 Right now we're facing a crisis of international proportion. It's a healthcare crisis, but it's also an economic crisis. It's going to have long-term impact for us. And we're going to see that the biggest impact is actually going to be acceleration of inequality. The systematic way that we have been built is not holding up. The foundation is cracking. Our duties remain the same. The fact that we should not leave anybody behind again. Many organizations have seen what the impact is of a sudden crisis and how we're able to better navigate this crisis today with the help of technology. And that means the reskilling and upskilling of your own workforce. Jobs of tomorrow are technologically enabled, but also extremely inhuman-centered. It's in the ability to work with technology easily. On the other hand, with this new way of working and especially remote work, we see that there is a huge need of emotional intelligence. We have really to invest a lot in people to guarantee their jobs, but also to allow them the mobility they need on an ever-changing labor market. Eight out of ten of the young people who are in low- and middle-income countries are going to have to be entrepreneurs. They're going to have to make jobs for themselves. Having creative curriculums and teaching creativity is enabling your learners to have transferable skills, resilience, mastery, collaboration, asking questions why, how, when. This is what they need in order to thrive in any profession which they choose. The moment you incorporate margin in the life segments of society, it changes. The product offering, it changes the way that we think about. Supply chains, when you cater to the margins, the positive externalities in economic terms are pretty enormous. It is critical that leadership understand that the burden of responsibility of driving change starts at the top of the organization. So that corporations can give back to the communities, make them more resilient as we deal with these issues around both economic and racial inequality. We need men and women leading the recovery because there is no way we can ever think that a wealth that is lived by men is a wealth that is good for everybody. Now is the moment that we can think about how we use that possibility, the new ideas, the new technology, the new wealth to really create social systems in which we can all flourish. We have the greatest brains, talent, resources in the world. There's no reason that we can't and no excuses that it's too hard or complicated. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you're watching. A very warm welcome everybody to this Jobs Reset Summit hosted by the World Economic Forum. And thank you for joining the Global Economic Outlook panel. My name is Geoff Cutmore. I'm from CNBC, and I'll be moderating and directing traffic. But the wisdom from this panel will come, of course, from our panelists. So let me do a very quick introduction. Razia Khan is with us, Head of Research and Chief Economist for Africa, the Middle East Standard Chartered Bank. Nikhil Madhavkar is Chief Risk Officer of Mahindra Group. Ludovic Subran is Chief Economist for Allianz. And Beata Javocic comes to us from the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where she is Chief Economist. The IMF is talking about 6% growth for 2021, but I think as we're all aware, the growth rate very dependent on very uneven recoveries in different parts of the world. So much of that determined by what happens to the course of vaccinations and the pandemic. And of course a lot is to do with the decisions being taken by governments and central banks right now. And I think our aim in this panel really is to look at what best practice should be when it comes to ensuring and securing the recovery and then building on this opportunity really to address some of the structural challenges that the global economy has been dealing with for decades. So let's get straight to where we are at the moment. And Razia, I think it might be helpful if you maybe set out the stall for us as we take the pulse of the shape of this recovery at the moment. How secure is it from your perspective and in the markets that you are focused on? Thank you, Geoff. And that really is the very key question occupying almost everyone right now. We know that market price action has been disproportionately impacted by expectations of what's happening in the US, the economic data continuing to be strong, developed markets look in sight of an easy enough opening and reopening and we're not seeing anything like the economic strain last year. For a lot of emerging markets, even though the general rule holds true, the COVID containment measures do not impact economic activity anywhere as much as they did in 2020. There will be a year-on-year improvement in growth that holds across the board, but the nature of that recovery is increasingly being called into question. Not just because of the trajectory of this pandemic and as we speak right now, we know there are new headlines about new waves of COVID, new containment measures and a range of different Asian economies. The uncertainty is still very much there, but the longer-term uncertainty as well in terms of how does this recovery play out? If the US economy, if developed economies are doing that much better than other regions of the world and have been the beneficiaries of not only very accommodative monetary policy and fiscal policy, if the recovery trajectory is faster and that means some of those accommodative policies are rolled back that much sooner, how well equipped is the rest of the world to cope with that? That, I think, is the key question occupying everyone for the moment. Someone who earns their crust being a professional economist, how many sets of data do we need to see to be confident that the rebound is confirmed here? Because we have some terrific PMI numbers in the Eurozone