 Because economic development is a process of structural transformation, means that you need to have a continuous technological innovation, industrial operating, improvement in hot infrastructure, as you just referred to, and also sub-infrastructure as institutions. And in this process, you need to have the first movers. You need to compensate the externalities that first movers provide. And also you need to coordinate the improvement in hot infrastructure institution. And those kind of things cannot be internalized by the first movers themselves. And so the state needs to play an active role to enabling this process to occur seamlessly. Well, I think that if you have a good selection and implementation, the infrastructure project can be self-financing, self-degradation. Because it's an investment now. Certainly, you need to have fun to make those kind of investments. But the investment will increase productivity, generally return in the future. And those kind of return will be sufficient to pay back the investment now. I think the difference is that the structuralism wanted to support development of industries which against the countries compare advantages. And the structuralism advises countries to build up large scale model industries on the basis of poor agrarian economies. And for me, economic structure is important to the endowment structure. So that means that when you are poor, your competitive advantages will be in abundant labor or abundant natural resources. And then you try to develop labor-intensive industries or resources-intensive industries to utilize your abundant resources and to make you very competitive. And if you are very competitive, you accumulate the capital. And when you have a capital accumulation, then you are great to more capital-intensive industries. So it's a step-by-step, and it's more pragmatic and easier to implement. And also this kind of process will be more likely to make you very competitive. And so it's a process which can lead to the success of the economy instead of in the past. The structuralism had a very good intention, but the result in the endowment is very poor. I think there are several ways my positions are different. The first one was the cost of the financial crisis because in the common view, the global financial crisis was triggered by the global imbalances. And the global imbalances was the result of policy manipulations in the East Asian economies, including the export-oriented growth strategies and the intention for short insurance and also the undervalue of the Chinese currencies. And those were the common views. But again, those kind of views with the empirical evidence and I found none of them can be supported. And the reason from what I see was policy mistakes in the reserve currency country, namely the US. They had the financial deregulations in the 1980s and they had a very lose monetary policy after the dot-com crisis. And those kind of policies, you know, causing the dramatic increase in liquidity, supporting the halting bubble, equity bubble, and the Roskine bubble certainly had the worse effect. So household overconsume. And that was the reason for the trade deficit in the US. And this kind of deficit could be sustained for a long time only because US currency is the reserve currency. So I found the commonly accepted view just pointing the fingers to other countries. But in effect, the causes of the crisis is rooted in the reserve currency country. I think it's an attempt to improve the government function to support the structural transformation. Because as I mentioned, economic development is a process of continuous operating in industries. And for the government to facilitate the improvement in infrastructure in the institution and so on, but the government resources is limited. So the government needs to strategize the use of its limited resources to support the sectors which are consistent with their competitive advantages. And so the gross identification and facilitation provide a framework for the government to identify the sectors that are likely to help competitive advantages. And to diagnostic what kind of mining constraints those kind of sectors faces. And allow the government to use its resources effectively. I think there are some differences here. Certainly there's one commonality that is we all agree the government needs to play some kind of facilitation role. But the gross diagnostic advocated by Danny Rodgers is based on the surveys of the existing firms in the economy to find out the mining constraints. But that approach has two limitations. The first limitation is that some of the firms might be the result of the old import substitution strategies. They may be in the sector which the country does not have competitive advantages at all. And so certainly they are facing mining constraints. But that does not mean that even you remove those kind of mining constraints, they can be competitive in the international markets. That's one thing. And secondly, economic development is a process of continuous upgrading or diversifying to new industries. If you only survey the existing firm, you can never find those kind of new industries. So those are the mining constraints. But my gross identification and facilitation can address these two constraints in gross diagnostics. These Asian economies, including Japan, in the 19 post-war periods, they basically model after the U.S. economies. And because at that time U.S. economies was the most dynamic economy, and Japan's economy was about 40 percent of the pocket income in Japan at that time was about 40 percent of U.S. pocket income. So they look into the tradeable industry in the U.S., the mature tradeable industry in the U.S. as their industrial policy target. And then you can look into Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore in the 1960s, 70s. Basically, they used Japan as a reference country in design of their industrial policy. And then you look into China in the 1980s. They used the Fossilmar Dragons, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore as their reference economies for their industrial policy. So you can see all this successful country, basically, as you say, they follow this kind of approach intuitively. But I think that my gross identification and facilitation try to generalize their experiences into a framework every country can follow. Yes, I think it's important because China started a transition in the late 1970s with a structural electricity of the old policy region that was planning economy and with the intention to build up the capital-intensive gas-scale industries on the basis of a poor agrarian economy. So under that kind of situation, many, many state-owned firms, they are large, they were large, but they were not viable in open competitive markets. And China adopted a dual-track approach. On the one hand, continued to provide history support to the old sectors and to achieve stability. But on the other hand, liberalized the entry to new labor-intensive light manufacturing sectors and actively facilitated private sectors was domestic private firms and foreign direct investment to go to those kind of new sectors. And I think they were consistent with China's competitive advantages, so they were very dynamic. And that was the reason why. During the transition process, China could maintain stability and dynamic economic growth simultaneously. As I just explained, that was in the transition process to carry out the transition process pragmatically because you have a large group of non-viable firms there. If you do not provide support to them, they will go bankruptcy, causing huge unemployment, social instability, and political instability. With that, certainly you cannot have a dynamic