 We have a distinguished panel of scholars and policy makers. If we look at human development, we know that the world has made a lot of progress since the MDGs. Income poverty has halved and many other aspects of human development has improved. But challenges remain. According to last year's human development report, about 1.5 billion people across the world are living in poverty with overlapping deprivations in health, education, and living standards. And we also know that although poverty is coming down, almost 800 million people across the world are at risk for falling back into poverty if setbacks occur. And many people face structural or lifecycle vulnerabilities. And so we are going to discuss in this panel this afternoon what comes next, what do we have to do. And let me just briefly or short introduce our panel. And I'll do it in the order of speaking. So first we have Land Pritchett, who is a professor of practice of international development at the Kennedy School at Harvard. We have Richard Jolly from IDS, who's a professor and research associate there. We have Francis Stewart, a professor of development economics at Oxford University. And who has advised the UNDP on the human development report since it started. And finally, we have our politician, Heidi Hautelam, who is the previous minister of international development here in Finland and currently serves as a member of the European Parliament and is a member of the Development Committee. So please, Lance. That I was just introduced as talking about. I'm going to talk specifically about one aspect of human, of what's lumped under human development, which is education. Now in this August audience of people that have many different specializations and know about very different countries, I'm reminded of the tip to speakers that you should always speak about something you know more about than anyone else in the room. So I'm planning to focus on my grandson, which I'm confident I'm the world's expert on this topic. We could go on about his cuteness, but although that would be my domain of expertise, I do want to switch to talking about systems of schooling and how kind of what I regard as the big puzzles and the big intellectual puzzles that are out there, but actually are acquiring almost no intellectual attention. If you look at what academics are researching about, these three big questions rarely come up from economists or others. The first big question is in some ways in the expansion of schooling, there's an embarrassment of riches in the sense that the question really is, how come education went up by so much, how come schooling, and I want to be careful throughout the entire presentation to distinguish the two, how come schooling went up by so much? It's not a puzzle of why it went up by so little. It's a puzzle of why it went up by so much and why that increase was so homogeneous across countries, rather than trying to explain why countries have been very different in the amount by which they've expanded schooling. Actually, the puzzle is why they've been so much the same. The second big puzzle is, why did systems of schooling by and large take the organizational structure that they did? That is, why do we have the types of schooling systems that we have now? And then the final question, and one that is, how is it that schooling can be so truly awful as it is in many countries around the world? And it has really not elicited the magnitude of pushback that one might expect. So let me now confuse everyone. I'm hoping to confuse you because then I'll bring you down to my level. So Ryan Murphy is a friend of mine and he is the director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is like the premier choir of a Christian denomination in the United States. It's existed for more than 100 years. It has the longest continuing radio show in the history of American radio. They've been on air continuously since 1926. And at all the premier meetings of the church, it is the choir that sings all of the hymns. And I'd like to show you a little clip of Ryan Murphy in action. So I was taught how to do this. This is Ryan Murphy in action directing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You don't really need to hear it, but you're getting confused, I hope. Really just a fantastic, unbelievably fantastic musician. Now, the interesting thing about Ryan is I knew him when he was training to be a musician and he paid for his way through graduate school in music education as the music director of a Catholic congregation. Now, again, this is all inside baseball to those of you who aren't part of Christian denominations, but Mormons and Catholics don't like C.I.D.I. on nearly any of the doctrinal points of Christianity. We're not quite, maybe we are, C.I.Ds and Sunnis, we're way far apart on any major of Christian denominational. And yet, Ryan worked for four or five years very happily as the music director of a Catholic church before then proceeding to be the head of the premier Mormon choir in the world. So part of the question is, how is it that, and isn't that a little bit odd that there would be such interchangeability of the music instruction, of these two, religious music instruction, of these two very different denominations? So now, the Catholic denomination, religion, has a very detailed catechism. So what I'd like everybody to do is get out a piece of paper because I wanna give you a quiz. Everybody ready? Get out of quiz. Please, come on. Like, be ready. So on the left hand side is a question or this is text from the actual catechism. And then you can take a quiz to make sure that you've mastered the material, right? So the quiz is, we read the text on the left and then the quiz is, the desire for God is, A, written in the human heart, B, must be carefully developed because it's not innate to man, C, innately lacking in many individuals. Okay, you could probably, there's an easy one. Here's a harder one. I didn't know the answer. This one I would have guessed the answer, I think, even without knowing anything about it. Here's a harder one. I didn't know that there was a Catholic catechism about the division of the world into many nations to prepare, okay. Then here's the quiz. The division of nations was a punishment of sin, not the result of sin or limited the pride of men. Again, if you kinda go back and forth in the passage, you'll be able to figure out that somewhere in there, it is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity, so it must be C. So now the question is, are any of you, any more Catholic than you started my presentation? More Catholic. How did you get to be more Catholic? Because you had none to start with, I presume. You must have started from a very low base. So the point that I'm going to is there's this very important distinction between skills and beliefs. And my argument is, and that is that skills, you can pretend to not have skills that you do have, but in a very deep sense, you can't pretend to have skills that you don't have, right? So I actually speak a little Spanish. I could pretend not to speak Spanish. I often do, because my Spanish isn't very good enough, I pretend not to speak Spanish. They speak to me in English. But if I were pretending to speak Spanish and couldn't, that's fundamentally impossible because any native Spanish speaker could detect that I couldn't, that I was faking speaking Spanish instantaneously. So there's a very easy, reliable, valid, objective, ascertainable way of ascertaining whether or not one has acquired skills or not acquired skills. And one has to worry about the incentives. You could fake not having skills, but there's some sufficiently high-powered incentive such that we could induce you to reveal the skills that you have. And there'd be some reasonably concrete and kind of intersubjectively reliable agreement on the degree of your skills in most things. Now, the thing about beliefs is that I can pretend to not have them and I can pretend to have them. If any of you had a sufficiently high-powered incentive, you could pass the Catholic Catechism. You could pretend to be Catholic and give all of the right answers such that no one could distinguish you from the most believing and doctrinaire Catholic on the planet. Again, if we created sufficiently high-powered incentives, I think the fundamental example of this is spies and double agents. The most damaging double agent ever to exist in the United States, strangely enough, but apropos of the metaphors I'm using, was a deeply observant Catholic. So no one suspected that he would be in cahoots with the Soviet Union, because he went to mass every day. He was a member of the Opus Dei. But, what? It's written in the name of Jesus. So, and yet, for 25 years in the FBI, he was betraying US secrets to the Soviet Union and was the most, now, he pretended at all times to be the most loyal and avid Patriot of the United States while at the same time, he was selling secrets. So you can hide your beliefs perfectly forever. They're interior mental states. And since they're interior mental states, there's just no high, no matter how high-powered the incentives, if you have the incentives to hide them, they can be hid, right? Now, the reason this is, the reason this is important is that, and this is the, is that the inculcation of belief is not third-party contractable because beliefs are not observable. So, a Catholic congregation can easily hire my friend Ryan to direct the Catholic choir because you can observe what he's doing. You can say, this has decently produced Catholic music or not decently produced Catholic