では、3分間でお答えをしたいと思います。では、リチャーから始めましょう。どうもありがとうございました、ルイズ。私は、普通の行動をしていると、私は、私たちの仕事をしているように、私たちの作り方をしていることが、私たちは、私たちの作り方をしていることが、確かに cost$7000.私 longer than optionals but a short-term narcissist.周到機械を動かないので、この piece is crossing a road.기를 シーンに掃縮されるのは、私たちの行動の違いで、私たちのリカナバックの変化を歩き出らせるのですが、私は、私たちは、我要と同じ Crafts米を行っていると思います。East Asia's success is built on strong education foundations.And in a lot of countries there's a huge investment to make in bringing the skills up to the level where the hard infrastructure can be as productive as it is.And I very much agree also with Louis' point about institutions.In many ways the difficulties are about the functioning of institutions.If the institutions are right you can put quite a lot of resources in.If the institutions aren't right you can't put a lot of resources in because they won't be used in any reasonable way.So, Justin.I think it's very important for us to understand the nature of development and then to understand the mining country in a country for those kind of structural transformation.And with that, none of my control trial will not work.But certainly we also need to see the results.And coming to Richard's question about education.I agree education is important.However, if you come to an African country, which are the mining country today?I think that you have a lot of educated people.For example, in Ethiopia they have a very successful story or shoe factory.And now they employ, you know, within three or four years they employ 8,000 workers already.But if you look into the educational level of the worker data.They are much higher than the educational level of workers in China.I want to send you a flow.And then because of the education in Africa has been emphasized for several decades.And they educate a lot of graduate students.But they don't have a job.So, I fully agree, especially I'm a student of Deodor Schwarz, which is the father of human capital.Understand education is important.For African country, mining country today maybe is how to create those kinds of labor-intention job.And which actually does not require so much skill and education.And education for most people in African country today already needs sufficient knowledge.Thank you.And Daniel.Well, I have to say I also agree with Louise.I think my kind of four areas of intervention were kind of focused on that institutional capacity development areas.And as someone who works on a lot of USAID projects.I know the pain of reporting on USAID indicators.And so that challenge of trying to invest in kind of long-term institutional capacityand managing shown to try impact through indicators to your public is the real trade-off, I think.I think Louise's comments raised for me.I think really an important area that I haven't seen looked at too muchis why countries are using their sovereign wealth and their debts.And their debts so differently.And tracing through if there is the institutional reasons for why debt is being managed differently throughout the African region.I'm always struck by the comparison between kind of Ghana and Zambia.Both of these kind of debt distress, you know, a situation that Ghana has been working with the IMFto try to manage its debt and Zambia just throughout the IMF chief last week.So I've been trying to understand what are the institutional components for how countries are dealing with sovereign wealththat I can see really important area.I haven't seen too many working on maybe an area for wider.It's a next research project.Thank you very much.So now I would like to open the floor.So from first, yes, yes.Okay, Mike's based from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen.Evaluation Research Department.What is your definition of structural transformation?While we're sitting here in Helsinki, I think it's a 11 hour time difference to Californiawhere Governor Jerry Brown has convened a climate action summit.I'm wondering with all your aid flows and investment,are you really transforming anything at all?If you're just going for a traditional model of industrialization, massive infrastructure.I thought clean development was on the agenda, but none of you have touched on it.Thank you.Okay, please.So I would like to take several questions and yeah, please.So I also have a question for Justin.I mean, a lot of your discussion about structural transformations about labor and capital and investmentand to some extent markets.But I was just wondering what does history tell us with your China and your Vietnam and your Cambodiaabout how incomes are distributed in your model.And thinking of those countries, does it meanand does it have any implications for the style of government that's requiredin order to sort of manage these transformation processes?Yeah, please.When you talk about private financing, do you talk about export creditor some other private financing?And also I was lacking the systemic development in your talk about the climateand other environmental issues.So please include the next time.Yeah.When it comes to structural transformation, I read it at East Asia.Directed the cheap credit to export industriesand also imported the technologythat contributed to a