 Well John, thank you very much, and also thank you for doing the advert already for tomorrow's session. So this is basically a discussion on state business relations in two sessions. I've got a paper as well where we've contributed to, so if you want to have a hard copy then maybe I'll start circulating it now. So I'm at the Overseas Development Institute in London, and we've been interested in the work on state business relations for some time. And together with Kunal Sen in a research programme called IPPG, we started in 2005 to 2010, we did some work on state business relations in Africa and in India. And that's also what Kunal will talk more on. And we thought it would be useful to have a session now where we have an introduction and then where Kunal will talk about the academic side of state business relations and then where we also have a practitioner's view, somebody from the Wobeng Lily who's done work on state business relations itself in Cambodia, as she will no doubt tell you about. And what we hope to do at the end of these two sessions actually is also to say, well, what is the research agenda moving forward? And what are the sort of policy relevant questions that we might want to be asking ourselves? What do we know and what are possible next steps? So in my presentation, in my overview, I will talk about a few things. First of all I will highlight the renewed interest in industrial policy and the context here of structural transformation and job creation is very important. There's a renewed interest there and also we need to understand how industrial policy fits in. I will say we know already a lot on the appropriate role of industrial policy in development. We will then make a link to the relevance of state business relations for industrial policy. And then think a bit more about what characteristics are effective. What are the effective characteristics of effective state business relations that will lead to good industrial policy making. One thing that I will argue is that despite of course the fact that we've worked on it and others have worked on it, John Page has got an action paper and there will be some other papers. There are still a huge gap in the literature out there. And I suppose there are two areas where there's been research in this area and I'll explain it a bit more with. There has been work from the sort of political science point of view. How do state and business interact? How has this been institutionalised? And on the other side the economists have looked at this question and sort of how can we measure state business relations if at all. And then how has it led to industrial policy and how has it led to economic performance. And I will try and finalise with a few ways to suggest further types of research. First of all I'll talk about the growth policy pendulum because I think that we've gone full circle. Or the pendulum has one. We started early on thinking about we need to manage the economy. And then we moved to thinking much more about freeing up the economy and don't think about industrial policy at all. Towards now thinking much more of a pragmatic view. So we started out with the structuralist thinking about previous and thinking through import substitution as a way forward for industrialisation. That quickly moved as in the 90s after the debt crisis in Latin America and the failure of some of the policies led to the Washington consensus. John Williamson said well you need to sort of liberalise, deregulate. And there was a 10 point list and then it became the post was in the consensus 20 point list. So that swung to the other side, the growth policy pendulum swung to the other side. The World Bank's investment climate report, maybe John knows more on it. I think I had a discussion with Warwick Smith and he basically about the present of market failures. He said well what market failures I can't see them. Government failures are much more important. And that report doesn't really mention industrial policy or industrial development hardly. Then in mid-2000s, 2005 around came Roderick and Velascon Houseman with the growth diagnostic. And that's again a different way of looking at the economy is saying well where are the most binding constraints to growth. And thinking in those terms means that you are not thinking about freeing up all constraints at the same time in the economy. But you thinking specifically about freeing up the most binding constraint which is by definition almost a more targeted way of looking at growth policy. But of course it's not completely targeted either. You need to do it in a market friendly way. So that's more in the middle. The growth report, Danny Lightseeker's report and others also were thinking more in terms of not just in terms of freeing up markets, but also thinking and they reviewed a number of successful case studies of successful growth experiences. And they mentioned issues like leadership is really important. And then we had a book launch of Justin Lin at the ODI a couple of months ago. I'm thinking much more about an active role for industrial policy although it had a six-step approach towards growth identification and facilitation. But some are saying well you need to go where the market is compared to Vanthyrtu and so on. But others say well you need to actively involve the state and push forward, especially the economic zone and so on. And of course there are others that are still far more on the left. So Hajun Chang for instance and others. So in terms of thinking about industrial policy I think we are now back to thinking more about industrial policy. And we don't dismiss it out of hand either say well it's the only way to go about or we can't do it at all. There's now a much more pragmatic way of doing it. And if you think about literature and I'll go over it very quickly, I think in this literature on industrial policy there is a general agreement that there's a presence of market government and coordination failures in industrial development. And it's related to skills and technology and there are information related market failures. And