 If you could please take your seats, thank you all so much for being with us. My name is Zane Asher, I'm an anchor at CNN and this panel is all about really what's next for inequality. So whether you look at income inequality or wealth inequality, the statistics are staggering. I don't even think you can even refer to it as a gap between the rich and poor anymore. It is a yawning chasm. Thank you. And when you think about some of the numbers, some of the numbers, I just want to read some of them to you. The richest 1% in our world possess two thirds of global wealth. On top of that, in the United States where I live, the 50 wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. Let me say that again. 50 wealthiest Americans control more wealth than 165 million people. So I think the question I really want to get at today is inequality par for the course when you are running a capitalist society? Is it an inevitable part of doing business if you want to run an efficient market economy or is it a political choice? Let me introduce my panelists. We have Eunice Securi, Minister of Economic Inclusion, Small Business, Employment and Skills of Morocco, Zubair Dubai, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Grammian Foundation, Owen Tudor, Deputy General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation, and of course Ricardo Hausmann, Founder, Director of Growth Lab, Harvard University. Thank you all so much for being with us. I think, Ricardo, I want to start with you. What do you think is more important? Is it more important to raise the income levels of the poorest among us, or is it more important for the gap between the rich and the poor to become smaller? Because those two are not the same things. You can of course increase the income levels of the poorest people by two-fold, but if the wealthiest people in our society see their incomes increased by five-fold or six-fold, then of course the gap becomes wider. Which one is more important, raising the income levels of the poorest, or the gap between the rich and the poor becoming smaller? Well, I think that if you care about the welfare of the poor, it's important that their welfare improve. So, you would have preferences that are very biased to the welfare at the low-end. Now, I think that inequality, you know, people are making correlations all the time in their heads and they're saying, look, there's malaise, there's inequality, maybe the malaise is due to the inequality. But inequality of what? Now, you mentioned inequality of wealth. That may be what gets people mad, but it may be inequality of dignity, inequality of access, inequality in other dimensions that are the source of the malaise. And if you focus too much on income and on the wealth and on the top, you may not be necessarily emphasizing the things that matter. Number two, there is this sense that inequality is rising. Now, it depends the inequality, suppose you're thinking of income. What do you mean by inequality? Global inequality? Because global inequality has been falling, not rising, and it has been falling because middle-income countries have been growing faster than high-income countries. And I would put it to you that that's part of the malaise in the rich world, that they have to make room for this upcoming countries that are now competing in markets that used to be that the Italians made the shoes and the clothing and so on, now other people are making the shoes and the clothing and it's generating disruptions in the rich country. So at the global level, inequality is falling and that's part of the malaise, not rising. At the national level, in rich countries, there has been a trend for inequality to rise, but it's not a global trend. Now I would put it to you that an alternative way to frame the issue is that inequality, the inequality that matters really is inequality of inclusion. That because people are not included in the networks, in the connections, in the infrastructure that allows people to be productive, there is enormous inequality in productivity. It's not that the pie is poorly shared. It's that people in different locations are making pies of radically different sizes. This is both the productivity across countries and the productivity across regions in a country and the productivity within a city of people who do not have the access to go to where the jobs are because commute costs are enormous, commute times are enormous and people cannot access the labor market. I would put it to you that one of the implications of one frame is that because wealth is so poorly distributed, we need redistribution. In my alternative frame, what we need is inclusion and both are very expensive strategies. You have to take stuff from one side and put it in another. But redistribution is palliative and inclusion is curative. Very interesting. Let me just do so much that Ricardo touched on there. I think where I want to start is this idea of inequality being a very layered issue. There's so many different types of inequality. There's inequality between nations. There's inequality within nations. There's inequality of inclusion, as Ricardo pointed out. There's also inequality between genders, between races. The list goes on. Given that it is such a layered issue, where do we even begin? Do you think that income is the first place to start when we discuss inequality? I do believe income isn't necessarily the place to start. And I want to, just from out of respect to where we come from, Grameen, our founding father, Dr. Unis, his statement about the world and poverty and hunger where we focus on has been that the poor are not poor because they want to be poor or not because they don't want to come out of it. But primarily because the social and economic systems we've created around them have failed them miserably, right? And so what do we meaningfully do then to support them? We do know the statistics that about 50% of the world's population is women. But we don't include them