music. On the other hand, had my friend been contracted to preach the weekly sermon, one would start to think, I don't really trust that. I'm not really confident that he's going to preach the Catholic doctrine because he doesn't believe the Catholic doctrine. And since he doesn't believe the Catholic doctrine, we have suspicions that he may try and slip non-Catholic ideas into the sermon. So, very few congregations or religions of any kind are ever contract out the delivering of the core religious instruction. So, why is this important? Because if we ask the three questions that I asked at the beginning, why is the expansion, why has the expansion of schooling been so universal and homogenous? The answer is because the inculcation of belief is not third-party contractable. If you ask yourself the question, why did education system structures take the forms that they did of mostly large, governmentally controlled monopolies over the use of state resources for education? The answer is because the inculcation of belief is not third-party contractable. If you ask yourself the question, how could learning quality get so bad and stay so bad for so long without significant pushback? The answer is because the inculcation of belief is not third-party contractable. Why is that so? Why that is so is because if the point of the education, if the point of the engagement in the state, in the educational process, is the inculcation of belief, they cannot contract it out. They just can't because that's the point of it and it's not third-party contractable. So I have these wonderful, wonderful graphs that if I were to show them to you, they would change your life, but I'm not gonna show them to you. How many minutes do I need the dentist you see? And maybe he has a partner, but almost certainly the dentist you see does not work for a large corporation of dentists. Periodically, people try and create it, but it's very hard. Why? Because when you think about the structure of an organizational design that's capable of producing thick accountability such that the members of the activity really have to exercise care and discretion, this is very hard to build into large organizations. So most of this type of activity are actually done by professional practices. Most activities of this type tend to be on relatively small firms or corporations. A huge firm of lawyers has a few hundred lawyers, whereas if you look at firms that do logistics, it doesn't matter whether you do logistics in the public sector or do logistics in the private sector, you do it in roughly the same way, and you do it in enormously large corporations. So the postal service looks about the same whether it's done by the US government, UPS or FedEx, same type of things, same type of mechanisms for using, and same super large organizations because that's logistics. So the interesting thing about schooling is that schooling is the kind of thing where whenever it's not done as schooling, it's done as a practice. So name a large firm of music teachers, right? Your kids have taken music lessons, you've taken music lessons. Name a large firm that offers music lessons. Most music lessons are a craft, and they're done by small professional practices, nearly all instructional activity that isn't basic schooling happens in very small professional practices, and yet schooling happens in enormously large bureaucracies. Why is that? Well, the answer is, if your goal is not necessarily to promote learning, but to control the socialization and the inculcation of beliefs in the interest of building nation statehood as an internal idealization, it's an important success of human development. Qualified success of human development index. The Human Development Index was a very wonderful creation of a Mabubal Huck. I myself was against it for five years until Mabubas waited me to follow him as director of the Human Development Office, and I had to make a political compromise that normally I have not had to make in my life. And then I understood more about the HDI and was taken, I got great comfort when Mabubal, when Marcia Sen, no less, in 1999, wrote in public, I was initially against the Human Development Index, until Mabubal Huck persuaded me that if we're going to displace GNP from its central role, we've got to have something, quotes, equally vulgar. So, and the HDI every year achieves fantastic publicity for the Human Development Report because ranking countries by human development, most journalists of any international concern can't resist doing at least one story about that often on the front page of their newspaper. But the truth is that's a partial success because as I hope I've indicated, human development is not the same as the HDI, the Human Development Index. And that's always been clear, the Human Development Index is a very imperfect proxy measure in order to get people really into the, read the report, think about human development, but realized by being provoked by the HDI that it's very different from GNP per capita. I think I should at this point just tell you what happened when Bill Draper, the head of UNDP, having chosen Mabubal Huck to be the founder and first director of the Human Development Report, looked at the HDI. And there was Cuba listed 44 places ahead of per capita income of Cuba in terms of HDI. And Bill, who was a Republican, very loyal Republican with many friends in Washington, said, Mabub, how could you have done this to me? My friends in Washington are gonna slaughter me. And Mabub, who was quick and always two moves ahead. Bill, he said, you're misjudging, the misreading the index. The question of Cuba is not why is it 44 places in human development ahead of its GNP per capita? The question is why is its GNP per capita 44 places below human development? That, Bill, is the price of socialism. So let me come to what I think is the most serious failure of human development reports. And that is the failure of the UNDP and of the UN as a whole to use human development reports and particularly the analysis as a frame for all that the UN does at country level and internationally. The work of the World Health Organization, UNESCO, ILO, they all UNICEF, they all would fit brilliantly within a frame of human development. But I'm sad to say that every year, UNDP launches the Human Development Report. The director, the administrative UNDP loves it because there's headline stories all around the world. And all the rest of the UN look and say, oh, there goes UNDP again, you know, jealous. Why has it got this publicity? It's a tragedy because the human development frame ought to be the frame for indeed all development, not just for UNDP's annual publication. Let me give quickly three examples of human development in action. Well, in the year 2010, the Human Development HDI Index, they produced a consistent index over the preceding 40 years, 1970, 80, 90, 2000. Have I got that right? No, 1980, 90, 2000, 2010. So it was possible not only to look at HDI rankings, but trends. And I've looked at Mauritius, very interesting. Mauritius has, as was mentioned by Justin Lin, very impressive economic progress, and also considerable human development progress. Although not as rapid, when you look at the trends, GNP advanced very considerably over this period, 1980 to 2010. Human Development Index increased, actually more slowly, and lost 17 places. So one could compare then the human development performance of Mauritius with countries like Costa Rica, Malaysia, Mexico, all of which did better in human development at lower per capita income than Mauritius had achieved. And then you could look indeed at the events in Mauritius and through a human development lens, relatively high rates of mortality in the first thousand days of life, relative weakness of health, nutrition, education of young and their adolescent children, relatively high rates of teenage pregnancy, unemployment especially for young people, high, gender equity, especially in reducing rates of maternal mortality and low birth weight, lower than many other countries. So the human development frame raises questions very practically as it did in Mauritius and in another 150 countries. It can be used, I hope it will be used more. Let me give a different example. Human security, in 1994, the human development report, with very much with the pen of Mabubel Huck, argued that security needs to move away from the strong preoccupation on protection of a country's borders, by military means, to protection of people by a diversity of threat, from a diversity of threats, by a diversity of social measures. So threats of gender violence, unemployment, inadequate pensions, abuse from the police, all have come into analyses through the human security lens of different countries. Latvia is worth mentioning here as a very specific country, because Latvia has now undertaken twice two household sample surveys of human security. Match careful samples, men and women, rough age groups and all of that. What do people in Latvia feel makes them feel insecure? About 30 different categories, then ranked, which is the most secure and then assessed in terms of how is the government responding to those. Very interesting, high on the list, insecurity felt by inadequate pensions, inadequate insecurity felt through risks of unemployment or actual unemployment, lower down the list, insecurities felt created by abuse from civil servants and towards the bottom insecurities because of the fear of a nuclear attack. A complete reversal when you start looking at what makes people feel insecure from the focus on typical security, military