very rapid learning process.And over time also increased the private savings a lot.So very much of the finance was from national private savings.We see in Africa extremely low private savings.And we see very high bank differentials, interest rate differentials.We see increasing loans to households in the cities.We see the government borrowing.So very quickly left actually for industrial development.So both Western observers and Justin Lin say that,well, we did the foreign capital.But what about harnessing private savings in developing countries?That's what we did in China and what we did in all other East Asian countries.Thank you.So I stopped here and I know that there are several other questionsand during the second round I would like to ask.So maybe starting from Justin.I do have a number of questions here.The first one is the definition of structural transformation.And well, I have a new structural economics.And why is my own definition?And first it's a transformation from agrarian economy tomanufacturing based economy and then gradually to service based economy.That's a big structure.And within each sectors, like agriculture,you also have modern technology and you have traditional technology.And structural transformation also means to convert fromthe traditional technology to modern technology.And also it's institutions.For example, when you are poor, you have a lot of informal credit.Informal financial.And then when you are going to the modern international home,you need to rely more gradually to the modern financial institution.And similarly in the legal system,when you are poor agrarian economy,basically all the transactions are unmanufactured.So you don't need to write a contract.You don't have a law enforcement.But if you want to move to the modern manufacturing,then you have to contract.You have the law enforcement and so on.All those things related to technology,energies,infrastructure and institution,they all have some kind of structural there.So that's why I mean the structural transformation.But you want to make structural transformationnot a structural adjustment.So in 1980, 1990, when they tried to have a structural adjustment project,in general they tried to introduce the modern institutionin the high-income country to the developing world.And those kind of institutions may not workbecause they are not consistent with their protection activityand risk nature and so on.So if you are interested,you know,I do have something I can share with you.Then coming to the issue of income distribution.According to my new structural economics,I'm pretty confident to support that.If you follow the competitive advantages in your development process,then you should be able to achieve efficiency and equity simultaneously.Because poor people,the only source of their incomeis their own labor force.And in a lower-income country,developable energy,according to your comparative advantages,you create more jobs.So you cannot poor people to share the benefit of development.At the same time,you will be competitive.And that was the situation in the Asian economyfrom the 1950s to the 1980s,including Japan and Korea,Taiwan,Hong Kong, and Singapore.During the very rapid development process,they also improved their income distribution.But coming to the case of China,Vietnam and Cambodia,you see the rapid economic development,but income distribution wasn't,although they followed their competitive advantages in the development.And the reason was because,as I said,they adopt this kind of dual-track approach.On the one hand,continue to return a lot of distortionsto support the old sectors,which pre-arranged in the range scheme.But at the same time,they also developedtheir manufacturing efforts thatconsistent with comparative advantages.And although they created a lot of jobs,but because of those kind of distortions,fairly rich people's income.And as I was doing the process,you see the worsening of income distributionin my interest,actually,have a martial lecture,and I analyzed that also.And then coming to the chip credit,you know,that depends on,because during the,you know,industrial upgrading and diversification,you need to compensate for theexternality of the first movements.And also some kind of incentive would be dissension.But those kinds of chip credit and so on will work.Only you are using them to facilitate the growthof the industry which are consistent withthe comparative advantages,as you probably seein this issue.But if you use those chip credit to supportthe heavy industries,as you know,African did that China before 1970,it did that,and that did not work.So,coming to my question,in myrecommendation,it's very importantto follow the comparative advantagesand the government player forcitation law.And then if youfollow the comparative advantages,government player forcitation law,some kind ofexternality compensation will beessential for the first movement,and chip credit is one way.Then,coming tothe savings in Africa.To me,saving is also indarticles.If you look into the career case,before 1960,their saving ratewas between about less than 10%.But during the rapid economic growthperiod,their saving rate