 Nyt meillä on 20 minuuttia, ja haluan kysyä kysymyksiä ja kysymyksiä. Jos haluat kysymyksiä ja kysymyksiä, haluan kysymyksiä ja kysymyksiä. Tässä on 3 kysymyksiä. Minulla on 3 kysymyksiä. Minulla on 3 kysymyksiä. Minulla on haluut nimenomaan eri kokonaisuus. Minulla on haluut nimenomaan eri kokonaisuus. Minä y Вас arrested this utility we use as they have to for're their teddy not correction... because they may be in the state of panic and I have no choice to have to run away... you don't know really what we need to expect in future. more behavioral economics or something like this, in order to talk about this problem. My second point is also what bothers me is the individualization of the problem. To think about how individuals look at the problem and view the economics of individual decision making. When the real economics are one leader beyond below, because it is the German effects industry that drives these conflicts and from other people to run away. And we benefit massively from it in Germany. While we are business map, we have the reference, we are exporting other personnel areas to Saudi Arabia and so on. So the real economics have to be discussed. And also the benefits from the migrants that we receive. Because we failed to invest in education while we saw the demographic change coming. So now we are happy that we have such conflicts and that migrants come at my third point. The last point comes back to the taxis, the benefits. I have proposed in a German parliamentary committee the following thing and was pulled out of the room. We must since we failed to see that we are a very fast-aging population. I think we should say for every migrant we accept from Africa, from Syria, well trained, well qualified. And probably we are getting our aid back from these countries. So I propose to have an escrow account for the releasing countries for Syria, for some African countries. And put into this escrow account of the releasing country the amount of education investment that we saved. And didn't have to spend because we take the migrant in. And then in future we can use this money when peace returns maybe to Syria one day to support the rebuilding there. But please adjust the language. Yeah, good morning everyone. I'm Thomas Sama, a post doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki Faculty of Social Sciences. I want to address my question to our medicine sang frontier medicine without borders speaker. I think that all the research being done on conflicts is not addressing the root causes of the conflicts. We have to find out my question now is who is responsible for all the conflicts in the world that is increasing in Libya. I'm originally from Cameroon. We have conflicts in Libya in Syria all over the world. I'm spreading in the case of Syria only God knows when the conflict there is going to end. Because arms and in Libya as well is in the hands of everybody in Syria is I mean it is the same thing. Where does the arms come from? What can we really do to alleviate the conflicts in order to reduce the number of refugees in the world? So please let us I mean we are not addressing the root causes. So please what what since you've been working with all these refugees and people in conflict situations in the world, you know, in different places. What is your response to this? Thank you. My name is Sandrine Darwipani. I'm the regional research coordinator for Oxlam in West Africa. My first question is for the first presenter. I wonder if you account for the international community attempt to support the population in both sides. Meaning the host country and the country of departure. Because I think that this could probably impact on the decision to move. My second point is an invitation to the researchers because I was previously research fellow and I do know now that our theory is far from the field reality. So I invite you to get the field actors, the NGOs and so forth involved and to in order to benefit from their insights. Thank you. Olga Shemeikina, Georgia Institute of Technology. I have a question for Jonathan Hall. You discussed four approaches to acculturation and I don't think you mentioned if it's an individual choice or does the government have to do something with it. Can it influence people to take one path or not? Thank you. All right. So perhaps we will have a round of responses to those comments, questions and challenges. So perhaps we start in the order of speakers. I will deal with the international community first because I think I have a satisfying and incontroversial answer for that one. We essentially we want to account for everything that we can do that would influence both decisions to leave or decisions to stay, which will come through our analysis. I don't think what we have at present is entirely complete and we haven't yet considered precise actions by the international community, but that's something that we will do in future iterations. I appreciate the recommendation. Thank you. My language. The first thing I would say is that it is very difficult to talk about economics without using economics terms and that's why I gave the sort of partial disclaimer at the start. But I think we should be clear that although in the presentation we discuss what I would say is sort of let's say voluntary migration or economic migration in terms of utility maximization. They sought specifically not to use the terms in terms of migration that may be involuntary precisely for the reasons you suggest. I think potentially that get lost in the nature of the presentation where we extended an economic model. But implicitly the nature of the model itself should hold regardless of language that is used. But I do agree that the use of language is something that's very important. I think one step removed from that. I don't think it's inappropriate to consider that refugees are making rational decisions or that their decision has rationality at its core. That if you are in a panic about something, then the rational decision is quite