security and so forth. And it leads to different actions. Let me slip in here that I'm a bit sad that the SDRs don't mention issues of, they do mention issues of humanitarian violence. They don't mention of course human security nor do they mention disarmament. And the 1994 Human Development Report had very interesting and very realistic elements to propose in relation to moving from a military dominance to a human security focus. In particular the need for demobilization of soldiers in situations where a country has been caught in civil war. And Oscar Arias, the president of Costa Rica which of course has no army, but he made some very useful proposals. How measures of disarmament in the 1990s which were going on about a quarter to a third of military spending in different countries around the world was reduced in the first three quarters of 1990s. How the savings of that some channel should be put for the support of demobilization of soldiers. Very realistic situation when soldiers if there is an end to civil war, if they keep their arms they haven't got jobs, they keep their arms and use them for crime or whatever. Very well tackled in human development. To me a focus on why not more studies on human security. And of course at the global level, Amartya Sen joined with Mrs. Ogata in the commission on human development which produced the report, I think it was in 2003, human security now. And it did lead on indirectly to R2P. Internationally there's much to be done to make this a reality. But at least if we believe as Joe Stiglitz and many others have been saying that ideas sow the seeds of action then human security is very much there. Let me give my third example, humane and this is my last of course, humane global governance. We've lived in a period particularly since 1980 when the global system and the global system of governance has been endlessly created to match the needs of neoliberal economics and world capitalism and increasingly recently financial capitalism. So to make an appeal now as we did in the human development report 1999 for global humane governance or humane global governance may seem a bit of a fetch. Let me quote what was said there. More attention, more progress has been made in norms, standards, policies and institutions for opening global markets than for meeting people's needs and their rights. A new commitment is needed to the ethics of universalism set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the report went on to elaborate how under this rubric national and global governance needs to be reinvented with human development and equity at its core. Bold and visionary, yes, I hope none of us are gonna walk out just on because of that but not totally pie in the sky. I'll say that again, it's not a very good phrase but I think not totally pie in the sky. And I was asked to do a little book a year ago on UNICEF experience. And I realized that UNICEF as part of the UN working for children was actually an example of humane global governance in action and it was working and it considerably succeeded. We worked towards the goal of reducing child mortality. Very specifically, very much at country level, 150 UNICEF country offices working towards that goal, monitoring, reporting back. By 1990 we had a world summit for children. It was the first world summit ever. They said it couldn't be done. It was a humane example. Not focused on global financial crisis, it was focused on children, people. And then it led to more attention being given by other parts of the UN to goals. And in 2000, I'm very pleased to say the MDGs and now the SDGs. All examples of humane focus. So there are things to build on. Is it sufficient? Of course not. Are we not caught up in a financial crisis outrageously? Yes, so. But such actions of human development, human global governance are possible and we need to build on those elements. Let me conclude with four points. Human development has made a real impact on development thinking at national, regional and global level. But human, secondly, human development could, should be adopted more seriously by international institutions, by UNDP, by parts of the UN. I would say by the Bretton Woods institutions. Building more of a link. And after all those, Mr. Kim, very much there with such concerns. Three, efforts to reform global governance should shift the focus towards more human, indeed humane concerns, not to neglect the economic and the financial, but to recognize the economic and financial will always be insufficient. And fourthly, wider and wider researchers could and should do more to work within a human development frame. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much, Francis. The floor is yours. Well, let me first say thank you very much for inviting me to this really great meeting. I've been working on and off with wider for almost the entire 30 years, more often on, but coming quite often. And it's been a tremendous pleasure and continues to be a tremendous pleasure to be associated with wider. Now, I'm not going to say anything about my nine grandchildren because it's women in professional activities always very careful not to mention their families, whilst I've noticed that men increasingly do. And maybe we should come to some sort of equality on this. I'm first going to say a little bit about the evolution of ideas, then about what progress there's been made. What progress there's been made and why on human development. And then I want to end by saying where I think we should go. So on the evolution of ideas, of course, developing countries started by emphasizing economic growth and were fairly started after the Second World War and were fairly successful. But there were very big flaws. In particular, there were sort of human development related flaws that poverty was not reduced, that income distribution was bad, unemployment was bad and so on. And so people drew attention to some very basic deficiencies of GMP, which we all recognize, but I have noted in the discussions really in this conference that GMP continues to be king. Although we have a session on human development, most people are talking about GMP adding distribution. So alternative approaches were developed, a series of human centered approaches which together led up in the end to the human development approach, interrupted in a very rude way by the 1980s debt crisis, which was so devastating that people really realized the cost of neglecting human beings. And so we have 1990, the human development report, initiated by people who had been associated with all the criticisms earlier on. So let me come to the definition, and this is very much what Richard said. The definition is beautifully put in the first human development report, a process of enlarging people's choices, critical ones are long and healthy life, education standard of living, but other very important ones include political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self-respect. So one must emphasize that human development goes well beyond material aspects. It includes political freedoms and participation. It includes freedoms from insecurity of many types, as Richard mentioned, freedom to enjoy cultural diversity, freedom to live in a well functioning and peaceful community, good social relations, sustainable environment, justice, and one could go on. So it's a huge arena and a huge and in many ways undefined arena. So that was 1990. What happened in the 1990s from then on? There was an increasing focus on human development and global policy. We know that there was a huge attention to poverty reduction in the 1990s, culminating in 2000 in the agreement on the MDGs. And that was sort of in terms of normative terms. In operational terms, we have debt relief, which helped hugely in both Africa and Latin America. We have an increase in aid and a shift to the education health social sectors. We have some impact of the MDGs on developing country policy, particularly the poor developing countries who had more influence from the international community, were more influenced by the international community. And then of course the terms of trade shift in the 2000s had a huge effect in improving the conditions of poor countries. So that is very sort of quick evolution of ideas up to date. Now I want to say something more about the success, but one has to start with measurement issues. And of course we start with the fact that the human development approach is often measured by the human development index, which has three components, education, health, and income per head, in adjusted income per head. Well if you look at the non-human development index, dimensions of human development, all the ones that are not in that index, and I've done so with others over the years, you find that they're not very well correlated with the basic index. So we have what you might say basic human development, which is the index, and then you have a whole lot of other things. So if you're going to assess progress, you need to assess progress on basic, but you need to assess progress on all the other things as well. And this is just a scatter relating trust to the human development index, and just indicating that this is just one aspect of non-HDI dimensions, not very well correlated. Well if we, let's go back to basic, and we find if we take the world as a whole, as I think many people have already noted, huge progress over this period. In low income countries, middle income, high income on the three basic elements. And indeed, we find convergence to some extent in life expectancy for all categories, for middle, low, and