increasedto more than 30%.And the reasonwhy was when you were poor,you know,you don't have so muchsupport.So,you can't save more.And you don't have anything to save.But if you follow your dynamic process as I described,you movethe worker to the manufacturing sectorfeature competitive.They have incomeand the investment in the sectorfeature consistent with yourcomparative advantages cangenerally be high return.Theyhave more to save.And they willhave high incentive to save.Again,in my 2007March would like to come tothe University.I also provide evidence for that.Thank you.So,Daniel,you have?I think on structural transformation,I would like to address the questionas export credit.The export credit question.I think if it'sunderwritten by the government,evenif it's provided by a bank,which is the British system,it still counts ultimately as a government liability.And therefore it counts as official,I like that.Here to welcome what Justin was saying about the need forthis bigger definition.It's notthat we shouldn't continue to haveofficial development for systems,butwe need to take into account all thisofficial support for sustainable development.The OECD has a bigproject with the UN on measuringtotal official support forsustainable development,TOWSD.Andthis is partly because the OECDitself has been very bad atmeasuring any of these othertransactions.They're becoming moreimportant,relatively.And we needbetter accounting for that.And that willalso show where governments reallyare making an effort,not just withhighly concessional money,but alsowithless concessional flows.Sustainability,somebodyshould say something about.The two kindssustainability,in my view,are important.Inthe 1970s,we used to pretend thatall we had to do was buildcapitalprojects in,say,Africa.AndI was involved with building roads inthe pool,for example.These roadswere maintained.And the Nepalese governmentapproach was,well,five years later we'llcome back and you can rebuild the road.SoI'm quite skeptical in very poorcountries of a policy which is justaboutcapitalprojects,because you'vegotto think about the sustainability inthe sense of maintenance.And I thinkthat's something that,therefore,myview is that you need a balance ofcapital and recurrent flows tocountries where the tax base isextremely low.And that's been theration of a balance of paymentsof getting recurrent finance into thesystem,because countries need a balancebetweencapital and recurrent.That's onekind of sustainability.The same kindof sustainability is the saving,theplanet sustainability.I do thinkthat those of us living in the northneed to recognise that most of theplanet's problems are being caught byAfrica.And we need to be verycareful about trying to hold theAfricans to higher standards thanwe can find to ourselves.At the same time,it's an Africa's interest topossible stand up to climate changeand the rest of it.So I think thedialogue about sustainability needsto recognise those two kinds and toavoid any sort of,you know,we mayhave made mistakes,but you'regonna get a bright archiveapproach,which is not in my view atall sensible.Just one comment tosay,Jessen,I'm not againstRCTs or evaluationresearch or generally research ondevelopment projects and what worksand why.I think that kind ofresearch is really important.I justworry about,you know,payingfor performance ignoresgenerally delivering effects andI'll give you an example.It'salways good to pick on yourprevious employer than your currentemployer.So I'm going to pick onmy previous employer,which is theworld bank,who gave awho financed a social impact bondin,I think,West Bank in Gazaconditional on certain typesof people getting jobs.And theonly thing is,there was noexpansion of industry orfirm.So it's only a questionof how the jobs will be,that itwas a social impact bond arounddistributing jobs,not creatingjobs.Because the fallacycomposition,the generallydelivering effect was ignored.Sothose are the kind of things that Iworry about.Thank you verymuch.So yeah,please.Thankyou.I have two questions.Oneis regarding safety andquality of those infrastructureproject.I don't knowwhether you have heard aboutDamn Collapse in Laos,which wasfinanced by Korean,by the wayKorean.And I've beenlooking into that project.And oneof the things which also youmentioned about climate changeand we talk about sustainabilityis because it's PPPproject,the first ever by theKorean government.And it'sso many diverse actors andcontractors.So it'scontractors subcontractors.And howare we going to manage that kind ofwhat you mentioned about liability.Wehave official financing goingin,not just Korea but Thailand aswell.And how are we towe have global partnership in SDGand we are thewe can't really even see the transparencywhy it happened.So that'smy first question to all thepanel.I thinkDamn isI think there's a bridge collapse.And Ithink the Japanese ODI project alsocollapsed during the construction.Sowe're now in this particularenvironment,the wholecontext.And second one is aboutthe structure and transformationwe all mentioned.I wouldlike to mention the politics ofit.The kind ofwhenever I look at my KoreanODM,it looks like whosestructure transformationis