meaningfully and at their full potential in social and economic systems. We do talk about income inequality where we do know that 10% of the world's population owns 52% of the wealth. But do we want to focus there? Or do we really want to focus on kind of the area where how do we stop this growth from, how do we stop this inequality from increasing? We really have to focus at the bottom of the pyramid and we really need to lead with gender. We need to bring women and girls at the center of everything that we do. And we want to make sure that we bring men at the table and we don't leave boys behind. I think that would be our first way to look at it, right? The second way I think as a development world and as the NGO world, we always believe that financial inclusion is the answer to all the questions. But it is not, right? So income is definitely not from that perspective. I say that because financial inclusion is important, but it's not sufficient. We really need to create a world where we are able to, I would say dismantle the gender norms that we deal with today. For example, when we include women financially, are indicators that let's get them alone, let's open a bank account. But are these women meaningfully able to reach those banks? Are they in vicinity of these banks? Are these women meaningfully able to understand what this loan means to them? Does it mean extra cash in the hand that they can do something with? Or do they really understand what it means to have a loan and what to do with it, right? So for us, resilient growth starts with, let's think about creating inclusive systems where we create gendered financial products, where these women understand what these loans are for. And on top of it, when we go to a financial institution, we also talk to them to say, these women are coming to you, you're giving them a loan, they've been trained in entrepreneurship. But are they moving the burden of care that we all know about on the children of the household, which means are we impacting the future unintentionally of what is going to happen? When we send our digital financial agents into the field, we want to make sure that these financial agents are also talking about gender-based violence. Because how much do we know that when we bring women at the front and center, there is a gender-based violence action on them increasing day by day? And how do we reduce that? So for us, the second step is to not just think of financial inclusion as an answer to all solutions, but look at it in a holistic way and make sure that women are integrated and we think about the long-term aspect of it. The third and last aspect for us from this perspective is to say, we are all talking about creating an equitable world for tomorrow, but are we bringing the youth along? There's meaningfully evidence that states that if we bring youth into a financially active economy and they are active in the economic growth of a community, we can reduce inequality by 41%. What are we meaningfully doing to include young people of today, age 16 to 19, why are we creating a world for them without them? What can we do to actually create a financially inclusive equitable world where we take them along? We ask them what they want to do. We enable them with technology because technology is not the answer, but it does create opportunities for them to be a part of the future world where we can meaningfully create a world where we create gender norms, where we create structures, where we're able to survive and thrive without inequalities. So we really need to think about it from a futuristic perspective as well. Okay, thank you. And Eunice, just to sort of follow up on what Zubaira said, I mean, obviously talking about government policies on the national level, you know, she talked about the fact that financial inclusion might be one answer, it's certainly not the only answer in terms of tackling gender parity and also making sure that the youths are much more involved. What is the solution here? Because obviously redistribution is an aspect of it, whether you look at much more progressive tax policies, whether you look at more access to education, whether you look at limiting corruption. From a national perspective, where does regulation fit into all of this? Thank you. I want to build on what was said in a moment and bring to the table the accuracy and the relevance of the metrics of the models that we have to measure to which extent inequality is a reality because on the one hand, the international organizations, the universities, all those who think of this, provide theories and also those who practice policies, they provide frameworks, which is very important. On the other hand, we observe a rise in anger in so many societies, sub-categories of societies, for which there are no clear answers and definitive answers. We see this both in the emerging countries, in the developing countries, but also in the developed countries. In a city 15 years ago, one of the biggest cities of the world, someone ran for elections to be a mayor. The tagline of the campaign was security versus insecurity. The guy was elected. He asked all the police department, the chief police department, responsibles of the districts to work on the topic, and he asked for metrics for statistics. What was provided to that guy was that most of the indicators were either green or yellow, but there was no red. But he still didn't understand this gap between what was felt, the experiential aspect of what was expressed in the elections, and how the institutions were working and measuring through a policy, for this case it's a security policy, what he did is that he took out his official clothes of the policeman, let's say, and he went through a couple of... It was journeys between different places in the city as a normal person. What he collected as a qualitative, let's say, data from that journeys was that the number of harassments that did not turn into triggers that would be captured by the