 My name is Terence Gomez. I'm from Malaysia. My question is for Yana. It was a very good presentation. I have two questions. The first is when you talk about ownership, ownership of land can also be a state matter. So when we talk about ownership, I felt you should, why did you not consider the question of control? Control over the land is as important as ownership over the land. And if the state has control, the state can use that control to reshape ownership patterns. Building on that point, I'd like to draw your attention to your own data on China and Vietnam. I'm raising this point about the role of the state and the way in which the state can intervene for land redistribution. These are all important points. It has occurred. It has even occurred in Malaysia. So when you have a strong state like China and Vietnam, your own data shows it that they have reduced inequality based on what you've said. Now that shows how a state can intervene and reshape inequalities in terms of land ownership because of the control they have over the land in the first place. Which brings me now to the next question on operational holdings. Who actually owns the land? You know when you come to states like China and Vietnam, when we talk about operational holdings, it's not just about people who own the lands. We also have state-owned enterprises that own the land. Is there a distinction between private ownership and public ownership? And does this make a difference in terms of efficient use of the land? I'm posing these questions because I didn't see a comparative dimension between countries depending on the point which is just made about politics. Politics matters and political inequality also shapes these questions. Thank you. We take a few questions and then we answer. I'm Diyong. I'm from Penn State University. I'm a PhD student here. So I also have a question for you. So also about the land inequality. So also in the context of China and Vietnam. So is all increase in land inequality a bad thing specifically in countries experiencing rapid industrialization? Like for example many farmers, they would just sell their land and move to manufacture jobs. So they become landless. So the land inequality actually increases. But overall inequality is probably decreased because they are earning much more doing a manufacturer job than doing farming. So in this kind of context, I think probably land inequality increase is not necessarily a bad thing. And I also have a question for Carlos. So in your slide, in the second half you're doing a decomposition for between country inequality and within country inequality. So I was wondering if you can, for example, just look at the top half of each country. Then do the between country inequality analysis. Because I mean, I'm from China. I study in the United States and run in Colombia. And from my observation, it seems the upper middle class of these three countries, their lifestyles are pretty similar. They're all like sipping Frappuccino, eating overpriced croissant or avocado toast and using iPhone. So probably if we'll only look at the top half of the population, then between country inequality is probably even a bigger reduction over years. But if we look at the bottom half of each country, probably the inequality for probably between country inequality inequalities is increasing even more, I think. Thank you. I have two questions. One question I was suggesting for Mikhail. First question is I was surprised a little bit that you didn't use any statistical test to decide whether you should keep one component or two. There are ways to deal with this. I wonder whether, you know, first of all, I would like to see also some goodness of feet. So it's not only that the loadings are positively in the socioeconomic inequality as you measure. You have health that is correlated with income, but does it actually is the data telling you that the two things are just one phenomenon or not? So is there a way of statistically saying, yes, we can reduce all these four dimensions into just one, which we call economic inequality. The second is more of a comment. In Latin America in 2019, there was a whole bunch of social revolutions in the streets and economies were kind of very puzzled about how they came about because there was a lot of discussion about inequality, but Latin American income inequality had been falling for almost 15 years. So why did they happen in 2019? People discussed different options. One of them is maybe what we are measuring as a fall of income inequality is actually flawed because we are missing the top incomes and there is increasing polarization. That could be one story. Another story that a lot of people are talking about is, well, maybe this is not about income inequality. There was a lot of discussion in Cheetah about self-respect and the fact that if you go to the bank and you come for a certain class, they teach you one way than if you have from an upper class. So I wonder whether you could extend your analysis that you are doing at the end where you basically trying to see what is the correlation of these things with well-being, other things like protests and so on. Whether political inequality actually, the political inequality that you capture there is explaining some of these social movements. Thank you. Any other questions here? Okay, so we give them the word. Thank you. Thanks a lot for both questions. I'll just come to yours first. So you were asking whether all increasing land inequality is good or bad. Is it always bad? I think the short answer is no, it's not always bad. So the literature on productivity and farm sizes