today. We had a pretty good Chai Xin Chinese PMI survey which built on some real numbers yesterday. I'm just pick cherry picking one or two data points to confirm a trend. So I think it's a combination of the economic data that has already come out and we shouldn't forget the starting point. Economies like China growing very robustly almost looking as though they were overheating towards the end of 2020 and what is fully reasonable to expect in terms of the reopening of the US economy, the reopening that is anticipated in Europe still over the months to come. The forward-looking survey data, of course, is very much pointing to that as you suggest, Jeff. What we don't yet have a good sense of is the longer-term impact off the COVID pandemic. So all of those issues around what is the longer-term damage done as the accommodative policies start to be rolled back, will we get a real sense of the extent of scarring and that is something that the markets are going to have to weigh up in time. But for the moment, it's fair to say the focus is fully on the data suggesting that a recovery is underway and this is what markets are reacting to. Ludovic, let's bring you in and let's get another Chief Economist perspective here. We saw, as I say, good manufacturing PMI data in the Eurozone and yet we've seen some ECB numbers that suggest that corporate borrowing actually declined in April. Now, do we just put that down to perhaps COVID restriction-related reluctance to increase borrowing at this point? Or does it maybe indicate that we are starting to see the early stages of a peaking in corporate demand for capital, perhaps as they become concerned that the rebound will not be as robust as previous data had perhaps suggested? Well, I think the story depends very much on geographies and sectors. If you just think about what's happening right now in the US, you realize that the US is in a high-pressure economics mode, with almost a 9% nominal growth rate whereas Europe is in a low-pressure economics point and Asia is almost normalizing with a bit of a risk with the new infection. So it's very different. I think corporates in America have benefited from very good, very supportive monitoring financial conditions. Corporate in Europe is still a lot of guaranteed loans, so it's not the same type of debt for capital. You don't have the same relationship with the people extending your credit if you're listed or if you're asking your local banker. But what you say is very interesting on the manufacturing sector. The recovery is very Darwinian. Some people say K-shaped, I prefer to say Darwinian because it really is a survival of the fittest. You have in Europe, for example, the 10 richest companies have an increase on cash on balance sheet of 40%. So they don't need that anymore. They actually need an investment vehicle. They need an objective. They need to do M&A. They need to just disperse the cash that has been withholding for all this time. So these differences between sectors are very strong because you have the confined sectors, services, retail, air transportation. They've been on pause for almost a year. So the Great Tree Opening is ahead of them. But then manufacturing, construction, some of these online services, they've been having quite arrived. And so the question is, what are they going to do next to really show that they've been benefiting from this revenue to trigger an investment cycle? So for me, I still think there is a lot of good news ahead of us. The question is, indeed, how do corporates behave? Because remember, CFOs, their job, what they prefer to do is cut costs. They don't necessarily like to do investments. Right now, they need to do investments. Otherwise, they're going to be squeezed out of this recovery. Beata, let's bring you in and get a perspective on what's happening in the east at the moment. An area of the world that you focus on. Maybe you can share with us some of the concerns or otherwise that we're seeing. Thank you very much, Jeff. So the EBRD is active in post-communist economies, in Turkey, in southern eastern Mediterranean. So what do we see in our regions is rebound in manufacturing to the pre-pandemic levels. We see that commodity exporters are doing well thanks to higher commodity prices. But we see lower exports of services, much lower inflows of foreign direct investment. One of the big unknowns is tourism. Many of our countries are heavily dependent on tourism, and it remains to be seen how the tourist season will pan out. We also see big differences in vaccination rates. New EU member states, western Balkans and Turkey, are doing quite well. Why Caucasus, Central Asia, southern eastern Mediterranean are behind. So we see this bifurcation, this divergence. So we are not there yet on a very secure path to recovery. And Nikhil, if I can ask you to look more closely at frontier risk for us. Particularly from your perspective in South Asia, how much damage or otherwise is currently being done? And how long will it take, do you believe, to overcome some of the near-term challenges around tackling the virus, which appears to be tragically very active still? Sorry, Jeff, that was from me? Yes, yes, Nikhil. Who wants for you? So the way I see is the biggest uncertainty. I think we must plan for our health, social, economic, climate and digital in nature. And I think all organizations in 2022 need to revisit, revise, refresh their approach to sort of risk management in order to deal with the dynamic landscape that is unfolding before us. I mean, let me touch on the first one, which is the health and societal risk like the pandemic risk and infectious disease. Health and safety of employees is priority number one, area and high focus. I think nothing comes before this. Linked to the pandemic risk are the economic risk, which is basically volume, profit, cash flow, which is brought about by demand