police, literally injured people or killed people, but harassments were so important for one person, going from point A to point B, that this person would have preferred to have the injury rather than seven harassments twice a day. This is just to say that we have a real issue in governmental policies capturing what our populations feel, the experiential aspects, how they live every day, the inequality. So this brings me to the inclusion concept. So we are thinking of including people through policies. The danger with policies is statistics, is when you excel, is when you try to randomize things and put means instead of individual lives. And you cannot randomize or put means for individual lives because these lives are lived individually, and this is what gave revolutions in so many countries through the history. So our challenge beyond the programs, you see what I mean. Our challenge is to make sure that we address the individuals but not as statistics. And this translates into programs. I can give you a couple of programs. I know that I took my time, but I wanted at first at this level of, as we are framing the issue, to put this question of addressing the individuals, the experiential aspect, and the power of or the misuse of statistics in this very particular area because we're addressing individuals in their lives, in their aspirations. So inclusion, in my opinion, comes through, revenue is part of the topic, but work. Work because through work, you have revenue, you have a social recognition in a way or in another. You have a perspective which is more powerful than your present, your net value, your present net value of wealth if I might formulate it this way. So it gives you a way, it gives you a meaningful life. So our job as governments is to provide space through policies and programs that talks to these people, that shows to these people that there is a path to undergo, and that gives to the people the empowerment, the necessary empowerment for them so that they can choose a perspective. And there are five or six things that we can develop later on on what specific things our populations, especially those who are excluded or rather to be excluded, they can really pursue in a long life learning process, especially that generation Z that we have today, the expected, I saw this in one of the reports, might change the job 15 to 16 times in a lifetime. So if you are going to work in 15 different places, you definitely need to have a good reason to say live in and believe in the system. So maybe I would come back later for some reason. And do you want to respond to that? So I think one of the problems, I've got a couple of statistics to throw in as well, GDP growth between 2005 and 2019 around the world, 55%, wage growth under 10%, of the 320 million people who were plunged, probably plunged back into poverty since the beginning of the pandemic, 80% of them were in work. So the solutions that we used to advance, which were that work would solve the issue of poverty, doesn't seem to be working anymore. We've got to address that. And one of the reasons for that is this isn't just about economics, this is about political economy. So I get the point about inequality has to be not just about wealth, but also about inclusion, about things like gender and race and environmental sustainability and so on. But what is happening at the moment is that the concentration of wealth that is proceeding and in some cases accelerating in different countries around the world actually affects now the political system. So your opportunity, we've over the last two or 300 years, global countries have been moving towards one person, one vote. But actually that's no longer the definition of equality because you are able, I'm not suggesting it's always necessarily direct corruption, but you are able to buy the government you want. And if you've got more money, you're more likely to be able to get the government that you want than we would normally assume through the democratic, through universal suffrage. So we need a new way of addressing this. We need a different definition of GDP that goes, we talk about going beyond GDP to look at what impact equality, environmental sustainability has on those issues. But we also need to start looking at poverty as not an issue about the poor. Poverty is an issue about the rich. And that's what we need, we do need to concentrate on that issue and make sure that we have ways of addressing that inequality within countries that actually stops those countries heading towards a lack of social cohesion and the growth of right wing populism as the solution that people perceive to be the one that will work for them. It doesn't, but that's the perception at the moment. And when you think about inequality within countries, when you look at the world right now, just so far this year, I'm from the UK, we've seen massive protests in the UK. We've seen continual huge protests across France. Even in Tunisia, for example, in Kenya, there have been protests because people's purchasing power has diminished. You know, why is all of that in all these different corners of the world? Why is it all sort of coming to a head? Now, is there a growing disconnect between what the people expect and what governments expect people to put up with? Well, a little bit of this, I think, is sort of summed up in the Hollywood blockbuster of last year, everything... Everywhere all at once. So, it's partly that, but it is partly that cost of living crisis, and it's partly the exclusion of the traditional ways of dealing with that issue. We've seen in the trade union movement, for instance, a massive reduction in freedom of association around the world, a massive reduction in the number of people covered by collective bargaining around the world. We know that collective bargaining, for instance, doesn't just raise wages and diminish intra-firm inequality. It also boosts the wages of women, and not just the wages, but also the childcare