 First of all, thank you for inviting me. I feel privileged because I'm not a researcher. Actually, I'm a managing team of researchers and we are using research and actually using some of the research that was presented today in the counter-engagement of the World Bank. So the presentation is pretty local. I'll skip some of the slides because taxable capacity, tax effort, importance of it has been discussed already. Of course, this is another graph showing that what is the actual collection of tax revenues by region and by income groups. And nothing new from the also keynote speech of today that we see the low income countries are collecting less than high income. And you can look at the structure from where it comes. It comes across the board. And then we in the bank have these regions that are the acronyms, stands for these regions. So we also look at the regional side when we engage with the countries. And of course, you see that total tax revenues and mix differ. And when we engage with countries, we very often use the tax effort, not only tax collections. And we can discuss some of the methods how to collect tax potential. Tax effort has been already presented. But I think for us, it's important to actually use some of these tax effort numbers to engage with countries that seem to be above potential in terms of collection, seem to be below potential. And believe me, there are some countries that show results that are close to the potential. Then we, of course, engage less on the level of taxation, but more on the quality of the tax system, looking at the progressivity, fairness, et cetera. But some of this research that you can't hardly read, basically a country from the slide, is just to show that what colleagues presented before, there is a lot of work on how to measure tax potential. And there are only few that are present in the slide. But what I want to put more emphasis that actually it's very important what are the explanatory variables in terms of tax potential. Because there are many economic variables that have been used in the literature. And I think that that list is not fully completed. And to me, what has not been discussed today is also probably area for the further research that many of these variables will very much matter for low income countries. And I'll want to focus on that a little bit more later. Economic structure mentioned demographic variables. But what is really important is this other that are less tangible, which is governance institution variables. And they are captured by some simplistic indicators in the literature, like law and order, demographic and accountability, corruption, governance index. What do they capture? It's a big discussion. And they are very static, I would say. If you look at some of these institutional variables, they haven't changed much in the last few years. So what I want to really end, I expect we have a lot of researchers in the room and also policymakers, is to think about two important variables that I haven't seen much in the recent research. It's one, how digital economy and digitalization is influencing the capacity and the tax effort. How to capture that part? Because, of course, there are challenges that exist in terms of valuation. But we see many countries are using very small digitalization and digital, I would say, revolution to collect more. So that's one issue that I think requires more research. And second one is, I think, basically, economic informality. And the problem is first to measure, second, how to include it and how to interact with the tax structure. And I moved to Washington a few months ago from India. And I've used some of the research that we've done in the bank on the tax potential that completely didn't reflect the tax potential of India because part of the economy is informal. And the question was, and some of this informal economy, of course, pay taxes through consumption taxes. So that's another big, I think, challenge for researchers to how to capture it. And of course, I mentioned institutional variables. There is this evidence of two-way causality in that countries that have underdeveloped institutions have, of course, this has impact on their capacity. But if you have low capacity, it's further undermined institutions. So and there is in the slides some discussion of tax expenditures, and it's linked also to the capacity. So I believe that the way how we capture institutions and capacity countries will have a big effort on the actual collection vis-a-vis potential. Interestingly, despite all these methods and differences in literature in terms of what kind of independent variables we use, do we use SFA or the DEA or the OLS, some countries permanently show as being the ones that are having a low tax effort, and they are in the red. I don't think we will focus on this today. But there are countries that actually haven't done much progress, and despite all the differences in method and improvements in those, there is still, I would say, scope for the increase of the tax revenues compared to the potential. This has been discussed. There are different methodological issues with all these methods used today. So I'll just skip it. They have pluses and minuses, and I think colleagues already pointed to some of this. What I want to finish with is whether there is an alternative way to do it, and we have started to work a little bit on that approach. Some people that contribute to the slide are in this room, so I hope you can challenge them during the lunchtime or dinner, but is there an alternative way that the way that focus on the economic potential, economic structure, can we try to look at the individual when we start to think about measuring tax effort? And basically, this round question, what should be the threshold to put the tax, where we should stop? And maybe this can reshape a little bit the discussion around the tax capacity. And of course, what has been mentioned before, the country, whether it's resource rich or not to us, makes a lot of sense to distinguish. So let me show you a little bit of the sketch approach of this. What would it mean if we taxed capacity more from the individual level? And this hasn't been transferred yet to the research paper, but if you think it makes sense, we can progress with that. So then potential tax base here would be basically viewed as one that is based on the taxpayer and of course, like the structure of the economy of the taxpayers. And then all the voters would become a kind of core tax base, what we call here residential tax base. And then the first step would be to establish the government share of this 10,000, 100,000 case ceiling where to tax. And this becomes a potential tax liability. And of course, then you can also think about how to treat revenues from the foreign direct investment, natural resources. That would be another layer of the complexity. But let me move on because I already got signal that I have five minutes. So once you have this potential residential base, you will think about how to actually start to tax the individual. And it's pretty simplistic because then you would apply tax instrument to the individual across the income distribution. And you will start, of course, with the VAT. That would be the one that the tax that everyone would pay. And then you will create these layers that would basically allow you to construct like a tax collection tax by tax. And finally, of course, you will look at the mapping of what you want to achieve as a potential in terms of the taxing the individual vis-a-vis how much you can tax your individual based on their income distribution in the society. So this is very simplistic and very general at this point. But I want you to be triggered by that approach, whether we could think about something like that instead of using this cross-country studies and economic structure potential. Gauta is with me. He's one of the people that have put a lot of thought into this individual approach. So if you want to discuss it and you have ideas, critical views, welcome. So that's more to trigger the discussion rather than present recent cutting edge research. But thank you again for giving opportunity to talk to you today.