and supply chain challenges, commodity shocks, et cetera. The second is the social risk and with the advent of worldwide causes such as the MeToo movement, the Black Lives Matter, a larger share of companies are now vested in these issues. The third risk, which I see is the cybersecurity, the data loss prevention, the digital inequality. I mean, the whole bracket of technology risk. The fourth one is obviously the climate risk and climate risk is transforming many industries. Pressures from government, investors, society will largely bring about this change. More frequent natural disasters, I think, is going to create a need for change within this space. And the growing focus on the role of corporates in addressing pressing global challenges is sort of already reshaping the way in which capital will be allocated. President Biden's focus on environment is a dramatic refocusing on tougher environmental standards. And if I have to summarize in terms of stakeholder expectation, today more than ever, I think there is a growing expectation by society in the private sector to address the social health environmental challenges facing the world today. And companies that don't do this is going to fall aside. Jeff? I think you've given us a very long list of, I think, issues that do need to be addressed. But I think we need to overcome just getting through 2021 in many ways before we can tackle some of those longer-term structural questions, which we will bring up here. But, Razia, I just wanted to come back to you because as we talk in this job summit about securing longer-term employment and prospects, do we need to be worried that there is a cliff-edge phenomena coming towards the third quarter or towards the end of the year where we see a lot of the stimulus and support packages wash out in the United States, in the UK, in other parts of the world, and that ultimately companies that would have let staff go but retained them because of those government support arrangements will ultimately let those staff go and that we will see a spike in unemployment and that we will ultimately see longer-term scarring for labour markets. So, I think what markets are taking some comfort from is the degree to which this has been very well communicated by developed market policymakers. Let's think of the US and think about some of those inflation concerns, a very consistent message from the Fed about precisely what might be needed before the conversation shifts to tapering, let alone the policy rate hikes. To that extent, this probably does help to dampen down that greater longer-term uncertainty. But to touch on the point that Ludovic made, which I think is crucial to this debate, which is what is going to reignite longer-term demand? It's one thing to have the crisis measures in place. Everyone reacts in a very coordinated way to the crisis, having learned the lessons of the past. It's clear that that policy stimulus is helping us to get where we are today. The expectation is that there is, at least in the short term, some decent reassurance of growth. But we do need to look at this a little bit more holistically. And this is where I think we take a step back and say what are conditions like for the whole economy, for the global economy? Markets are very much reacting to what has happened in developed markets, the growth prospects, and of course economies like China still growing in a robust way. Commodity prices are well supported. The question is the multi-speed nature of this recovery. Does it pose risks to future demand in and of itself? And for a lot of the global economy, especially considering the role that emerging markets were playing even prior to the COVID crisis, how global growth had increasingly become centered on the growth performance of those emerging markets where demand is expected to be stronger, the key uncertainty remains. If policy making is done, or if it's impacted disproportionately by conditions in developed markets, does that create greater constraints to growth prospects elsewhere? And precisely those markets with the demographic profile, with the longer-term growth trajectories where the hope would be that they play a much greater role in supporting global demand. So I think the answer to your question in brief is, yes, we're very comfortable about where we are. Should we be expecting a cliff edge? No, policy is not going to allow that to happen. But the real question is, what about the unintended consequences for everyone else? And I think that's a terrific point on a day when OPEC is deciding whether they should release more oil into the markets and where it's $70 a barrel. We know high oil prices act as a tax on activity just at a time when we actually don't need to see higher commodity prices. The Chinese are already complaining about what they see as inappropriate speculation in the markets, which tells you they are feeling some pain here. Ludovic, just on that point, I think as we embrace the emergency measures that have been implemented to take us through the pandemic phase, I think we've all been looking for that to gradually shift into a focus on how that support can be used to make the structural adjustments that we're all discussing. But if the risk, as Razia points out, is that we end up with just higher commodity prices and the kind of inflation that kills the recovery stone dead, then we've got a problem, don't we? Of course, I'm the German here, so I get the inflation question. We are not that concerned about the longer term drivers of inflation, right? The short term drivers you just mentioned, these mismatches between supply and demand are huge, including on labor, by the way. You see already wage pressure on a series of sectors where the grand reopening is the most visible. So somehow we are concerned about hoarding. You mentioned the Chinese worried about speculation. I'm sometimes worried that