high come together. For the others, there's convergence for education and income, there's some convergence between the middle income and the high income, but I divergence with the low income, so the low income's falling behind on income and education. And if we look at the period decade by decade, we find as you might expect that there was an acceleration in progress for the least, for the lowest group in the 2000s, and that was the period when the debt had finally been dealt with, and the times of trade improvement came online. Now I want to turn to progress on non-human development index elements. And here we have progress on political freedom. Now, I'm the first to acknowledge that this index isn't very good, but let's just use it for the sake of having something to use. And you see, as we know, that there was a lot of progress towards democratic institutions over this era, but it did flatten out in the 2000s, so the progress stopped in the most recent period. When you look at conflicts, these are civil wars, basically take going right back to the end of the Second World War. They went steadily up and peaked just after the end of the Cold War, and then you saw a reassuring decline as the Cold War conflicts ended, but then you can see that there's an uptick or an upturn, unfortunately, from 2012, and I think I haven't got data for it beyond 2014, but 2015 doesn't look too good. And of course we know that the refugee situation is also bad, so on that, there's been fluctuations and one can't say there's been unadulterated progress. This is homicide rates, huge variation across regions. You find that in particularly Southern Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, homicide rates are far in excess of elsewhere in the world, and some regions, these are just for the 2000s, in fact only since 2008, I've got trends here. Some show some improvement, some show some worsening, but the really remarkable thing is the huge variation across the regions. This is the big failure, I mean in terms of sustainability, CO2 emissions, it shouldn't be any surprise, but it is a big failure. If we take this period, it's gone accelerated, in fact. Now, if you want to account for success and failure on human development, the first thing to do, and I'm talking about the basic human development, is to think about the connections with economic growth. And there are very strong connections, because economic growth provides the resources for human development, and indeed human development provides the resources for economic growth, so you tend to get virtuous and vicious cycles emerging. And if you do aggregate regressions, you find really three elements which are particularly stand out as being responsible, taking all countries responsible for success and failure on human development index, and that is economic growth, that it's distribution, and social expenditure, not very unexpected results. What is perhaps less expected is if you look decade by decade at experience, you find that some countries can continue to do well on human development without particularly good economic growth, decade by decade. But no countries managed to do well on economic growth decade by decade while neglecting human development. And that's a very strong story, because it suggests that the usual austerity message cut your expenditures on social sectors whilst you wait for your economic growth to kick in is not a viable strategy. You really have to go forward on both. And that's part of the story that Joe was telling today about the tragedies, the economic growth tragedies of many of the austerity programs. Well, another way of exploring success is to look at the countries which have done exceptionally well, not just the whole lot, but the ones that have done exceptionally well, and the ones that have done exceptionally poorly, and look at those, have they got particular characteristics? Can we identify patterns? And picking them out by level of human development in the first place, and you need to do this because how far you can make progress on things depends very much on your initial conditions. I've picked out a set of countries that you can see here, the blue ones are the successes, the most successful countries over this period, and the red ones are the least successful. So what can we say about them? Can we come to some sort of typology of success or failure? First of all, there's some things which all the successes shared. Despite the horrors of the education system as Lant put forward, they all shared an improvement in secondary education. Well, you may say a bit of that is in the HDI already because as part of the HDI is indeed secondary schooling, so that might be just built in, a little bit of it's a tautology. They also all shared that they had a high ratio and an improving ratio of female to male educational enrollment in secondary schools. So the increasing role, power and skills of women played an important role in all of the successes. Apart from that, we can find three typologies. One is countries which basically managed through high and equitable growth with only moderate social expenditure. So it wasn't led by, it was led more by high and equitable growth than by social expenditure and well-known examples, career in China. And if Taiwan were in the data, I'm sure Taiwan would fit into that story. Then we find countries which really didn't do well on growth at all, but spent a lot on social expenditure. Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Morocco and probably, well Cuba didn't actually become out as a big success, but Cuba might be that sort of story. And then you have countries which do a sort of combined approach. They have moderate growth, a moderate amount of equity, say around 0.4 in terms of genie and so on. And moderate but not excess, not very large social expenditure. And these are the stories of Turkey, Nepal and recent experience in Cambodia. So we have three typologies. And I think the thing to emphasize, which I've worked on human development on and off many years, is that we're not gonna find a single recipe of success. There are alternative paths, which is a very reassuring and optimistic message because not every country can take one single recipe. They are in positions to take alternative paths. Well, let's turn to poor performance and in a way it's sort of mirror image, but weak social expenditure and negative growth and you find Congo the poor, the low human development ones were all characterized by that and they all were associated with pretty vicious conflicts. So probably the conflicts were the prime cause of failure. But we also find countries which had good social expenditure but really inequitable income distribution and they also were a pattern of failure. Well, what about the non-HDI dimensions? I've only looked at the HDI ones then. These same countries, well, I've already talked about the female male ratio being good and it's also true in a more general UNDP index which incorporates other elements of female male inequalities and they all had less gender inequality. They had less homicides except for Brazil which was an important exception. Now, the high human development index countries had no civil conflict but it's interesting to me and quite surprising that among the middle and low ones you find countries which had quite a bit of conflict at some point during these decades. So conflict set them back for a bit but then in the recovery they managed to do better. So Nepal comes out as a successor. It had a quite bad conflict, Iran, Morocco. Even in the poor performers we find some good countries which have had conflict, Cote d'Ivoire, CAR and the Philippines. Now, as far as the environment's concerned generally the good performers do better on environmental protection, parks and looking after species but worse on carbon emissions. Well, political freedom and this is perhaps, I don't know that it's surprising but it's an important message. Political freedom doesn't seem to be necessary for success. Now you can say well it is necessary because it's not necessary for success on the basic human development index, it is necessary because it's part of what we mean by political freedoms by the wider human development but as far as the basic is concerned it's scattered all over the place. Some countries that didn't do well had a lot of political freedom. Some countries that did do well had none and so on. Now let me now come to the important issue of what next? I've just done a quick survey of what's past but what about what's next? What are the neglected issues? I think environment and carbon emissions, I think myself that this is the, and I'm sure everyone here shares this view is the huge issue of our time and it's one that is not being incorporated. I noted that for example, Joe didn't really incorporate it in his account that people talking about income distribution, I haven't been to a session where it's been fully incorporated, of course I've only been to a limited number of sessions but it hasn't been incorporated on the economic side, it has not been fully incorporated on the human development side and I'm increasingly of the view because countries put such emphasis on meeting maximizing growth and maximizing human development that we're going to have to build the environment into our measures of progress. So we will have to go to a green GNP so that you can have your growth but that growth must be green and move away from looking at the two separately which incidentally the SDGs still have them apart, they don't have a single target and in fact they say go for growth and