facilities and things like that. We need, as one of the elements of the new social contract that we're calling for, a massive investment in the care economy to make sure not only that women get an equal chance in the workplace, but also to make sure that having to pay for childcare and elder care doesn't actually drive people out of the workplace and into increased poverty or in the informal economy. And Zabida and Ricardo, I want both of you to touch on this idea of just the sort of economic shocks we've seen and how that's widened the gap between the rich and the poor. I mean, I think about the pandemic. You know, the pandemic saw a rise in billionaire's fortunes that was higher than the past 14 years combined. You know, you think about the pandemic and what it did for women and girls and gender disparity in Africa, for example, I mean, it was dire. You think about inflation, right? The cost of living crisis that we're talking about here. Where, how do we make the poorest among us that much more resilient to outside economic shocks? Zabida, do you want to talk about that first? And I'll get Ricardo to speak on the end of that. Sure. So we operate with the belief that everybody's an entrepreneur and a core part of our work is what we call life-resilient business. And it primarily comes with putting gender in the front but bringing men to the table and having those conversations. So we do believe that this is not work that can be done at scale. It is work that can be replicated and it has to be done household by household, especially in communities where we work. We do a lot of resilience building work in smallholder agriculture area where we really see that these farmers are the ones that are struggling with. You know, we do believe that these are farmers and they're growing and they're going to be self-sufficient but we don't understand that the dimensions of poverty and hunger are so many that we end up seeing hidden hunger in many of these families, right? Where if one of the earning members goes sick that everybody's starving for a week until the time this person is in the hospital. So really for us to look at the holistic system, like I said, putting gender in the forefront and actually taking these trainings household by household and enabling local institutions to deliver these trainings to households in a meaningful way where they're able to understand the different shocks where they're able to understand the meaning of savings where they don't necessarily believe that having loan is surplus cash. I think that education piece is what for us resilience building is and primarily making sure that the women in the household are strong and are able to support the family and that strength and that strength in the care economy is actually valued by everybody in the family and the community, I think is the first step for us and that's what's going to meaningfully make a big difference. And just, I'll have Ricardo jump in a second, but just in terms of other sort of factors that will enhance the resilience, especially just protecting the poor against these economic shocks, you have certain parts of the world. My family's originally from Nigeria where there really isn't like a retirement 401k plan. Your retirement is your children. You raise successful children, they provided for you. They hopefully provide for you, that is your retirement. Shouldn't there be more government policies as well in these situations to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable? Sure, you know, when you're giving the example of Nigeria, I think we do believe that in Nigeria, women are so strong and especially overall in the continent of Africa and Asia, but then we see these women form small savings groups and save money and they actually save money in these boxes in a meaningful way and they have different boxes. For example, if 20 women come together and save money, one of the boxes is for unforeseen circumstances. Somebody dies, whatever happens, right? This savings in small boxes by women across the African continent is to the tune of a half a billion US dollars. This is not even a part of the formal economy, right? So again, I know I'm coming back to this. Women know the answers. They have been doing this. They have been saving for each other. They have been protecting each other, holding each other's back. How do we strengthen those bonds? How do we strengthen that? And really meaningfully for us bringing digital technology into this and helping them understand their own savings, helping them understand what this money can do for them, how they can lend to each other, how they can make this small part of money grow for themselves so they can become resilient. I think that's meaningfully how for us and for me, I think for all of us, encouraging women and talking about their strength, I think we all talk about empowering women. Let's all move away from that. These women have so much power you cannot imagine, right? We need to invest in the power of these women because they do know what they need and they do have the power and they survive in situations on an everyday basis that we cannot even imagine ourselves for an hour in, right? So for me, moving away from empowerment, really investing in the power of these women is actually what's going to help build a resilient economy. And Riccardo, there are so many economic shocks. I mean, I obviously talked about COVID-19. There's also the war in Ukraine that has led to huge food insecurity in parts of East Africa. There's climate change, for example, as well. How do we make sure that the most vulnerable are protected so the gap doesn't become wider when these economic shocks arise? So before I tackle economic shocks, I think it's important to understand how do we go to prosperity? What's the road to prosperity? What does it look like? Now, I'm in awe of the Grameen Bank and all the effort of improving livelihoods at the bottom of the pyramid. But if you just look at the