countries in Asia are hoarding rare earths, semiconductors, et cetera, and have a form of, you know, create a supply glut towards the West. And we've seen that completely magnified by the Swiss Canal, you know, artifacts in the history of global trade. Global trade is rebounding twice as fast as 2008, 2009, and yet the price of global trade is rebounding four times as fast, yeah? So there's this concern about inflation and whether, for example, especially for policymakers, the fall could be a time when purchasing power, wage policy, is going to be flashing red lights for social cohesion and social unrest, right? And we already see that in a series of Latin American countries where people are just going to the street saying, you know, look, my food basket is increasing. You know, the price of my food basket is increasing and I don't want to, I cannot afford it anymore. So we have those risks, but I think, you know, you mentioned those short term risks. For me in the short run, the big questions are jobs, jobs, jobs. You know, you know, it's fine that there is a bit of inflation, but the big question is how many people in the U.S. are going to find back a job after the Great Reopening? How many people in Europe that were on partial furlough will actually find a job back? How many more dislocation will we finally discover on the job market from the zip code-adjusted salaries for the white colors to the inverted U-curve between remote office time and productivity to, you know, how do you basically, you know, avoid another wave of outsourcing that the pandemic has basically revealed in a way from people working from home. So the short term and long term issues of social risk related to jobs, occupancy, you know, number of jobs, but also the fair price of jobs and the mobility needed on the jobs market, really, but basically a waiter that doesn't find a job instead of stopping looking for a job, he or she should actually go and work maybe for thermic isolation of buildings because there is a great recovery. This doesn't happen in the twinkling of an eye. The type of money that governments have to put in place for active labor market policy, we haven't seen the beginning of it. And for me, this is the Marshall Plan we need to make sure that we don't have this friction on the job market with a lot more losers than we had during the last crisis, after the last crisis, which was a jobless recovery. This one could be a job-full recovery, but we need to really watch it, like, you know, milk on the fire, we say in French, just to avoid that it spews out to a situation where social risk actually takes the center stage. I think those are terrific points, and I think you neatly illustrate the conundrum that governments will have to negotiate. Beata, one of the challenges, though, is for a lot of governments, this whole COVID crisis will have rocked the foundations of the institutions that are meant to be stewards of so many of the things that Ludovic has been talking about here. My question then, I think, particularly with emerging economies, the kind of economies that you've been focused on, is how do we build resilience at a time where there is a challenge taking place in these emerging economies right now, not only because of the pandemic, but the consequences of rising commodity prices, the mismatching skill sets, the desire to address global gas emissions, and so many other things that are relevant at this stage. We've got to make sure the institutions are safe before we can build policy upon policy. Absolutely. Institutions are the key. And I am actually worried that the crisis will weaken institutions in emerging markets. And here's why. State-owned enterprises will emerge as winners from the crisis because they can always count on government support, and we've seen this before. And state-owned enterprises can be used by governments to entrench their political interests. They can divert revenue to government-friendly media outlets. They can purchase media outlets. They can be used to give jobs to friends and political allies, not to mention about using state-owned banks to pump credit to locations where elections are closely fought and the local party is aligned with the central government, while withdrawing credit from locations in the hands of opposition. So there's a real worry that this emergence of greater power of state-owned enterprises will erode institutions. Also, there is a risk that we will see this increase in state ownership undermining the product sector. SOEs are rule makers by design. In half of post-communist countries, the same entity that controls SOEs is also responsible for regulation in the sector. And sometimes it's SOEs themselves that have regulatory power. And in less than a fifth of post-communist countries, you have rules that prevent SOEs from getting unfair financial advantage over private sector through subsidized inputs, lower tax rates, or concessionary credit. And, you know, this does not augur well for long-term growth because, as we know, SOEs are less innovative and less efficient. What can the EBRD do or other international organizations to try and nudge those emerging governments in the right direction or to help bolster the credibility of the institutions? EBRD is working with governments to strengthen regulatory framework that governs SOEs. I mean, it's important for governments to articulate their state ownership strategy. It's important to strengthen boards governing SOEs. You know, very often these boards are independent on paper, but in reality, they have no teeth. They have no power to fire or hire a CEO. They have no control over budgets. And appointments to those boards are actually not based on qualifications or merit. So we can work with governments to help them improve that framework. And once you have truly independent boards, then politicians cannot use SOEs for political gains