possibly to leave. It doesn't mean that one is panicking and is a rational and makes an irrational decision. Similarly in choice of destination country we do see that whilst it's not the economic variables that are at play, we find that things like the likelihood of success of an asylum application from someone of a country of origin in a destination country is a factor in where people choose to go. To me it paints a very interesting picture because we're not dealing with individuals with nothing. We're dealing with individuals who have had social networks, who maintain access to social networks and so forth. And these things, it seems logical to me, and this might be my bias as an economist, but it seems logical to me that those things will obviously feed into where individuals have a desire to go and so forth. I think beyond that on the level of individualization versus the other things, I don't have enough experience to comment on that. I don't think it's my place. I think if I made a comment it would be entirely conjecture and that would be inappropriate from my side. Yes, thank you for your comments. The first ones were not maybe directed to me but I could just make a couple brief comments on your points. One is with regards to the idea of adjusting your language and so on. I wondered if maybe it might be useful to distinguish between kind of the overall values that we are trying to pursue on the one hand and then the actual research that we conduct in the process of doing that. I think if you're throwing together all economics research that involves a rational choice model into something that has no value or pursues the wrong values or can choose things in a way which is always unhelpful, I think that's unhelpful, honestly. I think it's much better to think about first of all we should have good values I think and we all have to decide what those are though. There's no scientific way to arrive at those. But once you have a set of values you're pursuing I think for example rational choice is an extremely useful approach. It's useful for me in my research for example as a baseline to speak to, not to explain everything. So that's often a problem I have for example in I teach in psychology but I'm often talking about rational choice models in those classes. Not to say that they are correct models of human behavior but to use them as a baseline against which we can compare other models of human behavior. And so to say for example that we shouldn't think about rational choice I think is not helpful. But then to say that on the other hand I agree with you completely that if we frame human behavior as always rational choice then we skip over as you mentioned slightly the whole possibility of behavioral economics heuristics and biases that we know exist. So but I don't think any of these panelists here would think in that way. So once you keep that in mind the second thing the idea of individualizing as also being always a problem again I would disagree. I agree though when you think about if you try to frame all of human behavior as being explained by rational choice and also have a sort of bottom up micro level individual level process. You know that that aggregates you know I agree with you but the thing is that's kind of a straw man in my opinion in the in the research there are some people that think that way. But for example how can individual approach that takes the individual in focus be useful when you pursue important values with your research. Okay I'll give an example of a I have a certain set of values that I'm trying to pursue. I don't know if I can get my values but I would just point out one thing that in the research literature on diasporas. There's a very strong sort of trend and theme within that literature that that diaspora communities are a problem that they are constantly causing problems that they are fueling wars. The new wars debate is an example of where this comes in very strongly. Mary Keldor uses the case of the Bosnian war to make her point that far off communities live in living in you know places in Europe and North America you know who don't experience the cost of this conflict are causing problems. Koleen Höfler another very influential set of authors probably the most cited article ever in civil war couple of economists Paul Koleen Höfler you know they argued the same point very strongly in that article. The thing is that their evidence is very poor but they use an individual level argument and so by going to the actual individual level collecting the data and actually showing them that they're wrong. You can make a very powerful impact you know in terms of research but also in terms of maybe having that spread out into policy as well hopefully over time. So this is why I think that the individual level is still useful as an approach because you can't get away from it you know in the conversations that you're having. So that's and it is I mean there are individual level processes at work and you should also perhaps couch them then in broader macro level processes which you alluded to. Then my last point was regards to government strategies. Yes that literature on acculturation the work by Sam Berry I believe is his name provides that particular model of acculturation which is simple and useful from a from a research point of view. It's not the only the only way to think about acculturation but it's useful model and his argument is that multiculturalism policies will be most conducive to by culturalism. So it's you know the point is that yes this is couched within a policy framework and within that policy framework you have individual level strategies which individuals adopt but of course that's shaped by the broader environment in which they're living. And so of course you know the idea that complex identities and by cultural identity is conducive to reducing support for conflict is kind of a boon for is you know supportive of the idea that perhaps the swing away from multiculturalism policies that we're experiencing