then elsewhere they say go for environmental sustainability. The HDI in fact is a picture of what happens today, it's not a picture of what happens over time and of course human development, it's no good having wonderful choices for our own generation and no choices for the next generation. So we need something which incorporates the next generation and I think that probably is the best way to go, greening the GNP, maybe that would be enough and putting that green GNP into the human development index. Second, I think as we meet the basic HDI, more and more countries are meeting them, I know that Richard's chair started by pointing to the many unmet ones, well there's still some unmet ones, but we are getting there. We've now got to think about the non-basic ones much more and we haven't seriously, I mean the HDI has been I think very useful as Richard said but it's brought us to look at the basic ones much more than the non-basic ones and it's a really interesting and challenging agenda because we have to define what they are and who is to define what they are. It's easy to say everyone needs health and education but when you move beyond that then each society may want to choose for itself what it means to have more human development and I think that's a very challenging, interesting thing. It does not just mean having more income which is the way we're going at the moment and having more consumption so we need to go beyond that but we haven't really worked out how to and we then can need to monitor it. Thirdly, I think the human development approach has had a sort of disjunction with the economy. I mean all the reports that Richard mentioned we've never discussed the macroeconomy, we've never discussed economic structure, we've never discussed capitalism. We may have touched on globalism but not globalization but not beyond that. We haven't looked at the links and the links are huge. The way an economy is structured determines what your employment prospects are and what your income distribution is and so on and what you're consuming and so on and so forth. So there are lots of links and we have to think about how can we bring these links together? I mean one way would be to say you know if you have a completely different type of economy where we have cooperatives we own what we produce, our means of production well then you automatically get a much better income distribution. Another way to go might be to say all right no we go with the present system but we've got to curtail it in such a way as to both be sustainable and to have a good distribution which means putting in tax rates which people find very unacceptable and so on. But we do need to put the macroeconomy together with an economy in general together with a human development approach. Then there's the issue of social cohesion and I think today you know you can't turn on the radio without or the television without realising that that is another major issue of our time and living in societies which are disintegrating violently is the worst possible thing for human development and so that is a huge problem to be tackled and how this diversity in our religious and sometimes ethnic how one can live best and peacefully with that is a huge issue. The human development approach in general has neglected the social side and tended to be very individualistic and in a curious way it parallels economics in that. You know economics is all about maximising economic choices, maximising economic welfare out of a set of income, a budget constraint and so on and individual does it the individual's choices sovereign consumer sovereignty. But human development is very could be subject to the same criticism it's the individual who makes these choices it's the individual whose choices must be maximised and that's why it tends to neglect the social conditions for doing that and also neglects the point that was made again Joe made it very well that our preferences are socially determined so you can't really make the individual sovereign because it's social forces that determine what we choose and that's as true for the human development approach as it is for the as it is for economics and that is a big challenge theoretically on and it's a challenge for the capabilities approach theoretically how you choose which ones to promote. Well finally to end and I think one nearly always ends on this note we have to understand the politics of success and failure and I didn't have time to do that with these particular countries but it is an interesting thing to explore what was the underlying politics which allowed them to succeed in some cases and to fail in others. Thank you. Thank you very much Francis. So our next speaker is a politician so maybe you can reflect a little bit on Francis last point and also what is your take on this working as a politician in the EU. Good afternoon. Maybe I can start by expressing my gratitude for the short distance the few footsteps from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the UN wider Institute which has been such a good connection and such a privilege to have been able to work in the foreign ministry for international development from 2011 to 2013 and have so many occasions to turn to this institute and it's a great wealth of knowledge so I would like to congratulate you all for those 30 years that you have been raising the issue of global development high. So I'm speaking as a practitioner, as a politician and I must say that the human development clearly is what we need to aim at. I was actually showing the photo of my two-year-old grandson to Professor Lancet and I said that I say to you now that when he was born and my only grandchild and perhaps will remain the only who knows I of course felt this immense joy but at the same time this immense agony about thinking that with the development of medicine today a person living in a western democratic country may live up to 110 years. What will the world look like after 110 years? I think this is the issue where we really have to do our best that we get it right and I very much at the moment focus my thoughts on the forthcoming UN summit on sustainable development goals because I think that will be the opportunity to get it right and we must get it right. And indeed I'm very grateful for the notion that we just heard from Richard Jolley that in fact the MDG process and the SDG process could actually be seen as what he called humane governance, humane global governance. Indeed even the UN is not a lawmaker but it has lawmaking member states as members and it means that it can inspire global rules, global legislation, national legislation, regional cooperation which creates conditions for human development. And today I think undoubtedly when we talk about human development we must talk about people and planet and I can only agree what Francis Stewart has just said. But the thing is that at the moment I believe that our institutions and our decision making mechanisms are not really up to the challenge because we still tend to work and think in silos. We want to solve one problem and we create another and we try to solve problems separated from each other and I believe that today that's why it is so important that we continue talking about what actually green economy means in practice because green economy is something which is not only entitled to be good for the planet by introducing new energy technologies but it is also going to be, it's going to have to be good for the people which means that people have to get opportunities, they have to be able to get jobs through new kind of economic activity. And clearly I also share the views that we have to put the community in the center. And it's really time to come to an end with our individualistic views of how the world and societies function. We couldn't talk more about policy coherence for development in that aim. We couldn't talk more about the need to integrate development perspectives to trade policies. And we need to see that the Bretton Woods institutions indeed take into account the wealth of the body of international law which has been inspired by UN organizations to protect people and the planet and to guarantee human rights for all. And I would like to say that what I would see as a major breakthrough in the area of development policy and cooperation in the last, I would say, perhaps decade, I don't know, perhaps you who have been in this business for longer and perhaps in the academic side, the thinking started already much, much earlier but this human rights based approach to development, I think it is key. When I was a member of the Finnish government, responsible for international development, we designed a new development policy program which still has not been put aside. I don't know if it will with a new government but our key and the one sentence that I like to raise and which I have been hearing repeated many times is that the idea of development policy is based on human rights is to make people aware of their rights and to make those who are entitled to implement those rights aware of their obligations. It is not easy. And here we easily come to the issue of the problem of lack of accountable government in our partner countries. It might be that also in our developed countries sometimes there are lacks and black holes of accountability. There's also corruption but clearly I think the big challenge at the moment on promoting human rights based approach to development is that and here I rely on some experts who say that in fact a majority of the countries of the world today are semi-authoritarian or