 My paper is on the comparative analysis of the trade-off between the dimensions of poverty, the case of seven Western African countries. This is a working paper. Usually we have authors that use a unidimensional poverty indices, but with time many authors have found that poverty is multidimensional, so you better use multidimensional indices. But those who have been using multidimensional indices, they have not allowed for trade-off between deprived and non-deprived attributes of poverty. So this is the contribution of this paper where we are allowing for a trade-off between deprived and non-deprived attributes of poverty. So if we look at the poverty profile of the seven African countries which are on the study here, so we have the seven African countries, they don't appear because of, I think, the problem with the, maybe, formal spacing. So we have seven countries, the seven countries are Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone. So these are the seven countries that should have appeared here. So if we look, you can have a copy of the paper which is uploaded on the UN, UYDES website. So if you look at the indices, at the HDI indices for the countries, you will see that the worst-off, which is not appearing here, but the worst-off country is Mali and the best is Ghana in terms of all indices if you can have a look. So this is what is being published and if we look at the multidimensional poverty indices which are provided by OFRI, so these, again, Ghana is better off compared to the six other countries that we have in the data set. Now usually we have different approaches to measuring poverty. You have the monetary, social exclusion or the rest which are mentioned here, but one of them is the actionmatic approach to poverty which was proposed by SEN. That is, poverty measures should not be ad hoc. They should be based on certain action. So there are certain actions that need to be satisfied. If you look at the common poverty indices that we have, which is the Headcount Index or the Poverty Gap Index, they do satisfy the focus action but not the other action that we have. And the focus action says that if the attribute of the non-poor is increasing, it should not affect the poverty at any moment and at the same time, if your non-deprived attribute is increasing as a poor, it will not affect you. That is, poverty should not respond to any change in non-deprived attributes. So it does not allow for trade-off between deprived and non-deprived attributes of poverty. So the methodology that has been used in this paper is we have followed the work by Permanent in which he did in 2010 where he has allowed for the trade-off between deprived and non-deprived attributes of poverty. And if we use, there are different dimensions of poverty, but if we look at the main dimensions as given by these authors, so Education, Health and Standard of Living. But given this is a working paper, I have just looked at health for the time being. So the dimensions that we were comparing is that if there is inadequate height for age and there is inadequate weight for height, if these two can compensate for the other. And the other one that we have also included is the level of hemoglobin concentration. So all these information are available from demographic and health surveys. So when we see the results that we have here, without any trade-off, if we don't allow for trade-off among these dimensions of poverty, you will see that Ghana is ranked first, second is Kodivo and you have the ranking here. If we allow for trade-off between the first two that is stunting and wasting, then you will see that Ghana is still first, but then there is a change in ranking of the other countries. And if we allow further ranking among the three that is stunting, wasting and level of hemoglobin, then you will see again the ranking changes except for Ghana. What this shows to you is that Ghana is an outlier. So it does not matter whether you are allowing for trade-off, yes or not, because it is an outlier in that group. But if you are looking at other countries which are more or less similar, then the ranking changes based on whether you allow for trade-off between deprived and non-deprived attributes of poverty. We are saying that if you have a very high level of attainment in non-deprived attributes, it means that you are out of poverty. No, we are not saying that. But at least to some extent it compensates for those attributes where you are deprived. So this is the result that we have got here. So your suggestion, question, feedback is most welcome to further improve this as this is a working paper. Thank you very much.