 Right, so I'm going to talk about what make sort of some general observations about the pattern of urbanization in Asia and its impact for well-being are less concerned with happiness But more with well-being in more general sense So let me start with the very blandest statement that urbanization in Asia Compared to that what has happened in Europe historically has three features It is much larger in scale in terms of human population It is proceeding at a very fast pace again compared to what we have seen historically and Also under much more severe environmental constraint than experience in past the implication of pace and the scale was some important Impact on what the cities look like for a start the pace of construction in Asian cities very fast So what it does is flatten the time dimension That is the sediments of us or building structures are swept away and much of the style Actually because of this fast pace is more takes form of replication and repetition So you don't get what we call the historical layering of cities Which you might see in Europe in sort of fast-growing Asian cities The second point let me just move quickly so basically the pattern of urbanization in Asia is very much dictated by what's happening between China and India China and India between themselves Account for about 40% of the world population and around 60% percent of the Asian population They both exhibit similarities and certain important differences China's urbanization rate is 50% as pointed out earlier compared to China's India is 30% But here I would just signal that is it is very much conditioned by definition in my view Which I know China better than I know India China urbanization rate is underestimated But I'll come to some similarities there are two historical patterns of The employment side of cities which we can distinguish One I would call there in all cases There is transfer of labor after farming as part of economic development into services and industry a common pattern in Europe in the past was that initially the transfer was More biased in favor of industry and manufacturing then ultimately gave way because of decentralization to the growth of services What we're observing more and more in Asian cities is really not so much transfer of labor from farming to Industry but farming to services in many cases petty services and low wage services So what's happening is that is the transfer of migration Is actually becoming Move from rural poverty to what might look like urban poverty or a state of low income The let me also make some comments about what we expect that and the impact of these changes on The Atlas of poverty Historically poverty at least in population countries has been a rural phenomena So if we go back to China at the start of economic reform It's to a poverty is almost entirely discussed as a rural phenomenon same as India What we seeing and what we'll see more is actually urbanization of poverty So that's one point like to emphasize not simply because the poor migrate to cities Not simple transfer of rural poverty into urban poverty but also that moving to urban area accentuates and brings to light Certain aspects of inequality or deprivation so questions of housing Accessed infrastructure access to education acquire much greater important than the traditional indices of poverty So that's one thing The second thing I'd like to emphasize that there has been a huge reduction in poverty in Asia Most of it in China in fact since 1980 Much of the reduction in world poverty is due to reduction in China. Most of it was in rural areas India also has experienced Reduction in poverty, but much less pronounced in rural areas So in fact the poverty reduction in India less, but two things I'd like to emphasize Which would increasingly affect that less of world poverty in future That is economic growth both in India China has accelerated and they're talked in terms of the two giants of the world economy But it's also going hand-in-hand with increasing interpersonal inequality More so in urban areas than rural areas So in fact inequality is rising very rapidly in both countries in urban areas The second point I'd like to emphasize is also going hand-in-hand with regional disparity So the two effects would mean that the way we look at poverty Would also become more specialized That is particular areas of cities would look poor and that was what they stand out Second particular regions of the country would look so the more poor So a simple and alarming statistics compiled by my My colleagues at LSE who written a book called India in the 21st century That is presently the four six states in India in northern India Who actually underperform in terms of social indicators have about 40% of the poor As the projection of the trend the way things are moving in different regions of India in 20 years time They would contain 80 to 85 percent of the poor So these are particularly striking statistics. So what we also see is these regional disparities Are going to grow so the question we'd like to ask is what are the public policies or measures of certain implications of this growth in the features of poverty The one phenomena I'd like to draw attention to is the appearance of Giant cities and urban conservation London at the end of Second World War with the population of eight million was regarded as a giant city End of Second World War in some sense There's something like 19 or 20 Asian cities with a core urban population of around 10 million or more There are much more. What we see observing is actually the cities Which are growing and the growth of urban conurbations. So in China alone It is forecast that 20 or 30 years time China will see the emergence of four Four urban conurbations Each with a population of 60 to 70 or maybe more Million that is one in North China one around Shanghai one around Hong Kong and Guangzhou and one in the West around Chongqing the question. I'd like to ask what implication Does it have for the cities? So first thing I'd like to emphasize is implication for governance of cities That is basically urban conurbations do not have a well-defined boundaries So one thing is that at the moment governance of cities is very much governed based on the assumption that the functional Functional scope of particular problem whether developing transport or infrastructure or whatever Consize with the jurisdiction of the city. So one characteristic of this new urban conurbation I'd like to emphasize is discrepancy or lack of Coincidence between functional Sort of spaces and the jurisdiction level that opens up the question of how do you govern a city? Which is actually organized in a very different principle the second last point I'd like to end with is problem for democratic representation of city governance Democratic representation traditionally is based on the place of residence if you think of The more urban environment One person's place of residence may bear be very distant from one's place of work So it is consequences is that how do you? Ensure proper democratic control when there is such a discrepancy between the various aspects of the city life Let me finish you. Thank you