structure of, say, a low-income, low-middle-income country and a high-income country, you'll be reminded by a prediction that Karl Marx made in the 1860s. He said he was looking at a society that was full of these small shops, individual artisans, and so on. And suddenly there was the appearance of these firms, much bigger firms, with more machines, means of production, et cetera, and people were becoming employees. Employees, not artisans, but employees of much bigger things. And I would say these much bigger things exploited what you might want to call the division of knowledge, not just the division of labor, but the division of knowledge in the sense that these organizations, they have people that know about accounting, they're about finance, about human resource management, about marketing, about production, about procurement, about taxes, about contracts. You know, they span a knowledge set that allows the whole to operate at much higher levels of productivity. So if you look at a rich country, 80 plus percent of the people are employees in organizations of this character. If you look at Bangladesh or India or Sri Lanka, et cetera, 80 percent of the people are pretty much self-employed or work in very small units where you want that person to know about accounting, finance, marketing, but they can't know about everything that it would take to operate at a different level of development. So really the process of development is this process of transformation of the way we do things, the way production is organized so that the whole can be more productive. So that's the role, that's the task, okay? Now, if we are, I would not want the strategy to abandon that goal, that vision of prosperity in order to make sort of like the present misery a little bit more tolerable, okay? So that's on that. Now shocks have been with us all the time. There's one issue that I think we haven't touched about taxation. So if you want the government to be able to provide more in bad times and protect people from shocks and whatever, you know, the question is where's the money, okay? So the money in part has to do with, you know, borrowing in bad times but saving in good times and countries typically spend in good times and then can't borrow in bad times so there's a macro management issue but there's a taxation issue. And in the taxation issue, the world is slowly progressing through OECD leadership in the idea that we need a global minimum tax on capital. And that's extremely important because what happens right now in developing countries is that when you tax, you realize that part of what you do is you're collecting some money but part of what you do is creating incentives for the things that you want to tax to move away, right? So because of capital can move away more easily than labor, then the equilibrium has been that we tax capital very little because we fear it might move away, right? And so we tax labor but since we cannot really tax too well informal labor then we tax formal labor. And in that process we stop the process of going to the promised land because we're overtaxing the people who are trying to organize the economy in a bigger way and that's because we cannot tax capital but I would say it's very important that countries develop a tax code that taxes citizens global income and not just their territorial income. So if you take, you can take your money out of a country but you cannot take your tax burden out of a country. We will tax you and the systems that are being negotiated between rich countries are about information sharing and countries have to tap into that. Many countries that I work on, they have territorial taxation, they don't have global taxation and they don't have a way to capture their own citizens' money abroad and tax the income that that generates. And that I think is a very important component of a macro responsible macro strategy that can rebalance things a little bit. Thank you. Can I see if anyone has any questions? Does anyone have any questions? No, one second. Junior achievement, thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Simi Mogugu. I run Junior Achievement Africa and I'm very grateful for the comments that you have made Ms. Bai about the fact that it's not what the West can do for the developing countries in terms of inequality. It's about really owning their solutions. So I like the idea of incorporating youth and women who know the answers. I love the fact that you said that, that they know the answers and what they need is strengthening. So when you think about financial inclusion, for example, a lot of young people in Nigeria, which is where I'm also from, Zing. Hi. Fintechs have really changed the way that young people bank because they're not able to bank with the big banks and they're not able to do transactions using the big banks. And you've had Fintechs who have developed innovative ways of moving money and conducting financial transactions. I think more of this is what is needed to reduce inequality. Young people, innovative young people who have the answers to the local problems and all they need is investment, not Western solutions. And then secondly, women also who need to be empowered to be able to develop these types of businesses because when women actually run these businesses, they are more inclusive in their growth. I know we're at the growth summit. I think part of the issues the world today is that we've pursued growth by any means necessary. And when we think about growth, we need to start thinking about growth in an inclusive, socially acceptable way. Thank you. Zupati, do you want to comment on that? No, I totally agree. And I think the one thing I would add to that is primarily when we say Fintechs are coming in, we do want to create a young population that understands what Fintech means and what it brings to them. For example, if a Fintech is going to offer you a loan at 42%, you as a young person, as a woman, should be able to ask, why is it 42%? I