speaks to that. But with the example that you use where someone would move to the manufacturing sector, they would actually not be accounted for at all in our estimate. In a sense, these are only people that are dependent on agriculture. If you are dependent and you work and you get your likelihood out of agriculture, then the inequality estimates only look at those people, whether you own or not. Very quick. So in the context of China, in many cases, the parents will move to urban area for manufacture job, but the grandparents will stay in the rural area to take care of the grandchildren. And in this kind of context, so this household, there's still a household living in the rural area, but without any lands. And the parents, they're sending money back to the rural area. So I think in this case, they're counted, right? Thanks. So I think if the grandparents are working or dependent on agriculture and the parents have sold their land, it would increase inequality, but if the grandparents are not dependent at all, it would not matter. You see the point, right? So what we want to measure is really who is dependent on agriculture and how is it unequal, how is the ownership unequal within the agricultural sector and whoever is dependent on that. Yeah, but fair point. Thanks. In terms of the points that you've raised earlier, I think it's very much important what you're saying. What we work on is inequality in different countries, and China and Vietnam has completely different institutions. They have, like you were mentioning, state plays a big role. I think we discuss it a little bit in the paper. There's no formal way of showing which country. I mean, we have not gone through a formal way of showing which country has, which kind of ownership system in terms of how much the state is going to own the land. But I think it's the back, like the backdrop of the story is that in China and Vietnam, it's a completely different ownership system where the state matters a lot. One part of it would have been the time dimension, would have been nice to see how it evolved over time, and that would have played a big role. We are not looking at that. We just look at one point, time t, in recent years. What we do is the survey data, so that would only be private ownership of land, except for China and Vietnam, where we allow for this state ownership to be considered as if it was private, since it's a lifelong ownership of that land. But I think there's a lot more digging to be done in each different regions to really understand what's going on, what's context and institutional specific of each different regions. Thanks. Thanks a lot for the question and the comment. So for the question, so I think that part of what you're saying, like maybe it's captured by this part of the virus that is explained by the different components, right? So the fact that the first explains like 45, 50% of the virus. I think that about this using statistical tests, I mean, maybe now I'm going to shoot myself in the food, but I think the data and everything here is so tentative, right? That I, so I feel comfortable in showing this as a really descriptive thing, right? And I feel I didn't think of going to this really testing hypothesis that this is this really just one that was my thinking, but I will look more into this. And the other suggestion is really great. I mean, I think that we will look at more outcomes. And I think, I mean, it's interesting because this pattern of political inequality in some cases is a bit counterintuitive. So you end up like having low, low in terms of it's a fascinating thing. Like when you look at the answers to this, this perceived political influence. So whether you think that your representative listens to you actually in Europe, it ends up being like pretty high in some countries, right? And in other countries, what you would expect like there to be like a lot of political equality, like that turns out to be like smaller differences. So I think it's, yeah, it's difficult to interpret. Thanks. Thank you. In my case, so regarding your question, I think the rise of very interesting thing. What we look at inequality between countries, we take the, in most measure, we take the mean income as the reference of the country because it's the income that everybody would have when you remove inequality but the amount of resources in the country is the same. And what you are suggesting, okay, what happens if we change the perspective and we look at inequality between population groups, specific population groups, like it could be those above a certain level, maybe the upper half or even you could identify measures of middle class or whatever. But I think it's very interesting because it could be that some people in, so even that you have larger gaps between some countries, then it could be that some population groups are very similar. So I totally agree. But the thing would be probably that the inequality in some countries is very big and then the average is lower. But a specific group maybe enjoys the similar living standards maybe in western countries or not. So I think it's a very nice and interesting perspective. So I didn't do that. I follow somehow the main approach. But I agree that inequality between countries should not be restricted to this specific scenario in which you give everybody the same income and then you end up with having the mean totality. So we're running out of time. So thank you very much all the presenters and thank you very much for being here. And I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Now we have a coffee break downstairs. Thank you very much.