 So I'm going to take some questions and then I'm also going to ask a question because I've been here. The variable that you have here is 1 if they apply for high level job and 0 if they do not apply for high level job but they apply for the job, right? Yeah, but the problem here is in some sense you're convoluting both the things, right? Because previously if I were not applying just after seeing this information I became more likely to apply so that is something that you're missing and that's probably why you're getting a negative effect for the men, right? Because it's possible that they increase their low level applications but there is no commensurate increase in the high level application and that's what is driving the results here. Thank you, Ms. King. I did some work in Angola actually categorizing the youth and their decisions and something that I found also is that the household size matters a lot for labor market decisions. So I saw that you have some women that are willing to commute more. Maybe it's because they live in higher households that they can do all the home production technology that someone helps with that. So I was wondering if you have information about it about household size and how this changes the results. Also, I don't know if you have marriage in the regression and I just didn't see it. And just a comment about what you mentioned about unemployment rate for high skilled, at least for Angola what I saw is that there is a huge shape between education and unemployment. I think that some part of the story is regarding reservation wages and this is actually something that you see in other countries that the unemployment rate is say you have this huge shape essentially because high educated individuals can't wait and are looking for a suitable job. So yes, in the summaries that's when we asked them if you're interested in getting a job. A lot of them say the 91% of the sample seems really, really eager to work. I thought it needs to move more. So that suggests to me that maybe it's not so much a reservation wage story and that it's very much. Do you know anything about the people who exited, who did not continue? How many people were there? And second, you could not apply for both senior and junior? No. Yes. Thank you. So in the pilots, we exited those people, that said none, but then people told us actually maybe don't exit them and let them let's see what they do. So in the full experiment they are there. I don't know the share of them in this study, I will check. But for coming answer, thank you. Yeah, I had a question. Do you, you don't look at wages at all? And do they post, does the firm post the, you are the firm, does the firm post the wages? So the first generally, so for us we didn't post wages. But generally you will see that sometimes they would post a range of salaries on the website. But oftentimes they just don't post any wages as well. And then the other thing is, I'm not sure it's completely fair to call this an information study because of the words women are especially encouraged or encouraged to apply. I think you include it, because it seems like an encouragement thing, which then might discourage the men. And I'm not sure I completely understood your comment, but the way that I thought about that negative sign on the men was they were taking it as a, therefore I as a man I'm not encouraged to apply. I have less of a chance for this job. That's the way I understood it. But I think we could have an interesting discussion later. Thank you. So this is truly fascinating. Thank you for a great presentation. I was wondering if there is any way in which you can understand whether these changes that you're observing are happening within firms or across firms. Is it happening that women, because if it's happening within firms, then the wage structure within firms is increasingly separating men and women wages, which I find probably difficult to believe. So I presume it's more between firms, but I don't know whether that's something that you can study or whether you have looked at it. Yeah, my question was in line. If you have any hypothesis of why does it happen? Does that have a question? So my question is when you ask why, did you try thinking about hours worked as well? I mean, these are hourly wages. I assume you converted everything into hourly wages. And so did you look at full time versus part time or more than 40 hours or whatever the tradition is in Germany in terms of work hours per week versus the super hour people. Okay, so thank you for the questions. Well, in fact, it's quite related with the one that I didn't present because this is like my paper was going to finish here, but then everybody was asking this. So I tried to explain more about this. What explains that gender-wish premium for male group more rapidly than those of female workers? So why this happening? One thing that I see is what happens when workers are switching from different occupations. So I find that, so in this literature, what is happening and what I showed is that men and women both are leaving their routine occupations. But what happened when they switch? And what I find is that when switching, male workers get higher increase in their wage. I took a sample of workers that were initially in a routine occupation and estimate the change in the wage premium when switching, and this is higher for men than for women. So that's one part of the explanation. And then if we look more deeply into the gender segregation, and this can also be related with the other question, is that despite this literature, it's like considering these five world occupation groups, if we go deeper in what is inside this group, that most of these interactive occupations in which women are increasingly employed, which can be from manager to social workers, so these are very different occupations. And women are highly concentrated in these related with care occupations like social workers and nursery teaching, which experience lower wage growth compared to the other interactive occupations. And with the firms, I don't look at firms, I could, but there is a large literature on firms, and what sees is that for low-skilled workers, the sorting mechanism is the one that explains more, so the fact that women are sorting into firms that pay lower wages. But for high-skill, the differences within the firms are the main explanatory factors. So I think we can consider that there's something very similar going on here. And our other question, I don't have information on our work, just full-time-part-time. So I did everything considering only full-time workers. Then I have a reviewer in my PhD degree that asked me to do some robustness checks with the SOAT, which has information on our work. And I have quite similar results. So, yeah. Okay, thank you very much. So, very, very interesting paper. One of the things that I would really like to see more of, and I don't know if this is maybe another paper in this paper, is thinking about the role of political economy and historical institutions, right? But she's talking about Africa and agricultural technology. So I say this because there is this very great book by Helen Tilley called Africa as a Living Laboratory, which I don't know if you've heard of it, where she basically talks about, so this is a question of where is the technology coming from. And she talks about how the British, I'm going to use the British in British Columbia, Africa, which I study, are essentially taking a lot of local knowledge about these crops, testing these new varieties, a lot of the cash crops, the maize, the palm oil, the ground nuts, et cetera, and then exporting the knowledge back to Europe. So in that sense, you know, this is very, and this is happening, you know, she says like, it's like almost 100 years from 1872 to 1950. And so in that sense, I'm not really under, again, super interesting story, super interesting results, but I guess inappropriate technologies and dodgeness and thinking about the role of institutions and creating the inappropriate technology, if that makes sense, I think would be really nice to get more knowledge