transition process. So recognizing that, you continue to provide transitory protection to them. And then liberalize the entry to the new sectors, which were replaced in the past, but they are your competitive advantageous sectors. And so support the domestic firms or foreign firms to enter into those kind of sectors and to allow you to grow dynamically in the transition process. A middle-income trap is an observation in the post-war war two periods. Most middle-income countries actually failed to net out the gap with the high-income countries, for example, the US. And we call this kind of situation as a middle-income trap. But the reason for a country to have a middle-income trap is because a country is unable to have a very dynamic structure transformation in order to continuously improve their double productivity and income level faster than the high-income country. And as I said, the reason is because they are unable to have a dynamic structure transformation. And the reason why they could not have a dynamic structure transformation, I think one reason is that the government did not pay the necessary in-neighboring role to overcome the externality issue or coordination issue. That is innate in the structure transformation process. I think that China has the potential to maintain another 20 years or 8% growth. It is because China is still a middle-income country. For a middle-income country in the process of structure transformation or industrial upgrading technological innovation, China can still benefit from the technological gap with the high-income country. So technological innovation or industrial upgrading, China can still rely on the borrowing of technology and industry from the high-income country. And that kind of potential reduce the cost of innovation as well as the risk of innovation and that will allow a developing country like China to grow in a surface time faster than the high-income country. And especially, at this stage of China's development with its gap to the high-income country, it's very similar to Japan in the early 1950s, Singapore in the mid-1960s and Taiwan, Korea in the mid-1970s. And for those four East Asian economies, on the same technological industrial gap with the high-income country, they were able to maintain 20 years of 8% to 9% growth. Since they could realize 8% to 9% growth rate for 20 years, that means this advantage of backwater or the late-commerce advantages would allow China to have another 20 years of around 8% growth rate. Well, I think that it's not the forward, it's continuous growth. And certainly, if China can maintain that kind of growth, China will be a high-income country by the time of 20, 20, 30. And China will be the largest economy in the world. And the Chinese economy like to be double the size of the US economy by the time of 2030. It's a, you know, historical pattern. The successful country, they started with very intensive industries. And when they are successful, their wage rate will increase very rapidly. And so they will lose the competitive advantages in those kinds of mature, labor-intensive industries. So the relocation of those kinds of mature, labor-intensive industries to low-income countries is a necessity for their country to continue to upgrade to the higher-value-edited market-intensive sectors. And this relocation certainly will be going to, you know, areas with their low wages. And accordingly, we know African countries, they compare to other countries in other continents. In general, their wage rate is much lower. And so they have good opportunity to accept this kind of relocation of labor-intensive industries from China. But certainly their government need to play the facilitation role in order to create the necessary infrastructure and institution to, you know, to accommodate those kinds of labor-intensive industries to relocate to their country. And if they can do that, they can grow as dynamically as China and other East Asian titles. For example, Ethiopia. It has abundant supply. You know, educated young labor, their wage rate is only about one tensile channel wage rate. And they also have, you know, supply of lasers. So under this kind of situation, footwear industry should be their sector with competitive advantages. And as long as they can actively, you know, invite the footwear industry to relocate from China to Ethiopia, they can immediately turn that into a very competitive sector. And I advise the former Prime Minister Manas in March 2011 and discussed between this new opportunity for Ethiopia. But one thing is that you need to have, you know, firms which will be able to, you know, utilize their labor force and organize that into effective production and then produce goods with consistent quality and can deliver the goods according to the contract so they can reach market timely. And those kind of abilities certainly is the best way is to find the esteemed firm so I suggested him to do investment promotion in China and he followed that. He went to China in August 2011. He invited some firm to visit Arista Papa in October 2011 and one of the firm was convinced. So immediately recruit 86 workers. Send them back to China for training for three months and then started in January 2012 with two production lines 600 workers and by March 2012 they started to ship their designer shoes to the US market and by May the same year the firm became the largest exporters in the laser sectors in Ethiopia. And by the end of the year the firm, you know, employees from 600 to 2000, increased to 2000 and more than double the laser expo from Ethiopia to the global markets. And by the end of last year the firm expanded its employment to 4,000. So that was a quick success story and like, you know, the success we observed in other estates and economy during the occasion upstage and in Ethiopia and in that country could do that and in other African countries can also, you know, do that and in effect the firm produced such a demonstration effect before 2012 Ethiopia to some large extent and no one really believed African countries can be the manufacturing flow for the global markets but because of the success of the single firm Ethiopia government in 2013 last year set up a new industrial park and built 22 factory units 8 built and 14 on the plan but within 3 months all those 22 units were leased out to 22 firms in footwear and garment with expo you know, orientation So that means that to demonstrate the possibility in African countries I think that firm direct investment will come, firm buyer will come and then they can have a great dynamic growth pattern as we observe in estates and economies I think that's a cooperation because China and African countries are at a different stage of development so their competitive advantages are different and their economy are complementary to each other I think that wider can play a very important platform to exchange ideas in different parts of the world because we are in a globalized world country in different stage of development there are different challenges but experiences in other countries can always provide both inspiration and experiences to address the common challenges or to tap into the potential and to, you know, utilize each country's potential Well, I'm very delighted to see that because structural transformation was a topic people neglected for a long time and now we come to an understanding structural information and transformation is the nature of modern economic growth to make that happen is something intellectually challenging but I think that is one area that we can make the biggest contribution to property reduction sustainable growth in the developing world and I'm so delighted now why there is a leader in this global forum on this issue