this ODIfor.So my questionto you,the panel.Thank you very much.One questionfor Richard,but also the rest of the panelas you showed very nicely.SoIDA funds are increasingbut at the same time the number of IDAcountries is shrinking.And theremaining group of IDA countries tends to be those with worseinstitutions.Sohow do you then keep IDAmaking a positiveimpact.And perhaps also a bit to thiswhole question of how do youevaluate this in such acontext.Because if youconstantly need to demonstrate asuccess,that might not workin these environments.You may need totake bigger risks.And is any ofthe ODA worldreally set up.Sodespite a lot of confessionsto the contrary,to really take risks of failure in suchcontext.Yeah.I'mYohane Gopin,I'm from theJapan.And I think that we havebeen now heard quite a lot aboutfinancing.But we are talkingof continuities and changesin development policy.I thinkwe should think a little bit moreabout contents offinancing.How thefans are being allocatedfor its purposes that they arebeing used.And I wonderif there's anything really newhappening in this respectin development policy.Or is itmoreof the same,or in thebetcase,some of those thingswhich have been done beforeand are now returned incitals.For instance,do wehave somethingessentially new inSDGs.Onegold that they are actuallyin spite of allhatery about the investments.Theyare culmination of two differentagendas.There is still theadvocacy and quality reductionagenda for poorer countriesand that's wheredeveloping finance needsneeded.And then the otheragenda is the one which Iwould call sastral growthfor us.So how do wemake our own growthssastral?It is not so muchquestion or development finance.Any other questions?Starting fromRichard?You agree?Okay.Well,I think that anybodyinvolved ina major construction project takessafety extremely seriously.AndI think questions did be askedwhen these things go wrong.As they've been asked in Italyfor this bridge collapse in general,which wasput in the 1960s,and it appearsthatI was talking to my father-in-lawas an engineer,and apparentlyanything where oxygen and water canget together is ofcourse extremelybad for steel.Apparently in Britainall the suspension bridges have to haveinclase in nitrogen for that reason to keepthe oxygen up.But I mean,these arethings that people have to get right,and whateverthe structure,there's got to be no compromiseon safety,I think,with the answer to that.I think you've raised a veryfair point.I mean,what will Ilook like in a few years time?As I've saidalready,the donors having set upthese elaborate ways of measuringperformance,with a view to rewardingperformance,and now saying,but you must bearnext percent on fragile states,because donorsstrategic reasons worried about al-Qaeda in the Sahel and the rest of it.And this isputting the empty beads in a situationwhere there will be more failures,Ithink.And as we all know,theproblems of the more fragile societiesare not going to be solved by cash.There'smuch more needed than that.What has tolook carefully at what can inpractice be done in the Yemen,that'sit's not something that's amenable tothrowing large amounts of money out ofit,even though large amounts of money willcertainly be needed at some stage.So I thinkthis problem will be increasinglydiscussed.And on the concept,well,you've seen a kind ofyou're quite right to say all thesefashions come and go.I mean,in the 1980smy main job in Britain was to sellstuff to China on mixed credit,whichwe did well successfully.In China it mightbeused a bit,some other countriesmade rather bad use of it,and all thebritish firms involved went bust inthe end,and then none of them exist anymore.Andthen we had the Helsinki agreement,andinfrastructure became much harder tofinance in that way,and as a resultthere was a big drop ininfrastructurefinancing.It became politically moreconvenient to say we were pushinghealth and other agenda.Health fundingwent back a lot,still pretty high asit was all from the chance.That'sleft aninfrastructure deficit,whichChina and the Millennium Challenge Corporationand others are now seeking to fill.Soyou can't trust owner fashions asmy answer to your question.Myview is all countries need everything.You know,they've got to pay the police,butit's unlikely that donors are going to setup a fund just to pay the policebores.So donors alsohave constituents to deal with,soit's convenient for some donors to supportsome things and other donors to supportanother.I don't think the Chinesegovernment are criticised in China forbeing big on infrastructure.If thebritish government was big oninfrastructure,it would be criticisedall over the place for all sorts ofmultiple issues in the downing countryas well.Yeah,I thinkby the way,one of the criticismsof Chineseinfrastructurefinances that is turnkey,andI'm not sure that's such arelevant criticism,giventhe problems as you've describedfor a poorgovernment with the lowercapacity to manageall the complex aspects ofinfrastructure,designs,construction,supervision,etc.However,there's also a criticismthat in those turnkey projectsthey get over-engineeredbecause the firmthat is building them,it's likewhen you get your housefixed and