on, especially since, then you can think of, you know, is it actually that, you know, there's, I think from what I got from your presentation, it's like an environmental story mostly, or is it actually an institutional story about where different technologies, right, so exported out of Africa, get to Europe, re-exported back to Africa, and then it's like, who gets access to these markets? So it would be nice to get much more detail on that. I think there may be a richer or deeper story on the institutional context there to add that, but thank you, very interesting. Great, perfect. Thank you so much for this research first. There is a student in my university that actually is studying the effects of the free trade agreement between Colombia and Peru with the U.S., and in the chapter about agriculture, there is a lot of, say, parts on adoption on seats, and in the beginning of the free trade agreement between Colombia and the U.S., there was actually a lot of debate, and you are proving that the seats didn't work in Colombia, and so, I mean, I'm just commenting on your results. I think that also in all these literatures and the way that the free trade agreement sometimes are signed, there are some chapters that actually say you have to adopt this technology, and you are showing us that this is not actually the best path. And yeah, I just wanted to comment and to say you thank you, because this is super appropriate. I have two questions. One is, I guess, comment. This very much relates, of course, to medical developments in terms of shots and, you know, drugs that are used to target only first world diseases and therefore leave other diseases. And so, as you know, Michael Kramer, etc., have proposed a whole series of interventions to suggest what might be a good policy to follow. Some of that is being done by the Gates Foundation, etc. The other thing I have to do with Belinda's comment, I think, about institutions, have you looked at, I mean, this is very much economics driven. So, have you looked at whether third world researchers end up then also investigating crops or technologies that are inappropriate, because in the end, they end up working maybe in universities or in institutions that end up being focused towards first world markets rather than the home market. I just think it would be an interesting thing to look at. Yeah, really interesting question. So, on the first point about the political economy institutions, I think there's a huge history there that we don't even touch. There's a whole relationship between botany and the growth of botany, and actually the fact that there were a lot of British botanists who were doing the first understanding of genetics, but they were all close friends with slave traders, because that was how they got their material from different parts of the world. So, the story there was like complex and upsetting, and there's a whole wealth of information there. In this paper, we don't really touch on the institutional aspect that we're really estimating, but you can imagine a whole range of reasons why where technology happens is not just that certain places in the world are better at doing innovation. I mean, that's a result of a whole historical process, which is related to coercion and all kinds of things that we don't really touch on. We kind of take the distribution of where innovation happens today as given, and don't do much to kind of explore so much where that comes from, where the knowledge that underlies that innovation comes from. Yeah, I think there's definitely kind of a lot of knowledge taken from different parts of the world and applied elsewhere, and I think we just don't speak to that so much. Sorry. I would love to have a longer conversation on that. In terms of free trade agreements, yeah. That's not something I know much about at all. So, it's really exciting to learn that this kind of applies to that context, or might be useful in that context, and I would love to learn more about that. In terms of medical development, absolutely. So, like the Kramer and Glendrister work was like a major inspiration for this work, and I think is another important area where this really matters. One thing we really wanted to do here is kind of think about everything and how it affects productivity, which is kind of our goal and why agriculture was really useful for that empirical goal for us here. And the question of universities in developing countries and whether they focus on local as opposed to foreign technology, I think that was a question that we had going in. And it turns out, I didn't present it here, one result that we have on that innovation side is, so you could imagine that the reason that the whole world focuses on those problems, because that's where the incentives are, where you can actually market and sell your technology and make a profit. What turns out to happen is not that mechanism, but instead the fact that like places, even places that are not themselves wealthy, or even some places that have kind of weaker intellectual property institutions, nevertheless, in the context of agriculture, it could be different in other sectors, tend to focus on local problems. But just the large skew in kind of where the research is and how much is being done in different contexts is what makes these kind of super uneven focus across context and across problems. But you can imagine either way, and you can imagine being very different in different contexts. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a question of no one. So I mean, there were both elements were really interesting. One that they seem to think that their salaries should be much higher, which tells you their reservation wages are too high. I didn't have time to absorb what the gender wage gap was. In other words, do they want absolute salary that's higher than the men, or do they simply have a greater mismatch in terms of their expectations and what the market salary is? And I guess the next one would be a policy question. Three kilometers is very close. You know, what do we know in terms of policy interventions that would either, if you think it's safety, then it's safety. Is it really gender norms? I understand genderors might be for the home, but the distance that they're willing to travel, is it mostly safety? Is it mostly lack of transportation? Or is it mostly that they have to then make sure they get home on time to take care of kids or to do housework? Okay. To respond to your first question, so it's an absolute level. So women they do internalize the gender wage gap. They are demanding wages which are lower than what the husbands are asking for. Husbands ask is of 13,000 Indian rupees compared to 10,000 Indian rupees of the women. But the mismatch here is really about what women are already paid. So the gender wage gap is way larger than they're expecting. But at the same time, I won't say that they're asking more because probably they have higher reservation wages. It's the return to their work and that's why they're demanding more wages. That's the one caveat we have. We are not able to disentangle whether it is the reservation wage or it's coming from the norm because of which they are not able to ask for the same wages which are being offered in the market. Coming to your second question, 3 kilometer, yes. It's very close. But when we look at availability of transport, that's going to be same for the husband as well as the wife. Still the husbands are willing to travel almost double the distance of the wife. So it's mostly to do with the safety concerns that women are facing because as part of another study where I was looking at what happens if women get access to work close to where they're living, coming through the policy of NREGA which is National Rural Employment Guarantee Act that provides guaranteed 100 days of work closer to where you are living. So what we find there is that women are differentially taking more benefit of the scheme compared to the husbands. So that in some sense validates that you know it's coming from the safety concerns that they have of traveling longer distances. Thank you very much again.