and they lose interest in them. And that bodes well for their performance and future prospects of privatization. We are open to take questions from our audience. Let me just point that out to you. You'll know the mechanism for doing that. And I think it'd be useful maybe to weave some of the questions in because there's a bit of a reoccurring theme coming up in the questions, which indicates, I think, what our audience is very concerned about. So let me just knit a couple of together here. Nicole, this question is for you. And it comes in from Shazib and Abdulaziz. And it's pretty much the same question. Will travel restrictions limit the opportunity and the exploration of industrial partnerships? Will it increase protectionism? And ultimately, do you see M&A being damaged here as businesses are reluctant to invest in the current environment? No, my personal view is I think this is a temporary phase. I mean, I think the travel restrictions and all of this is, we are going to go through it. I mean, the vaccination drives are going full through. So from a very medium term, I mean, from a short term, I think, yes, things will get affected for the next maybe two, three months for the next quarter. But fundamentally, from a medium term point over the next one year, things are going to come back to normal from a travel point, from an M&A point. I don't think the way I'm seeing it is, I think it's turbulence. Directionally, I don't think things are going to change. Jeff. And in the difference in vaccination rates, that obviously is causing some challenges in terms of travel from the developed world to the emerging world to countries due to some vaccine hesitancy at the moment. Again, do you see this only as a short-term phenomena or are we looking at some longer-term problem for the rest of the year that is going to make it difficult for that kind of business activity to happen? Jeff, I think it's a short-term phenomena. I don't think it's a long-term phenomena because if you see, I mean, very honestly, governments and businesses are working hand-to-hand. COVID has emphasized the need for collective action and leaving no one behind. There is a lot of communication happening and coordination and communication are very important at this juncture and that's happening. So I don't think, from a short-term point, obviously, yes, the population of some of the countries is obviously large. So from a timing perspective, it may be a bit of impact, but I don't think it's a structural or I don't think it's a long-term impact. It's more a question of the next couple of months here or there. Beato, I just wanted to come back to you on some of the things that Nicole raised earlier on. I think it's important for us to address these. The outlook for older workers, how we ensure that women continue to be brought into the workplace, how we continue to focus on discrimination where it occurs in different countries, in different economies, in different working environments. How do we ensure that best practice is observed and continues to be observed through the recovery? Thank you, Jeff. So starting with older workers. Before the pandemic, countries differed very much in how much shopping was done online. Three-quarters of adult population in the UK shops online, half of population of Poland, but in places like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, these numbers were in single digits. But what was really striking was that even in those countries where there was very little online shopping, you saw small and medium-sized businesses moving part of their activity online. So there was this big increase in online shopping. We saw a lot of even middle-aged people for the first time buying something on the internet. Now, this accelerating digitalization will have the unintended consequence of making life harder for older workers. Because in many emerging markets, in places where the EBRD operates, older workers are much weaker when it comes to ICT skills than older workers in OECD countries. And there's a very real risk that they will be pushed out of the labor market and replaced with younger migrants. And that would be quite a negative thing, particularly in places which are facing demographic challenges. Now, moving on to women, we've heard a lot about women in services industries losing their jobs, but skilled women have also been hit by the pandemic. We see that women have been taking a step back. Job websites like LinkedIn show that they haven't been updating their profiles. They haven't been applying for jobs. We see that men were more likely to have their designated office at home to work. Women were twice and a half times more likely than men to work at the kitchen table. They were doing two and a half more time, more childcare than men during the time of school closures. So women have really been put behind, sent behind by the pandemic. And often this was a conscious decision taken at the household level because men make more money, the husband makes more money, so you prioritize his career. That would have been fine, except we have glass ceiling, we have gender wage gap. So in this way we are perpetuating this gender wage gap. And what I worry about now is that hybrid working will mean that those workers who will be more likely to stay home, and I bet they will be women, their voices will be less heard, they will be less present, they will be forgotten when it comes to promotion. And this women agenda may be pushed out as we worry about recovery, green issues and so on. So what we need to do is we need to start by talking about it. Razia, can I bring you in on that and just build on it? Because I think being able to talk about the hybrid nature of working going forward, I think we've all had to be very flexible about the way we've continued to work, working from home has become clearly a phenomena that everybody has had to