 I'll give you a sense of what we learn from the book itself on the different issues around research practice, knowledge gaps, and policy implications. So let me do that. So this book, as I mentioned, is about the movement of anyone, an individual or worker or a group, from a lower to a higher level education, occupation or social class income. You'll notice right away that we are very key to capture occupational mobility. Shiko Inoskino today started talking about education and income. We do believe that occupational mobility is also very important, and she also has occupational mobility along with income education, understanding social mobility. So the book contains 16 chapters. I will show you what the chapters are by top scholars in sociology, economics, political science, history, and anthropology. When Vegard Ivesen, I put this book together, we are absolutely clear that we had to have a multidisciplinary conversation. It wasn't going to be a book only by economists, for economists, of economists. So we looked around and we found some of the leading scholars in other disciplines, and I think that's a very important part of what we did in this book. So just to give you a summary of the chapters, apart from the directory chapter, we have the books in four parts. The first part is on the Therian concepts of mobility. We had, in fact, we have a presentation of Patricia on Chapter 2, Drivers of Mobility in Global South. We had also had Gary Fields, Vegard Ivesen, Ravi Kanboud, talking about the measurement problems and mobility, applying it to low-income contexts. And then this part three is very important because we wanted to have chapters on income mobility, educational mobility, and occupational mobility. And so we had Himanshu and Peter Lanja on the income mobility chapter, but you notice that Fariz Hitachi is perhaps the leading sociologist working on mobility on social Latin America. She did the chapter on education mobility, and then we had two sociologists, Anthony Heath and Yizeng Zhao, did the chapter on occupational mobility. So again, we tried to make sure that we had people of different disciplines speak about the kind of areas that they have been working on, and not just income but education and occupation too. The third chapter, the third part, is very broad. Disciplines speak to each other. So we had a chapter of the Shah-e-Imran for us today on economics, how economies approach mobility. And then along with that, we had Yajin Li as a sociologist speaking about how sociology approach mobility using China as an example. And then we had an anthropologist, the Yavait, tell us how ethnographers will look at mobility using quality methods. And finally, we had an economic historian, Gregory Clark, speak about how historians approach mobility using archival data. The fifth part was with the part where we talked about the drivers of mobility. We had Jerry Burman on human capital, Emily Renza on immigration, urban organization on mobility. Nancy Locke, a chapter which we thought was very important, have on gender and mobility. Patricia Fungi-Greger-Kissakis, who's a colleague in wider, uni-wider on social mobility, horizontal inequality. And then we had this final chapter, concluding chapter. So that was a structure. So now let me just tell you a little bit. I'll just skip a couple of slides here. I want to just talk a little bit about what have we learned from this book. And I'm going to speak about three different areas. Let's speak about knowledge gaps, research practice, and policy options. And this is really what was the reason why we got this book together, we put this book together. First is that, what are we still not very clear about? Especially for low income countries. So what are the important knowledge gaps that are there, and how can we try and address them? The second was on trying to think of a research practice, methods, into this many conversations. So how can we try and have more innovative methods in looking at social mobility from different disciplines? And the final part was to think about policy advice, and how should we advise policy makers, we think of social mobility in their own country context. So that was the way we thought about what the book should be about and the final chapter sort of does that in different ways. So knowledge gaps. I think the first thing we felt, and that's something Shiko mentioned in the keynote, is that we don't really have the data that we need to understand mobility, international mobility. What we need is data on going back in time, or income, education, occupation, that can link parents and children together. And we don't really have that. We don't have the kind of data that Raj Chetty and others are working with in the US, for example. So that's a really big problem, and something that we need to think about. Why are we still in a situation where we haven't got the panels that we need to understand mobility? Along with that, there were also questions about measurement, and I'll get back to that a little bit later, on how should we think about measuring mobility in a context where perhaps income is not the best metric of mobility. So education and occupation may well be much more, better indicators of mobility when income is not exactly very reliable in low-income countries. A second gap we felt was very important is that there's practically almost no work on gender and mobility. So if you ask a question that on mobility and father-son mobility in low- and middle-income countries, you might be able to say something, because there are a few papers in China and India and Latin America. So because mother-daughter mobility is practically nothing. Now, part of the reason is that many of the services we tend to look at do not ask questions about mothers of the house or the person of the child's maternal