there are authors like Packenwass, Stiglidge, Rolych yn Lall, who have all suggested there are market failures that need to be overcome. But there are still differing and involving views on the relative importance of market failures vis-à-vis government failures in driving industrial development forward. So on the one hand you can say well there might be specific market failures out there but then if the state thinks about a way of addressing this market failure well through intervention or market friendly way it could go wrong and it has gone wrong of course. And we actually don't know, we don't have an assessment framework to say this is how large market failures are and this is how large government failures are. What we do know from historical experiences is that industrial policy has worked in some cases or in some sectors or in some areas sometimes and so I am Singapore, Mauritius, Malaysia for instance we know that certain particular specific policies that target particular sectors have helped in certain circumstances. But we also know that it has failed in many other circumstances. Again I suppose there is a lack of an assessment framework to really assess the success of industrial policy. But acknowledging that industrial policy could play a role in theory and in practice means that some attention has shifted now to thinking about design principles for effective industrial policy. So maybe it is the case that industrial policy works as long as it has been designed well. So Roderick has said something on that, even the World Bank has now began to also talk about it in some of the inclusive green growth publications and others. Justin Lin would say well as long as your industrial policy is in line with your comparative advantages, Latin comparative advantages it would be alright. So it is the area that matters. Some others might say it is actually also the design principles. But finally we have come to think about institutional setting for industrial policy making. So that actually we need to think about what are the effective principles for design and what lies behind that. So as long as you have got that right maybe then that setting can design good policies and that can help drive the economy forward. So that is the institutional setting question and then there are questions about the role of state business relations within this. I do that in fours, four or four issues. So there is a theoretical in the pinning. There are some principles behind benign state business relations which is more at the historical institutionalist level. And then there are issues about forms and practices of state business relations. And then I have some suggestions for next steps. First of all think through the economic functions of state business relations. And there has already been early literature on business associations that suggested a particular market functions or market complementing functions of business associations. There is a price signal but in addition if there is a market failure there is not enough information around or it is dispersed then a business association can help address this. And in the book that Kunal Senville has edited and will talk more about we have taken it a bit more formalised. And we have suggested well there are ways where state business relations could solve market failures and coordination failures and government failures. So they could for instance help to solve government failures by making government spending plans more relevant for private sector needs for instance and more appropriate quality. For instance how could effective state business relations have an impact on the budget process and how can they engage best. How can they engage best in the reform process? When do they have more an impact? And effective state business relations could help to reduce policy uncertainty so that you have a framework in talking to each other that you don't engage in knee-jerk policy decisions and reactions of either side as it becomes a bit more predictable. The literature on principles behind effective state business relations comes from the political scientist's corner and sort of people like Evans and Snyder and they talked about a number of principles, transparency, reciprocity, credibility and trust. So as long as these principles hold then there is a particular way in which state and business can talk to each other, can communicate, can become embedded and that can then lead to a particular way in moving the economy forward. Roderick mentioned in his paper on industrial policy three issues of industrial policy processes so there is policy design but also thinking about the processes behind it. He mentioned three issues, political leadership at the top, coordinating deliberating councils and mechanisms for transparency and accountability. So those three principles would need to be there for an effective process. So that's sort of on the high level stuff and those are sort of deep institutional ideas of transparency trust building. It's not something you can put in place like that. It comes in an economy, it takes a long time to foster this. But practices and forms, so state business relations come in many forms. They can be highly formal, they can be informal, they can be national, they can be sectorized, they can be ad hoc, they can be regular ways of talking to each other. They can be informed in terms of position papers in place or not and they have different functions and there are lots of different categorizations here. And there is an interesting question then to think through what sort of practices are useful. So if you think about principles behind, the deep principles behind state business relations on the one hand, but on the other hand maybe the practices also help. And there are a number of tools that have been developed over time that will bank, you will talk about it I hope, and ITC and others have thought about some practical tools and say well if you score high on this then you're more likely to have an effective state business relations which is more likely to have a positive impact on the reform