embrace to a certain degree. How do we make what the new type of working is, however hybrid, however it depends on office or home-based activity, how do we continue to make that more inclusive? That is a very good question, Geoff. And I think the key thing we do need to recognise is as a starting point, post the initial phase of the pandemic, as economies are reopening, we're already dealing with heightened inequality. The gender points that Beata raised are all important, but let's not forget also those in the services sector on lower incomes without necessarily the longer term social safety nets in place. And here again, a big divergence between the developed markets where there was the fiscal space to provide more of a safety net and developing markets where there was very little households had to dip into their savings. How does everyone emerge beyond that? You ask a very good question, is there a way to build back in a way that's going to be more inclusive? It's really going to depend a lot on the macroeconomic situation that is in place and this varies greatly between different economies. It is a fact that in those economies where there has been the fiscal space to provide that support, we tend to worry about entirely different set of issues. Are we going to be seeing inflation baked in? Are we going to be seeing much greater wage inflation being sustained? Is there a reluctance for people to go back to the jobs? In a lot of the rest of the world, the real issue is, are those jobs going to be created fast enough? How do households rebuild their savings? If you look at the survey data from across a number of different Sub-Saharan African economies, many workers have been forced out of the formal sector entirely. They're having to take up new occupations in terms of retail, in terms of trade, doing what they can do to get by. But that isn't necessarily leading to the building blocks for a more robust recovery. So you ask a very important question. How do we build back in a much more inclusive way? How do we ensure the job creation does happen? And I think the starting point is the recognition that not all governments are going to be capable in the same way of helping that transition along, helping that economic recovery along. And maybe this is, therefore, something that needs much more multilateral attention. There needs to be a much more holistic global solution to these issues that are emerging. Post-crisis are much greater degree of inequality than we had pre-COVID. Unfortunately, I think this last year has seen many of those institutions that you describe challenged. We've seen the WHO come under for its managing of the messaging around COVID. We've seen obviously the WTO take a lot of battering over policies around trade. We've obviously seen the Commission undergoing all sorts of questions about the speed of the vaccination program. And of course, the way that Brexit was managed and those legacy issues continued. Everywhere you look, it seems the kind of institutions that might step in and be on the front foot have been very much forced on the back foot. How do we change that? Certainly being a testing time and we can't ignore what was happening pre-COVID. In terms of that retreat from multilateralism. But I think in many respects, we have seen a new commitment to multilateralism that could yet undo this. So think of what the role of the IMF has been, the emergency financing, the discussion at the G20 level, the support behind a new SDR allocation. The point I would make is it's not too late. There is a need for greater multilateralism. We know that there were forces acting against that. But this recovery, the foundations of this recovery could really be strengthened by that much more of a multilateralist approach. Beata, you wanted to come in. Yes. A lot of challenges we are facing now, whether it's climate, whether it's building resilience to future pandemics are about investments in the future. And it's very difficult for politicians to commit to make investments that will pay off in the long term, but bear costs right now. And that's precisely why international agreements are becoming particularly important now. We need to tie the hands of politicians. We need to create credible commitments so that we can invest in those long-term solutions to long-term problems. Ludovic, you wanted to come in on this. Yes, I think it's very interesting because we're looking for multilateral solutions for very local problems. We already struggled to find the right data on those population at risk. Beata mentioned some of the work that the EBRD has been doing, but just like we can talk about women, we can talk about the youth, which is bearing the triple burden of going out of school at a recession, having a wage at the productive time that will be 10% lower than the cohort before them. They're in equal access to property and to stocks for the saving solutions. So for me, the big issue is really governments can influence the global norm and standard setting at the global level. But what we've seen is that very few countries respect this. Just look at the debate, the fake debate that just happened on tax policy. Initiated by the US, this is blah, blah. Now, the real issue here is each country needs to address their own social protection problems. Their safety nets is full of holes. And so my big question is when we try to unplug the help that we are, and there's been a lot of money injected in the economies, 20% of GDP in some of the largest economies. So the big question is, are we ensuring that this money is going to the right people? Are we making sure that this money is there to redistribute some of the wealth inequalities that are already de facto because of the pandemic? And just think about the women topic. It's very dear to our heart, that Alliance, the wage gap, the pension gap, the financial literacy gap. Don't you