background. It doesn't ask questions about the mother's education background, occupational background, and so on. So we don't really have the kind of question, the kind of data we need to understand mother-daughter mobility. But this is quite disappointing because, first, it's just one-sided. I mean, you can't have a consistent approach to mobility if you look at only father-son mobility and not look at mother-daughter mobility. And also when we know that women are now increasing into the level fours and increasing in educated. So that's a big, big gap that we found in this literature. A third knowledge gap is that we don't really know much about the drivers of mobility. So if you look at the causal evidence on this, it's still pretty limited. We don't really have the kind of work we've seen in the U.S. and the European countries. So for example, if you think about somebody born, a poor child born in Islam in Mumbai and Nairobi or Rio, there may be many things happen at the same time that can explain weak intergenerational mobility. Could be poor schooling, lack of well-paid jobs, a scarcity of role models in the neighborhood, and various forms of group-based discrimination. Now, which one exactly is more important? How do we know that for this child in Mumbai and Nairobi or Rio, is it to do with poor schooling? Is it to do with discrimination? Is it to do neighborhood effects? How do we disentangle these things? And I think one of the problems that I think is that in the economics approach is, using experimental methods to cause experimental methods, we try and isolate one factor, one key factor. But of course that's not really what happens when we see complex and erratic causes of mobility in this kind of context. So how do we bring together our understanding of both the causal evidence, in which in any case, it's quite limited, along with evidence from qualitative methods which can tell us more about the multiple causes of mobility. So that's something that's a big limitation there. On research practice, we think there are three key lessons. First lesson I think we think is that there is a problem that if you ask someone that what is mobility in China in education, let's say occupation, versus India, it's very difficult to get a clear answer. Why? Because the person working on China is using one concept of mobility, the person working in India is using a different concept of mobility. Concepts are used in a loose way. Measurement is done in a fairly ad hoc way. So for example, apart from perhaps should cut out our education mobility, where there's a more clarity of how you measure education achievement perhaps, though not on quality of education, but more entertainment. This very little we can do on income mobility because measurement and concepts often seem to be going at, are often contradicting each other. And I think that's something to think about that. If you're going to work in mobility, exactly be clear about your concepts. Define your concepts, define your measures at the very beginning. So that's one very big problem. The other problem I think we think is that the measures and methods we use often are not really capturing what you really want to capture. So if you think about IGRC's IGMs, we seem to think mobility upward or downward is symmetrical. So for example, if we move up, the same thing as we move down. IGRC does not differentiate between upward and downward mobility. But downward mobility in Africa or South Asia, a low income context, is a very different situation than upward mobility. So we can't use measures which are capturing mobility in upward or downward mobility in symmetrical ways, because that's not really very useful. So we need to find better ways to capture mobility, which does seem to take into account different upward and downward mobility. And that's something again we need to think about. The third thing we felt was that there needs to be this conversation that hasn't happened in the literature. We have to have conversations with economists, historians, sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, because that will make this work much richer. And I think there's something that we wanted to take to economists who work in this area that it's really important that they need to engage with a non-economic situation. Especially in sociology, where there's a lot of work going on on quantitative sociology and mobility, there needs to be much better conversation going on between those who even who use quantitative methods on mobility and measures. So that's something we felt was very important. On policy, I think the first few policy options we thought came out of the book itself are fairly standard. We saw a lot of evidence on the importance of broad-based human capital investment. There's very clear evidence that we need to have more jobs, good jobs and opportunities for people to move up, occupation and income. There's also a lot of evidence that downward mobility is not something we should have in a low-income country context. So we should really worry about downward mobility before even thinking about upward mobility and find ways of trying to make sure that that downward mobility is contained. So that's something else that we found. But there were other things that came out from the volume that we felt were not exactly being discussed as much in the policy literature. One was that we felt social networks make a big difference in low-income country context. So who you know, how do you peer effects, neighborhood effects, all these are very important. And the chapter by Reilly and Mani show that the importance of social networks very, very clearly. So for example, how do you get jobs, breadth rules, intangible ways by influencing aspirations, cultural capital, providing role models are really important in thinking of mobility.