you sayto the guys doing it,my budgetis a maximumof $50,000.And it saysyes.Well,you end up payinga hundred becausethese changeorders keep showing up,right?And that's what happens ininfrastructure financing,too.Now,butat the same time,you know,that people have alsocriticizedthe World Bankwhere there's likeextensive resource,you know,aseparate firm is hired tosupervise the construction,blah,blah,blahas being too slow,andtherefore,ending up costingmoney,because time is money.So,Ithinkthere'sand I don't think there'sthis is the right approachthat government should taketo infrastructuredesignconstruction and finance.I think it needsto be looked at and appliedto the situation.Andmy government is alsoa fan of thesePPP projects,but they do havetheir complexity.I thinkthe risk tolerance question isextremely important.I've been in two developmentinstitutions.Both of themhave tried to adoptnew policies for risk.I wasat the World Bank when they had thisORAF come in,this overallrisk framework you were supposedto do on projects.Oh,that's great.Ithought we could,we can showwhat the risks are.So,Ihappened to be,I didn'tworking on a project at that time.We said,this is the risk.and then managed to give access.Well,how areyou gonna mitigate them?And I went,Oh,yeah,okay.you don't really want another risk.And it turned outthey didn't,you know,the risks,these matricesbecame very banal event afterthe first round,right?TheUSA is now trying to develop arisk appetite.Yeah,okay.It'sgoing through the same.Andso,I do think this questionof risk tolerance in fragile statesis going to be constant,evolving,andespecially as aid agencies aresubjective.So,Ithink this question of risk tolerance in fragile statesis going to be constant,evolving,andas aid agencies aresubjectiveto increase scrutiny.Whilethe agency itself may haverisk tolerance within its management,thescrutiny of outsiderswill limit its risk toleranceas well.So,it'sthe authorizing environment inwhich these agencies workthat matters as much.Oh,whenI come to theinfrastructure project implementation,andtheinfrastructure project implementation,andit's very importantto haveright management modelsto start with.Andthat depends oninstitutional capacityto begin with.For example,in1985,before1985,China did not havehighway at all.Now,Chinahas 125,000 kilometershighway,the longestin the whole world.Butit all started one project in1985.Itlinked fromBeijing to Tianjin and to the Port.That's300 kilometersracial.But the project wasa training forChina.Chinaborrowed the moneyfrom the warbank,butnot because of the money case,tolearn how to manage.Studyingfrom project preparation,studyingfrom how to arrange funding,howto collect total,andhow to do the repayment.Andthatthen,all otherhighway inChina,juststudent of that project.ButChina can do thatjust by technologicaladvice from the warbank,becauseinstitutional capacity inChinahas been very high.Butthere's another model.RecentlyChina helped theIdoopia to contract the railroadfromAdisababa to Chibuti.Andarrangementfor every job,there'sChinese engineer,Chinesemanagers,and alsoIdoopian managersworktogether.Andthe goal was,within10 years,the wholemanagement will be transferred backto theIdoopian.And I thinkbased on that,the Idoopian will have a capacity to dothe railroad,and so on.But to start withhigh standard,and then make this kindofoncommunic investment,sustainablewill be very essential.So I guess I'll just address the lastquestion about allocation offinancing.You're asking aboutdistribution within ODA.AndI've only looked atfor Africa,so I'm not surebut I did allude to some of it up here.AndI think,I mean,what isquite interesting is you have seen a declinefor education.As I mentioned,you've seena decline for public administration,publicfinance,and more broadly forgovernance and civil society,evenas you've seen,quite a large increaseamong the DAC.I don't know if it'sfollowing or if it's just in parallel,butfor infrastructure,for theproductive sector,so foragriculture and for manufacturing.And then still quite high forhealth.So you are seeing some typeofshifts that might be kindofmuring,you know,some of thenew goals for the sustainabledevelopable,this interest more ininfrastructure.But I think what'sworrying for this conversation isthis decline ingovernance and civilsociety support.If we keepsaying we need the capacity ofinfrastructure projects and other typesofgovernment capacity,it'squite worrying that you're seeing thatthe decline in thegovernance sector.Andso just as a plug for tomorrow,we'llbe having a panel with some ofthe participants here in the roomlooking at why we seem to have sucha backsliding in democracy in Africathat's tied to some of the shift inthe financial landscape.Thank you very much.Toward the achieving the SDGs,thereare so many issues to be tackled and bothdevelopment and developing anddeveloped countries and agenciesinternational institutions andprivate sectors hasdifferent roles.And Ithink that the aidpolicy has stillthere are stillvery importantand I think that we hadvery interestingand lively discussion today.And thank you very muchfor panelists and discussantand thank you all forparticipating today's seminar.