today with the growth of the extreme right and the shift in Europe in North America as an example of that is perhaps hugely problematic. It could even be for example increasing support for the ideology of conflict within certain segments of society. So yeah. Thank you. I like to start by the comment of Sandrine. I'm sorry I didn't get your family name but Sandrine saying well you were calling for cross sector collaboration between you know scholars researchers and practitioners and I would just like to echo this with one example. Which recently struck my mind in an executive training program we had a political scientist coming and meeting with practitioners from basically aid workers from Syria, Somalia, Sudan etc. And the topic was hybrid political orders. So he spent about one hour explaining that in those countries actually the state is not the sole source of power, legitimacy and authority and it is widely shared with informal traditional and other forms of authority. And it was striking that after one hour most of the participants says well it's 20 years that we know this and we navigate this every day and we work with it and we perfectly know all what you said. The only thing we learned is that it has a name. So I was thinking that actually those social scientists could have gained 20 years because actually the concepts came really it's 2011, 2012. So it really made it to the well spreading in the academic community and then making it from there to the OECD DAC etc. Very recently whereas practitioners practice it every day. So to gain intuitions and really to have this cross fertilization I really support and very much would like to back your plea. On Richard, your comment I will leave it to my colleague of MSF. But the only thing is that I would say is beware of Monoco's explanation of crisis. Because at least our students often they say but is it this or that? And often it's a bit of this and that but it depends. So it's the main let's say response. Finally thank you Inge Kaule for your excellent remark and very much. When you say actually we should review and adapt our language I think what you mean probably is that we should review and adapt economics as a discipline. Which is a goes beyond language. And I think it's really extremely useful that you also mentioned extensions where economists being imperialistic, you know, have borrowed from social psychology and many other disciplines and the advances that we see now in behavioral economics are extremely relevant. And the fact that indeed most of individual decisions are taken automatically or you know try to conform social norms and the prevalence of pre-establish mental models in explaining this individual decisions is finally making it a bit in the development world with some success and some problems. I think it's great even with the flaws in it but that 2015 world development reports bring behavioral economics closer to the development community. What I noticed that in the humanitarian sector it's not we are not yet there when it's when we deal with humanitarian crisis, you know, as much as the investors has been quick in picking up insights from behavioral economics and applying it to the behavior of investors on the capital markets. As much as I see that when we negotiate with our actors to try to reduce, you know, the number and intensity of war crimes, we are still very much norms driven saying well it's forbidden, it's bad. Actually they know it's bad and they know it's forbidden but they do cost benefit analysis plus they think that it is and it is becoming what you mentioned about the attacks on hospitals and the medical mission is becoming normally and socially more accepted. In many world theaters, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen and this is really very very worrying and I think we should collectively be much more aware and borrowing from behavioral economics in order to try to engage partner actors both on a cost benefit level but also to think how do we want to change or adapt in a medium run mental models in order to make such attacks not acceptable anymore. Thank you. Sofia, the last word. Well, thank you for the questions and I try to get on to this quite philosophical question of the underlying causes of conflicts and who is responsible. I will probably just repeat what Jill said but in more medical or layman terms and not so economical but I agree that I think conflicts are a little bit like individuals. There are as many reasons for conflicts as there are individuals in the world and as long as something, someone, whatever is benefiting from a conflict it would probably continue exactly how to build a model to understand the cost benefits of conflicts and what is driving it. I am not in that kind of research area. It's for the colleagues here in the panel that try to do that in many different ways. But I think that when a conflict has been going on for quite some time and we have numerous examples of that it becomes a little bit a self playing piano also. You have context like Sudan, like Afghanistan with generations that have seen no stable society, have no references of a context of a state and a system that you can believe in and then it becomes even more difficult to resolve that situation. But that is on the most philosophical level, on the practical level of what I am trying to reinforce here. That is as long as we talk about all those models and the pros and cons and so on. When the benefits of stopping a conflict becomes greater than the costs it will probably stop. But while waiting for that to happen we can never forget the individuals that are suffering the consequences of that conflict. Okay, thank you Sophie. That was a really good way of ending this panel and I am sure that the discussions and questions will emerge during the lunch as well and during the later sessions afternoon and tomorrow. So let's go and have some more material nourishment besides this intellectual challenge that we had here this morning. Thank you very much.