ran the numbers. My business can only afford 10%. How am I going to de-risk myself? How is your technology going to de-risk me? And I think that's where we want the world to be and that's where I think we will create an equitable world which is all inclusive and not necessarily get to a point where we want to grow at all means or by all means. We really want to grow meaningfully from a long-term strategic perspective where we want to be successful. So I appreciate the comments. Yeah, I love what you said really about just making sure the solutions are local, that we do know the answer is in developing worlds and that it isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to inequality globally. Do you have a question as well? Okay, pass the microphone to her. Thank you. Thank you. My question, I think it's off. It's on? Yeah. The Ricardo mentioned the productivity increase. In fact, that's the central issue and we discussed the role of technology, especially disruptive technology in terms of productivity increase. On one hand, that could be the solution but on the other hand, when we talk about the disparity, that could also increase the disparity considering the unequal access to technology. What do you think to what extent that could be a solution? I mean, deploying the technology, that would be solution or that could even increase the disparity between the poor and rich? Do you mean like generative AI or what kind of technology you're talking about? Yeah, the both. I mean, the access to technology could help the people to back the bigger pies. Fine. In fact, right? Like Ricardo said. On the other hand, those who have no access to technology that could increase the disparity even more or maybe we could find a solution how to make use of technology to decrease the disparity. And how all industries can benefit. So yeah, Ricardo, you can. Okay, so there are many technologies in many aspects. I worry a lot about the structure of our cities. You know, cars are tradable goods so they more or less have the same price everywhere. Gasoline is a tradable goods so it has more or less the same price everywhere. Wages don't have the same price everywhere. They're radically different in different places. So the poorer the country, the higher the transportation cost, okay? The poorer the person, the higher the transportation cost. And in addition, the poorer the person, the less they can afford for housing and consequently the farther away in the city they have to live. And consequently, face higher even transportation cost so many people are just excluded from going to work. Okay, and when we try to understand higher unemployment, low participation rates by women say in Jordan, we ask the women without high school education how the ones that did work, how do you go to work? Well, the majority answer was that they walk to work. Well, if you walk to work what is the size of your labor market? What's the point of having a city with all these opportunities? If you can't walk to those opportunities, right? So I think that there's an inclusive agenda has to have smart cities with a different kind of urban structure, a different kind of transportation structure so that people can really access opportunity. Now, incomes technology. Now with COVID we realize that things we used to do at work we can do from home but things that can be done from home can be done from sort of anywhere. So one thing that I would like to see technology do is connect people with opportunities for performing tasks remotely so that they can be looking at their children and not having to be two hours going to work two hours coming back and nobody knows what's happening in the family. So it may be an enabler, it may be a source of exports. Somebody was telling me that in Pakistan there's a significant number of people who work from Pakistan for the rest of the world remotely from their homes using that technology. So I think that, yes, there might be a generative AI that might switch some jobs but other parts of the technology might be enablers and we have to be opportunistic at every chance to generate inclusion. Owen, did you want to touch on that? My son's a chef so I was immediately taken. I started talking about pies and I'm slightly worried about whether I'd want to eat a pie that was generated by chat GPT. Although I'm slightly worried about eating the pies made by my son as well, to be honest. But the critical point is in terms of technology, I mean, yeah, absolutely, technology is absolutely crucial to achieving the productivity gains that we need to achieve in our society that can make all of us richer. But unfortunately, the more you have the ownership of that technology, the technology is essentially capital in the hands of the people who's name was generated from capital, the more problems that you have, it's worth noting that over the last decade labor productivity has continued to increase I think probably about 10% over the last 10 years. I'm not sure of the exact figure. Capital productivity has flatlined largely as a result of the people who own that capital have done with that capital which is mostly use it to buy back shares in their companies. So the critical issue about technology is not is it a good thing, is it useful? And in many cases, the sort of advances in technology that people around the world need are really a long way away from machine learning and AI and things like that. The question always and as it always has been about technology is how you introduce that new technology and who will benefit from it. Any other questions? Go ahead, he has the mic. