 We have a few minutes now and I guess let's take just under 15 minutes for a few questions to kick off our discussions and we can continue talking about these issues over the reception and tomorrow as well. So let's start on the left here in the middle. There's a very systematic and also your presentation complementary with each other. I would like to ask, just to lean to elaborate more about the question that in the transitional economy there is no very functioned competitive market, then is government the first mover or does government give the first push for the structure adjustment? If so, when would be a turning point for government to withdraw because too strong government would prevent development of a very competitive market and how since if government too strong there would form interest group that they would not like to be withdraw and the second where's the position for your framework of the environment and the social policy for structure adjustment get out of middle income trap. Thank you. Your case is very clear that that endowment structure matters and the country seeking to catch up can't be that far away back and they should choose industries approximate to their endowments in some sense. In my case, I believe it's the only thing that may not connect it with the Kaname Akamatsu flying his model is that there's no regional investment trade synergies. But how would you say take an argument that actually comes from the perspective of Weblin and Gershengron. They make the point that the further the country is, the further the firms are from say the incumbent, the faster and quicker they will catch up and that's an argument that has lots of evidence to support. Samsung semiconductor may be a good example as one where there's an attempt to actually shortcut the process of catching up by acquiring firms the way Samsung went up and today it's the firm that shapes the memory market then say logic chips in Taiwan, Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing cooperation. This seems to take a different line of thinking though. I'm not saying this is the perspective to follow, but there's so many examples both from Korea and Taiwan. I'd just like to see your response. Thank you. Thank you. We have a question here from David Malone. Thank you. It's more of a comment but I'd be delighted to have a response because I'm usually wrong. One thing that it seems to me tends to proceed of the type of development that Justin was describing so eloquently. In countries that have experienced starvation or serious famine, usually trying to put the agriculture of the country in order is something that people in government really want to do. It's what they owe their country most probably. In India and perhaps in Deng Xiaoping's China, the first order of business was to try to make the country more self-sufficient in agriculture such that it could feed itself in extremity and then other things become possible if only because you have confidence that those basics are being met. Obviously in very small countries and countries that are desertified and so on, that's not possible. But in large countries, being able to feed the population is a pretty basic desire of most populations and most governments. It wasn't your topic but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Transformation that is closely related to structural transformation which is urbanization. Increasingly I think economists see urbanization which has a distinct feature from structural transformation on geography and space related and some people see it as an engine for growth because it encourages using increasing return to scale and reducing transaction costs. So I want to see Professor Lin's view about urbanization versus structural transformation. How do you see this? There is a question about when the government is too strong and how to withdraw from the market. And my position is that it may not be a good way to see the issue because in my framework the government needs to play some role, it's not to withdraw because if you want to have a dynamic economic growth, you need to have market and you also need to have a state to facilitate the structural transformation. And I think that you have the case of China in mind. The Chinese government seem to be very strong but I think it is a result of China adopted a dual-track approach to transition because China started with a planning economy with a huge sectors which when China's at comparative advantages. If China followed the Washington consensus to exit from the intervention, then the result will be something like Russia or Eastern European country. That is the collapse of the whole system, instability and so on. Then we could not have the economic growth. China adopted a dual-track approach. On the one hand, continue to provide necessary transitory protection and subsidy to all sectors and to maintain stability. But at the same time, proactively to facilitate, to entry to the new sectors which are consistent with China's comparative advantages and by that China could have a stability and dynamic economic growth. But certainly not China reaches a stage because many of the sectors which used to win again China's comparative advantages like a car like equipment but China now is a high-medium country and those sectors become China's comparative advantages and the subsidy and protection should be removed. Then under this kind of situation whether Chinese government has the ability to do that. It's because of the interest group there China won't be able to do that. For that I think any government has certain kind of discretionary power and if they are convinced removing all those kind of distortion or subsidy would be good. Then the government should have the ability to do that because if you look back 30 years ago there was vested entry group of there also like agriculture, like the community or even half industries at that time they also had a lot of vested interest group there. China's government was able to do that at that time and that means that the government is not necessarily a hostage, a vested interest group in a power capture. So I think that one very important condition for any country is how the government to use those kind of discretionary power to facilitate the growth of the new sectors and to remove the distortion in all sectors when it's ready. That's the first one. And the second one is regarding the Gersheng Krone in a position the further away from your technology or industrial frontier and it seems to be you can have a faster rate of catching up. And I think Gersheng Krone studies the late 19th century and early 20th century and certainly we found like in France and Germany were closer to Britain and then Hungary, Poland and Russia were far away from the Britain. And Gersheng Krone's position was that if you are far away from the frontier then the government need to have more interventions and to build up those kind of industries. Yes. And the results show that yes with the government's stronger intervention you were able to build up those kind of industry but the kind of industry still went against your advantages so they are not viable and they were not successful. So my position is somewhat revision from the Gersheng Krone position. You need to be modest. Just like in the late 19th century when Germany, France and the U.S. wanted to catch up the Britain, the government had some facilitation but the government did not have a strong intervention and they were successful. It's because following my principle their pocket income was not far away from U.K.'s pocket income because in the late 19th century the pocket income in Germany was about 60% of U.K.'s pocket income and France and also France is also about 60% but U.S. was already 75%. So with a little bit of intervention they were successful in catching up. But other like in Hungary or in Russia in Poland they were able to build up the industry but they were not competitive. So that is a change in my position. Then coming to the agriculture certainly we come into the low-income country. 75%, 80% of the population live on agriculture and also to support the development of agriculture we have the largest effect on poverty reduction. But you also need to have structural changes in agriculture in terms of technology, in terms of changing from subsistence of agriculture to in a market-oriented commercial agriculture for that the government to play the facilitation role both. But on the other hand only agriculture would not enough. If you wanted to have a sustained increase in the income then you need to have a structural transformation from agriculture to the industrial sectors and the government to play for facilitation role. So I agree should not forget agriculture but to support agriculture structural transformation in agriculture itself and the whole economy will be desirable. Then coming to urbanization. I think that in the process of economic development urbanization certainly should be one very important dimension of structural transformation because all the low-income countries started with agrarian economy, very widespread, very thin in urbanization. But when you move to the industrial sectors and the service sectors they all have much larger economic scale and they will concentrate in the cities. And so I would say urbanization should be treated as a spontaneous process of the structural transformation and in this structural transformation certainly the government should play some kind of facilitation role. However you cannot also use to promote the urbanization without the development in the industrial sector and so on. If you did that then the result will be a lot of unemployment and urban gaiters as we observe in Latin America and also to some extent also in African countries. So you should be considered as an organic process of the structural transformation. In this process certainly the government has some role to play. Well there's a Cameroonian proverb that says when you speak in public you should feel pity for those who are listening to you. Since there was no specific question directed to me I think we should just go have a glass of wine. Okay. Well thank you very much to our two speakers and our discussant. I know there are a number of other questions and comments in the audience and I invite all of you to continue the discussion over drinks and dinner starting at 6.30 in the where is it in the Lakeside Garden Terrace and Chime Bar which is downstairs. And so on that note let me close this session and thank you all for being here.