think it is high time that we economically do more towards women, just like we do for the youth by subsidizing some of the young people contracts so that they get a bit of support to get onto the job market because they are disproportionately affected? So for me, and we saw that also with WTO, WTO is great at monitoring stuff, but they were not good at getting action going and we had to find solutions in countries and then to be able to very nimbly, very quickly take the best solutions from other countries and bring them to your local countries. And for me, this is the type of thinking, the type of approach we need in a very fast-changing world. Institutions have to be very reactive. They need to A-B tests. They need to do impact evaluation. We cannot just do a five-year plan where we say we're going to try something and if it doesn't work, we keep the support. We need to be a bit more agile, just like you asked corporates to be agile, but when you're the government, you have common goods and you have purposes that you have to uphold your people against. And the reason why we have to do that is that if we don't do that, then we get more inequalities. We get more people in the street. We get more polarization and we get less redistribution and certainly less equity. And so for me, the time is now and we hear very little about housing inequalities, about wealth inequalities, about generational inequalities. I know it's hard to embed inequality as a policy objective. We do that with climates. It calls for much lateral action, but the support starts with each of the country. And for me, it's the same with a lot of this social, how inclusive can you be on the recovery? The US is showing a very interesting way, which is as much as you can so that you make sure that you get as many jobs as you can. But is that something we can replicate, especially in some fiscally constrained countries? And the line ministries have been very absent. We haven't heard much about the housing ministers of the countries. We haven't heard much about the education ministers of the countries. And they are the ones that are going to have to basically consent of some of the long-term scaring effects of this pandemic. In Kenya, the kids were out of school for more than nine months. Can you think about the loss in effective education these kids had to experience, right? This is something that is going to have an effect on how good they would be to finding a job, to being able to be employable, and so forth. We have to really get things going now because otherwise it's going to be too late. And then we're going to start to have to, again, go into emergency mode, when we basically have some time to return the roof while it's sunny, even though I know the sun is a bit cloudy with vaccination uncertainty. We finally have some better weather in the UK. You'd be pleased to hear, but unfortunately, I don't think you're here to enjoy it. But anyway, just briefly, because I know we don't have a lot of time here. You described the US tax approach as blah, blah, blah. Do you not feel that there is a need for a minimum global tax at this point? Is that what you're describing as blah, blah, blah? Do you not think the G7 needs to make some progress on this? Oh, I do think they should. And the OECD has been strengthening this call for reform. But just look at the equilibrium we found, which is 15%. It squeezes out all of these countries that are tax havens for companies, where basically we've seen in Europe, blah, blah is often from the way we try to address these issues and then the way the consensus, the weak consensus is found. On taxation, I'm sorry, but the US have a long history of a disproportionate growth of profits in value added. So the US have to fix their own tax issue. President Trump experimented to trickle down economics, which dated back to President Reagan. So they did it back to the future moment. They have to solve that tax issue. They want to embrace or to push a tax convergence across countries. Great. But then as the negotiation starts, you promise a lot, but you have a promise and you're under the lever. 15%, what will it solve? Do you think that some of the tax havens will join the ban with this 15%? The big issue is how do we direct some of the tax revenue from those sectors that have benefited a lot from the crisis so that they can cross-obsdice some of the sectors that have been affected the most? If we want to do that, I don't know. It could be a policy objective, but when you tell people, we're going to have a minimum tax, you don't tell them why. With these big policy moves, you have to tell the people why you're going to pay with this tax. Is it the transition to a greener world, or is it the economy? Is it exiting the fossil fuel subsidies? Oh, bad luck. Actually, we have half a trillion fossil fuel subsidies in the budget of just G7 countries. So it's a bit, a lot of pledges, but people will judge on facts just like they did on how we handle the pandemic. So we need to be good because otherwise people will take it to the ballots and we will have a very difficult situation to handle down the road. Well, unfortunately, we're going to have to wrap it up at this point because time caught up with us. So many more questions, so many more issues to discuss. And unfortunately, we didn't get to a number of the questions that were submitted here. So my apologies for that. I will personally try harder next time round, but let's enjoy the better economic data. Let's enjoy some of the encouraging numbers that we're seeing at the moment, and also some at least of the government pledges and commitments to address the issues that I think we're all concerned get some focus here. Thank you. Thank you for tuning in everybody and thank you to my panelists for a very entertaining conversation. And hopefully, we all come away a little bit smarter as a result.