authoritarian. How can you speak about implementation and realization of human rights including political and civil rights and economic, social and cultural rights? And when we look at the politics of good and bad performance, I think we should not be led to think that a country that is based on an authoritarian regime but which is performing well in abolition and reducing poverty and providing infrastructure will remain peaceful, balanced and innovative and a good place for everyone. So I would argue for the need to really emphasize on the issue of good governance, human rights and accountable government. Also by the way, sometimes we tend to believe that most of the people on this planet live in under some sort of rule of law. No, this is a misunderstanding. Depending on what you count in and out but one could say that perhaps one billion people out of the six live in countries dominated by rule of law. And I think this is a serious thing if we come to the responsibilities of governance to provide for the needs of people and to guarantee that there is a chance for everyone because there is such a leakage of resources through the lack of accountability. As minister I was in the possibility to travel to Tajikistan, to Mozambique and many countries and very often I perceived a pattern that where you have a strong, let's say one party rule or close to one party rule combined with a strong presidential rule, presidential regimes, you have a lot of very high level chances for corruption. And this is something that we have to deal with when we are talking about how to mobilize the resources for development. I think it's clear for everyone in this room that we still need official development assistance for, especially for the least developed countries. And we have to, I am fighting for making the new Finnish government to understand that it is a tragic failure to reduce development aid at the moment when we need to increase development aid. By the way, this is what the EU Commission President Jean-Claude Junker said last week for the European Parliament, that it is abnormal that governments at this moment in EU would reduce their and cut their development budgets when we need more resources. But we all of course also have to look into other resources which perhaps are more abundant and bring more wealth to development. And there we come to the problem of accountability of governance. If we ever want to get it right in terms of mobilizing tax, taxation, putting in place fair taxation systems, we have to look at both ends. We have to look at the governments of the rich countries who sometimes are not really very good in regulating, but it incorporates also responsibility, which is necessary so that for instance, taxes are paid to where they belong, where the production happens. And in many developing countries we have lack of capacity which we need to support, yes. OECD DAC has introduced something called tax inspectors across borders. And I think it's a very good movement because it shows that we can also help to create that capacity to collect taxes and then other basis for the social protection and other fulfilling other needs of the people. But we also need to look at the lack of accountability. And let me just quote one example. President Kabilla of the Democratic Republic of Congo has quite publicly been drawn into a scandal a couple of years ago where he was dealing with some mining concessions which ended up in the hands of a company from Kazakhstan listed in the London Stock Exchange. And it is suspected that more or less five times the education budget of DRC was put into the pockets of, not the people of DRC, but those in power close to the president. Well, we also will have elections in that country very soon. But so lastly, I would like to talk a little bit about something that I find shockingly missing in many development debates, even in the European Parliament that had a debate two nights ago about the post-2015 summit in New York. In fact, none of the speakers mentioned women and girls. And I think it was really, really out of order. I talked to some of them afterwards who participated. I didn't, I couldn't. And they said, yes, it was on our list, but we only had two or three minutes speaking time, so we concentrated on something else. But let me assure you that by getting it right this time in the SDGs for women and girls on this planet, we'll solve many, many, many problems. And then we will be able to make sure that we are not going to let the very conservative coalition of governments, religious organizations and others dominate the discussion who are, for instance, still denying the right of a woman and a girl to decide on her body. We need to come to an end with child marriage. We need to come to a situation where in the world where abortions take place anyway, if they are legal or not, we will have a chance for safe abortion. And being a citizen of this country, I can say to you that the policy of relatively liberal legislation combined with sexual education is the best way to get the numbers of abortions down. So these are the fights that we have to fight now in order to get it right, because we really need to get the right direction to global development policy. And we need to get the resources to finance and implement those commitments that governments are taking next week in New York. So thank you very much for allowing me to participate. Thank you very much, Heidi, and thank you to all the panelists for this discussion on human development and in particular what's next and also in view of the SDGs that will be adopted next week. We have some time for questions from the floor, so please raise your hand and there will be a microphone and please start by introducing yourself and then try to keep the questions short. So gentlemen there, we'll take a couple of questions. See if we have any more questions. There's one here in the front, please, sir. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. I'm Darryl Sequera, an environmental ecologist based in Finland, and it seems an appropriate time to make this question because it's addressed to Mrs. Hautala. In front of me here, I have an article that was published in the local important Helsinki-Sanomat newspaper, which talks about Fin Fund supporting a hydropower project in Laos. Now, Mrs. Hautala had mentioned that the disappointment that the amount of Finnish development aid has been reduced recently or shall be reduced, and she would support an increase of development aid. So I would like to respectfully ask her opinion about this, whether giving a soft loan to whoever the Laos government or consortium is the correct way to spend Finnish development aid or is it just a business proposition? Okay, we'll take the gentleman in the front. And from University of Bradford, thank you very much for all the presenters. I think it has been one of the most enlightening sessions on number of issues related to human development. I have just two questions. One, there are many influential people in this conference, in this room, so I make this appeal on behalf of all the researchers. Like me, many of you who work on human development related issues, and when you are trying to do some kind of analysis, you find it strange that a database called World Development Indicators still refuses to include human development index, data that already exists. So if you want to do anything cross-sectional regressions, et cetera, where you want to include human development index, you have to manually collect the data from UNDP and then put it in additional data. So that is, I think, a very simple change of mind by World Bank or owners of World Development Index, perhaps could help researchers. That's number one. And number two, I think Francis has raised number of very interesting issues. Many of those, I think, also resonate in the historical summary that Sir Richard has given. I was just going to encourage both of them to pursue this a little bit further in terms of the debate, whether, therefore, should we be constructing a multi-dimensional human development index, which includes many of these issues. For example, inequality-adjusted human development index already there. Perhaps maybe we also need a sustainability or environmental-adjusted HDI and maybe political freedom-adjusted HDI. So how do we take this debate forward? Thank you. We have one last question in this round. The lady in the back. Thank you. Ita Manatocon from Botswana. My question is with regards to the future of education. We're in a scenario now globally where young people are facing significant unemployment and in many developing countries, there's a skills mismatch. So I was wondering, social... Well, behavioral scientists tell us that the sort of characteristics that define success or that determine success in a person's life, educational success and success later in life have to do with things like resilience, great determination, self-control, self-discipline. And these are things which normally would be taught in the household. But if education is scared towards preparing people to be self-staters, to be entrepreneurs, to succeed in the working world, is there scope for incorporating behavioral type science findings into education in the future? Thank you. Francis, do you want to start on the multi-dimensionally? Yeah? Yeah. I don't think the microphone is on. I think the, as I said really, I think the environmental sustainability should be built into the HDI. We shouldn't have an HDI which has not got sustainability in it because otherwise we're going to look at the HDI and then look