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry, I didn't see you. Hi, my name is Kim Smato. I'm director at the European Network Against Racism and one of the things I wanted to bring to the table is whether, you know, are we, is there a systems change that's actually needed and are we actually leveraging enough things to actually change the system? We're talking about inequities and equality which have been historically and systemically perpetuated. They continue to be the case. So for example, if we talk about work as being a solution, there's a big problem if the workplace in itself is exclusive and if the workplace is a source of discrimination, if the workplace prevents people from actually reaching the C-suite, as we know in lots of different borders. So my question is really around, you know, is there a need for almost a global compact on social and systemic inclusion which brings together all these different aspects, which brings together all the different aspects because it's about education, it's about work, it's about employment, it's about transportation, but somehow none of this gets connected and often DNI gets kind of pigeonholed in a little tiny place without actually recognizing that actually to solve a lot of the world's problems we also have to talk about inclusion and systemic inclusion at that level. Yeah, Eunice, go ahead. We do already have mics. Thank you for asking this question because it connects to what you said earlier. I think there is a rising gap between two dynamics in our societies. One comes from the people, which is egalitarian. Everyone wants to reach a certain position in a certain way according to a certain way of thinking. And the other one is what I call the society of order, of discipline. That is what governments, what organizations provide. And the problem we have is that we have difficulties to run egalitarian aspirations with rules, processes of the society of order. And the question from a public policy design perspective is what changes and what is the amount of change that you need to inject to the way you process your policies knowing that you have to buy votes not as a corruption process, of course, but as a democratic process. So you're facing immediate questions. You need to answer to these questions. You need to run the business as usual. And in the same time, you need to transform. You need to transform. So the balance between these two because otherwise you're not realistic. If you want to think and work on the future and forget the present, you'll be excluded yourself from the position of a decision maker very quickly. And if you want to work on the present all the time, fully and forget about the future, you're not at the level of what is expected from someone who is in a position of decision making. But the problem with decision making is that the infrastructure of decision in so many countries is poor. If you want to launch one reform, one program to reform, let's say, whatever topic you choose, you need to build from scratch the IT, if you need IT. You need to build from scratch the organization. You need to negotiate from scratch with the stakeholders, et cetera. This takes an amount of time that waits on the political capital of the decision maker. So what happens to the decision maker? He just forgets about the reform because he doesn't have time to process the reform, to prepare the infrastructure of the reform. So one of the things, the takeaways, is that decision makers need to invest on infrastructures of decision, regardless of the short-term benefits and the opportunities that politicians tend to privilege in their way of operating the decisions. In Morocco, for instance, what we did is that we tried because we have a monarchy. So we have a long-term also that combines to the short-term, which is the one of the government. So what we did is that we invested in a constellation of projects. Half or maybe 60% of these projects, for instance, the generalization of social security, which is hugely, it takes a lot of money. And if you talk to the unions, if you talk to those who, and the corporations, et cetera, they will tell you, no, you let it for another day because we have urgent matters to deal with. I'm trying to contextualize. But we had this courage to say, no, we are going to invest in this important, huge project and it worked. Last year we had more than 11 additional million people who were totally excluded, totally, I'm saying totally excluded, who now benefit from the very, from the same services like the ones who contribute. We had so many other projects that I don't want to detail the projects, but the idea is to say, you need to invest in a constellation of projects in an infrastructure of decision, regardless of the immediacy and the constraints of time because otherwise we are pushing our problems to the next generations and they will have, of course, much less choice. From the last thing, ideologically speaking, one needs to decide whether you want to sacrifice a generation or to sacrifice the future of your population. So there is a trade-off. I understand what you were saying though, because on the one hand, if you're saying that work is a vehicle for inclusion, but the very workspace that is supposed to be a vehicle for inclusion is discriminatory and that's a problem. So there does need to be something, a global solution for that. I would say not just individual workplaces either, that the origins, obviously, the origins of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US were about policing and exclusion from society generally. What we need is we need a Black Lives Matter approach to the global financial and economic institutions, to trade, to investment and so on. I come from a movement where we have more members in India, obviously it's a matter of scale, than we do in Europe and Europe is considered to be the home of trade unionism. Actually, most of the decisions around what happens around the world are taken in a very small group of capitals, a very small group of C-suite and we need to look at how the exclusion of the majority of the world's population from those key multilateral institutions is affecting the population as a whole and the way our economic system works. We have to leave it there. Can we have a round of applause for our panelists please? Thank you so much. Thank you.