process and lead to good policy including industrial policies. So two types of studies have looked at this and so the historical and institutionalist types of studies have looked at it from the political economy point of view. And so I just mentioned three examples here, sort of the Malawi in the case of Chincaupin Lethwych, Vietnam who Smith's done some work on that and Nartrath and Seekings also part of this IPPD project have looked at South Africa. And here they've looked not just at formalised ways of talking to each other, state business, but also looking at informal and what happens in the longer term. And particularly in the case of South Africa for instance there has been a long standing discussion between big business and government which happened already in the 80s and 90s. And that has been continued more recently and despite efforts to create other ways of discussing and other forms of public-private dialogue. But this has led to insights such as that trust matters, that informality matters as well as formal ways of discussions between the state and the business. And then there's sort of the more economic angle to the state business relations and I will talk more on that. But there we thought in more detail about maybe we can measure the principles behind effective state business relations and then if we can measure this maybe we can then say well if there's variation in this, if some countries or parts of the countries have done that more effectively and the principles hold and maybe they've been able to perform better. And there are different ways again to do look at this, you can look at it in terms of whole economy, you can look at it at the micro level, have small firms improve their performance if they are linked into networks, linked through membership of associations and so on. And there were also studies that looked at economic functions of state business relations such as affecting the budget process in Zumbia. And there's a process behind the budget process and there's a formal way, informal way, of course there will be lots of informal discussions between different types of business, different types of stakeholders and government. But there's also a formalised way through shepherding proposals for the budget process, for the budget through process and then you can sort of trace those proposals and see which ones have had the biggest impact and why. These literatures have had challenges, think about cause and effect, what has been the cause, what has been the effect, how can you measure this and what has been the policy implications of this. So if you think about a deep institutional structures of behind state business relations and if you agree that trust is very important then what do you do next on Monday morning is of course then a very difficult question. But both of these trends I think are very important and why are they important and I want to introduce one example and maybe Lili can talk more on that. But in the Cambodia case there's been a government private sector forum has been initialised and promoted an open dialogue between the government and the private sector and that has been very successful. At least the government of Cambodia itself will acknowledge that it has led to lots of savings for the private sector and we looked at this more recently in some work with Asian Development Bank and then there were questions about the sustainability of the public private dialogue and there are questions then about so you can maybe improve the practices of state business relations maybe in the short term and if you support it maybe through external support but for how long can you do it and on what circumstances does it become institutionalised if you help the practices does become institutionalised or on the other hand do you need to think through first are the institutions right are the basic principles right and can you then support it. So what are the next steps and I think that's my last slide John then we can hand over to Kunal and Lili for more discussion on each of these trends. I think in terms of next steps we need to think about sort of scaling up we know already a lot about industrial policy we know we've suggested that institutional settings and state business relations are in principle or in theory important for effective policy making but we don't know that much yet about what works where and how and we have got a number of case studies but it's still dispersed and therefore I suggest two strengths to think forward. First is to think about these core principles and do historical institutions types of analysis and do systematic analysis on the characteristics of effective state business relations across case studies and particularly in low income countries. So we know a bit more about maybe the Asian context less about Africa context where there is still distrust among state and business in some quarters. But secondly I think it's also helpful to to think through the model practice of state business relations and do more more detailed econometric studies there and we could even go to the completely to the cold standard of so-called standard of impact of elevation. Maybe even do RCTs you can say well there might be some provinces that conduct state business relations in some way maybe the case of Vietnam. And maybe you can support certain forms of dialogue between the state and the business through technical assistance in the form of position papers or provide the training for state business relations or better ICT forms. And maybe that will then help you to evaluate and say well you do some and others and that's of course one way you could do but there are lots of other ways through which you can do it and you can need to bring them together as well. So let's now move on to the other presentations. I've given you sort of an introduction into why I think industrial policy is important but particularly thinking through it's important to think about the processes behind industrial policy and within this context we need to think much more about what type of state business relations work best.