points They're all important points as far as I'm concerned labor demand is at the center of this study But labor demand in the sense is an abstraction. It's a curve on a on On a graph the question is who demands the labor and what are they going to pay the labor? We think that what matters is that firms develop which can demand labor And it's the development of firms that demand labor that causes the transitions in jobs We'll make that very clear in in in our narrative when we write it down the use of the term productivity I absolutely agree productivity can mean all sorts of things and we need to be clear in this report We mean labor productivity. That's the first thing to be clear And we certainly agree that the the process of making better jobs Shouldn't be about eliminating low productivity jobs in countries that are have large surpluses of labor That's not the right way to think about it That's the way that you would think about it in a reallocative model in a developed economy with full and full employment What we're thinking about is developing better jobs by enhancing the labor productivity of low skilled labor of which we have relatively low or middle skilled labor of which we have large surpluses By generating demand for their labor in firms Which increases their productivity and therefore allows them to be paid paid paid more So, why do we use the term Michael? This is my last point organization instead of the term firms Well, because there are some types of organization which are not carried out by Things that people would recognize as being firms co-ops and those sorts of things and also in in in response to sam's question The there are questions about the organizational ecosystem in an economy, which are very important We're trying to capture something more But we'll think about it because above all I agree and dino who's not here by the way And who's what we should have acknowledged at the beginning because he's driven this this this process One of the things he really believes in is that we have to be clear about the meaning of words And he's a big fan of of the of the story of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland for those of you who know it Okay, let me I am not planning to summarize but I'm planning to make an observation on a lighter note, which is that You heard in the presentation That there is a very important and solid place for manufacturing in future development And it occurred to me a few days ago. I was reading the new list of the richest people in the world And I noticed that not only that the services guy is down the list Jeff Bezos But even the fancy Many maybe manufacturing but very fancy things like Elon Musk is also down the list The position number one went to a very traditional manufacturer bernard arnault. It's louis viton And he is number one in the world. So I think it's very it's very timely that you make your make your, you know Elaboration on the on the future development and maybe indeed the bernard arnault symbolizes that not all is done With traditional manufacturing. Thank you very much. It was quite thrilling. Give them the round of applause, please