at the other one. As far as the other indicators are concerned, I'm happy for them to be put out as separate indicators. I don't think they should be incorporated in it. I think there's a real problem of how one is going to evaluate the trade-offs. There's always an implicit waiting system in a single index. And I think we can get away with an arbitrary waiting system for very critical elements, which is health, education, basic income, and environment, and I'm happy with that. But beyond that, I think we should look at them separately and of course that's very controversial how we measure them, but we should measure them. So certainly there should be an inequality adjusted measure side by side with the others. Richard, do you have a view on the multidimensional HDI? Yes. Let me talk more about multidimensional strategy, which seems to me a key point to come out of the human development analysis. And that's why I like very much Joe Stiglitz this morning saying we need to move away from the idea of Timbergen, one objective, one institution, to indeed many dimensions. And the key point, it'll require a multi-pronged strategy. To me, that's not different from what most countries do, but it is very different from much of the development analysis in which say with the MDGs, well, the most important thing to reduce income poverty is growth and you're almost right back to the idea of well, maximize growth and then you're doing your best with poverty. I think if you have a multidimensional sense of poverty, a multidimensional sense of human development, you'll have to have a more complex set of actions. Land, do you wanna say something about education? We'll take that last. We'll take the education question first and then we'll come back to the... I'll defend the dam. But perhaps the topic is closer to you. The dam? No, no, the education question. Then I'll turn to Heidi for the ODA question. I don't know, the dam's very close to me. I grew up in a town that existed because there was a hydroelectric dam nearby and I created the entire livelihood of the town, so on. On education, I think we have to keep in mind that some issues arise in a setting in which other things are roughly in place, whereas in many countries, the assessments are showing that children are arriving at fourth and fifth grade, literally unable to read. So, hey, I'm a little worried about overloading the agenda. If it can be shown that these are essential to learning to read, I'm all for them. But kind of when you're failing at your basic function at communicating simple literacy skills, kind of expanding the agenda is not entirely clear to me as a way to go. I mean, if you're already at the point where you've students are arriving at grade five and six with full command of the basic decoding skills of literacy and numeracy, then we can think of a lot of other things schools can do. But if you're not doing that, you need to really focus on that in my view. Second, there really is schools and the way in which schools operate actually do make a huge difference over and above all the background determinants. Abhijit Singh, who I don't know if he's still here, is he still here? Abhijit has a great paper using the young lives data which tracks students from their very early years through school and it shows that roughly in Peru and Vietnam, children arrive at school age roughly cognitively equipped in every measurable way and then there's just a massive divergence in what they know as they progress through school. So yes, there are all kinds of background factors but schools matter and the way in which national systems emphasize and produce schooling matters a ton. And if you don't get that right, it's a huge failure and it's a huge controllable addressable failure. So lots of the things about family background are sort of very difficult and one hesitates to even begin to know how to fix that whereas there are fixable things about schooling systems that can make huge differences even controlling for all the background effects. I need the question on ODA and how it can be used and also using ODA to mobilize other resources. Well, I think there's a very useful discussion everywhere about how to use ODA as a kind of a seed money for projects that could then attract the private sector financing including loans and there I believe that there's lots of potential but what we're discussing just at the moment in the European Parliament is what sort of climate and conditions that all needs and there seem to be risks that this, let's say that the EU is now very, very fond of blending and blending may produce some risks for especially for more fragile states and least developed countries to come into a kind of a new circle of indebtedness but clearly nobody should deny that we need private sector money and sometimes for instance the Finnish development policy has identified a good renewable energy projects and invested concessional money to them and then these projects have attracted commercial parties which has been also a place to scale up these projects but may I go to this very specific question and because I see the CEO of FinFund, Jaakko Kangasniemi in the audience, I think it's natural that he will take the floor because he has been asked to but can I just for my part say that my feeling is that FinFund is a very good development financing agency or enterprise the problem sometimes is that we have different views on transparency and commercial secrets and these type of things and I would for my part like to see that we look all the possibilities to increase the transparency of this kind of operations which we are talking about which perhaps CEO Kangasniemi can explain better so that we don't create a kind of a contradiction between the development policy and the way we use money and here I believe that we have an issue to deal with but the actual question I would leave to Jaakko Kangasniemi to explain. Okay. If you may. Yes, Jaakko Kangasniemi from FinFund. That particular large hydropower plant that was mentioned in the Helting Institute article, the information that we would have financed the construction of that or participate in financing of that and the construction of that plant is simply not true. We corrected that briefly in the paper and more in detail on our website. We just don't do that sort of things. We don't finance large dams. We don't finance coal-fired power plants either. If I may say just briefly what we do and take the latest example, the latest thing that that was actually started and in the commercial operation, it was a small power plant using waste water that previously was released to a river and now it's used to make biogas and then electricity out of that biogas. Just started a few weeks ago. I think the gentleman who asked the question would be very happy to see that sort of approach. Thank you for that clarification. Yes, please. I just wanted to specify that the Finnish Development Policy Program which is still valid since 2012, it explicitly bans development financing of large dams. And I think it would be foolish to do so anywhere because we have such a revolution of small-scale renewable energy everywhere. Notably, I think the solar energy is really making a breakthrough but I will not go into details of this project that CEO Kangas Nehemi has explained. Thank you. We have time for one or two more questions. So I'd like the gentleman here in the front and a question there. I'm Steve O'Connell from USAID. This question is for Lant and Lant, if I took your central point, it was that you explained some commonalities in the low quality of outcomes of education systems by saying that political elites want students to believe but not to learn. That's the message I took. And my question to you really is, where are you going with this? Does the same framework tell us about the heterogeneity across countries and over time in learning? The quickest inference I get from your framework is that a secular mindset of the elite must be the variable that explains differentiation and whether students learn or not because if I define secularization as moving from beliefs as the thing that the public education system is supposed to produce to facts or learning or knowledge. But you can see I'm fishing for where you're going with the framework. So having explained some commonalities, what take do we have on diversity and how to go forward from the framework? Thanks. Okay, so one question there and one here. My name is S. Subramanian and I'm affiliated to the Madras Institute of Development Studies in Chennai, India. This is for Professor Jolly. What do you think might be the case from the points of view of both desirability and feasibility of a human development report which is themed on the subject of the cost to human development of unjust war? Okay. And there's one here in the front. Thank you. Hi, Marty Chen, Harvard University Wego Network. Back to my favorite theme, but I think it warrants being brought up again. After two years of two decades of development work in Bangladesh with BRAC and India with SEWA and others, I came to the US knowing that for reducing poverty, employment and livelihood was very important. And I came up against first the Washington Consensus and then I knew more Booble Huck and Amartya Sen and the architects of the human development report, but I couldn't understand why employment was not on that agenda. And then I was really puzzled when the Millennium Development Goals did not have employment on the agenda. So I took great comfort in Juan Somovia and his commitment to decent work. And we finally have some employment on the SDG agenda, but it is central to the development challenge. And yet we skirt around it. We don't talk about the structure of labor markets. We don't talk about the employment challenge. It has barely come up. And yet I realize I'm reminded that it's historical in the HDR as well as the Washington Consensus. Thank you. So, Land, do you want to start? And then Richard has a question. And then if all the panelists could comment and maybe give some final words? I don't know. Microphone. Okay. Where I'm headed, I think is more subtle, I hope, than which is we need to acknowledge that in order to create a system that's performance-oriented around learning, we have to have multiple channels of accountability, right? And that includes that we have to balance between the state as a sort of often authoritarian and insulated body and the parents and students in terms of the accountability that they can demand directly. And there's a variety of mechanisms of voice and choice in which with adequate information, parents and communities can participate more directly in creating the kinds of schools and outcomes that they need. So that, but that has to be tempered within the overall environment of there's a certain degree to which society wants schooling precisely for the purposes of replicating the society. And so you can't tolerate everything but you need to tolerate some things. And that's in part what makes building an accountable system tricky. And but the extent to which, including the secular nation state, as an objective, took parents and students out of the loop of accountability really led to a situation in which either you sometimes got fantastic results when the state itself had adequate accountability mechanisms but you also created the risk that when those accountability mechanisms failed or in which the risk in which the nation state itself didn't have benign objectives, you got complete and total failure because there was no robustness of the system. So again, if you go back to the triangle, what the triangle is trying to convey is there's multiple channels of accountability. And if you want a performance oriented system in which learning the students and children emerging from their schooling experience with the skills they need, it needs to be centered around that performance because the good news and bad news about global education is the same news. If you want to find an uneducated child in the world today, you should look in school because most of the children that lack education are already in school, persisting through school, but not getting the education they need out of it. So now the agenda has to be building the systems that have the channels through which the various actors can make that the performance goal around which the system is oriented. Richard? I'm mostly going to answer Subramanian's good question, but let me just say, I don't think I've understood what you're driving at and I think we must have a discussion after. I mean, my first impression, it was often the missionary schools speaking as a Brit, Oxford, Cambridge, very much founded as religious foundations, good Catholic schools often in the UK that are good. Often people then throw over the belief system of the former people that were their teachers, but I'm not quite getting this vital need or not need of the belief system. Anyway, that just shows there's lots to discuss afterwards. Coming to the, would it be good to have human development or a study on the cost to human development of unjust war or as Francis said, don't chuck the business of unjust war, just start with war. Yes, I think it'd be very good. I hope Joe Stiglitz who of course did long ago a study of the cost of Iraq, I think it was three billion, sorry, three trillion when various other people, Tony Blair included were talking more about the benefits and the costs and so forth. I think so. I'm sad that the SDRs I think I mentioned don't actually have an element concerned with disarmament. I think it would be great. It's very much of course with part of the UN and has been from the beginning. And I would just emphasize for those who don't know, it's not just Costa Rica that doesn't spend money on an army, but 22 other countries to Google them and you'll see that don't spend money on an army. And so even that saving by not having the army, let alone the additional costs of war, I think it would be very good to emphasize that very strongly. Although Oscar Arias as I said in the 1994 human development global report did write some very interesting things about Costa Rican experience and others. Thank you Francis, you wanna comment? Also on the question on work. A little bit on each because Valpy Fitzgerald, I don't think he's still here and I did do a big study on the costs of war really for human development. We looked at the costs for infant mortality rates and education and so on and so forth. And of course they are very significant, but they do vary according to the nature of the war. They're not automatically large. If they're in a small corner of a country, you can get away with quite a big success on the rest of your country. By the way, I think the SDGs include everything. They certainly have something on peace and they certainly have something on employment. I don't think they do. Not disarmament. Maybe not disarmament. Which they could have. Which they could have, they could have everything. They do have everything in my view. As far as employment is concerned, I do totally accept your point because I think employment is important both instrumentally in order to get a living and so on, but also in itself that people get a sense of self-respect and so on. So it's hugely important and I'm sorry I didn't list it and so on. It was later included in the MDGs and a sort of afterthought in the mid 2000s and I think it is in the SDGs, but I think it is a very important element. A hugely important dimension, I totally agree. And I think in a way this sort of move towards social protection is really, is good, but it's in a way not directed at that. So you can get people out of poverty, but you still haven't given them a sense of self-respect and earning their own living and it's not so sustainable as employment or self-employment. I just wanted to say a tiny bit about education, which has not been very stimulating on this. On two aspects, one is I do agree, they should focus on basic education, but schools have a huge influence on social cohesion because children can just go to school of their own religion or their own ethnicity and never meet other children and it's really important that they should be mixed and that's a bit of a problem for parental choice because actually what parents want is to send them to just the school of their own choice or their own kind and not have anything to do with the others. So there is a sort of dilemma here and I think another dilemma for parental control is that very poor communities may just not give very good guidance and rich ones will do fine. So the middle classes love that as a strategy. So accepting your point that we need accountability, I would urge you to think about alternative ways of achieving that accountability. As if I'm not. Well, thank you. You didn't mention. Heidi, a final comment? Yeah, well I think what is unfolding in front of our rise today in Europe is the consequence of serious neglect of the crisis that was developing in the Middle East and in Syria, Iraq. And we can discuss a lot who started what. But certainly the fact is that now this immeasurable human cost on millions of lives who are now trying desperately to find refuge in Europe is something that I hope is going to change our view on how we deal with international conflicts even before they happen because there are certain indications. And I can just mention that in the autumn of 2010 some Syrian human rights defenders came to me and said that it's a very oppressive police state. Human rights lawyers were convicted to three years of prison for crimes that are the titles were for fantasy like spreading false rumors of the state which could be damaging for the reputation of the state. So three years lawyer. And they were afraid to go back to Damascus. But I think it was a time when Western countries still believe the EU very much that Syria is a stable country. And we need to be in good terms with the regime. We can do business with them. And just a few months later all this broke out. So I think one of the important functions of development policy is to recognize the situation where an imminent crisis is going to break out and to try to find ways to deal with them before it happens. Luckily at this moment when we have this crisis and where people really suffer whether in the Middle East or on the European borders there is once some discussion on addressing the root causes. But I may close by saying that Finland and Denmark and some other European Union member states at this very moment they have done some tragic cuts in their development financing. And this is not the way to address the root problems of the refugee crisis. Thank you. And thank you to the whole panel for a very interesting discussion and thought provoking discussion. And thank you too for the questions and listening and an interesting discussion this afternoon. So let's give the panel a big hand. Before you go I have an announcement. So there is a second bus for the bus tour for the Helsinki by night tour. So those of you who try to sign up but couldn't you can now and please contact the reception desk and they will help you. And the bus leaves at 6.30.