 Gwlad y ddwylog, ydych chi'n gwybod i ymddangosol i chi'n ddweud? Mae'n fawr i'ch gwaith i'r awgust yma i ddweud o'r ffordd trafod. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio o'r ffordd o'r ffordd arall, ac yn Rhunolololfany, yr samar yw eu lleidio, gallwn i chi i ddim yn ymddangosol o'r ddweud o'r ddechrau. Felly bydd i mi arwag ei ddweud o'r rhamnod oherwydd. O wneid yw'r ddweud? Well, look, to express to some extent a personal view, but I do believe it's an organizational view and the view of the co-authors of the Global Innovation Index. Innovation is a very fundamental phenomenon which is responsible for a large number of social and economic benefits. We're very focused on the economic side, but let's not forget the constant process of improvement that humanity has undergone as a consequence largely of doing things in a different way, in a new way, and as consequence really of innovation. In the current environment, innovation assumes particular significance because of its potential to open up new avenues of economic growth. So, since the globally financial crisis, we're all aware that the world economy has underperformed. And in the search for ways in which that performance can be improved, one rather obvious element that requires, I think, high-level policy attention is innovation. Because the causal connection between innovation and economic growth has now been a matter of rather standard economic theory for decades. So we see that it is particularly important to renew the emphasis on innovation in the current environment. What does the Global Innovation Index do? And what's its contribution here? Because innovation is a very complex phenomenon, of course. Well, its contribution is to provide a ranking and a benchmarking via some 82, 84 indicators of the innovation capacity and performance of countries around the world. And we feel that this benchmarking of innovation capacity and performance is extremely important for policymakers in assessing their own countries' performance in, as I said, this very complex area where a large number of factors have to come together in order to create a successful innovation ecosystem. So it is the consideration, overall consideration of all of these factors, which is, I think, what makes the innovation ecosystem in the end. We do have each year a particular theme that the analytical studies associated with the index focus on this year is winning through innovation or international collaboration. In respect of innovation. And that is particularly important, of course, because there are significant benefits that do flow from international collaboration in innovation. Very often it is considered that this is a zero sum competitive game innovation, but the analytical studies that accompany the index this year indicate that there are benefits for everyone and it's very much a win-win situation with international collaboration in innovation. And that is a phenomenon that is occurring more frequently these days. As to individual performances, well, you're all familiar with the overall ranking that was achieved by various countries. Switzerland again coming out on top and Bruno will take you through the details of that. Let me point to the performance of China since it in coming in at number 25 in the rankings is now joining the upper middle income and upper income group of countries. That have traditionally dominated the top slots in the innovation, the global innovation index. And that, of course, is in keeping with all of the things that we have, all of the developments that we have seen in China in recent years, including the current great enormous emphasis on innovation as a major component in the transition of the Chinese economy from made in China to created in China. Each year the methodology used for the global innovation index is improved. We work on that amongst the partners and the editors. And to some extent, performances from one year to another, too much emphasis should not be placed on them. It's longer term trends that are important. Nevertheless, with that qualification in mind, this performance on the part of China is interesting. Also interesting if I may single out one other large economy is the performance of India, which has improved some 15 places to number 66 from number 81, I think, last year. So that's another interesting transition. So with that, let me just take the opportunity, if I may, to thank the editors of the global innovation index, Bruno Lanvin, who is present here, Sumitra Dutra, and Sasha Vons Vincent, my colleague who is seated over here. To thank our partners in this exercise, not only INSEAD and the Cornell University Business School, but all of our knowledge partners, whose input is highly appreciated. Thank you very much, and I will pass the floor to Bruno. Thank you, Francis. Just to maximise the time for questions and answers, I also shall try to be very, very brief and just stress a few points about this year's edition of the Global Innovation Index, the ninth edition. As the director general just mentioned, we look at a world where growth is slow and remains uneven, and it is likely to remain slow growth for a number of years. This is typically a context in which public expenses on research and development, and to a large extent private investment, are threatened because of competing claims, because of differences in the views, and one of the lessons we learned from previous editions of GII is that innovation is an area in which stop and go policies can be very damaging. If investment slows down from one year to the next, the benefits accrued from previous years might be erased very quickly. This is a message which is particularly important for a continent like Africa, where we had very good signs of innovation picking up last year, and we see a number of countries indeed improving significantly. And because Africa remains a continent of many challenges, it is our hope that these efforts will not be erased in the next few years, and that will depend to a large extent on national government policies. The importance that Francis Garry just stressed about innovation as a source for growth is critically important at this point in time. To simplify things, one could say that we live in a world where emerging countries need to invent their future, and mature economies need to reinvent their models. Innovation in both cases is critically important. The main challenges of mass unemployment, especially for younger people, and other types of challenges cannot be faced in the absence of an engine, and innovation is one of the possible engines here. Regarding the theme of this year, winning with global innovation, we have stressed in previous editions that innovation is indeed becoming global in at least two ways. On one hand, cross-border cooperation is increasingly important in generating innovation. Those countries who have had open policies of cooperation have proved more successful at innovation in general. A second way of looking at the globalization of innovation is to see that an increasing number of contenders are entering the field of global competition. Signals that the one that the director general just mentioned of China breaking in the top 25 is just the harbinger of more to come. The significant progress made by India plus 15 is indeed a sign that we are going to see more from emerging countries in the field of innovation in the years to come, and that's part of globalization. Each region has its champions, so you all have in front of you the rankings for this year. Switzerland being there for the sixth year in a row, quite remarkable, and then we have Sweden, the UK, US, Finland, Singapore. So there's relatively little change in that group. Basically, all the countries we find in the top 10 were already in the top 10 last year. Yet there are switches, and as mentioned before, there are very interesting things happening in the middle of the rankings, especially if we look at emerging and middle-income countries. In Africa, for instance, we have Mauritius, South Africa, Kenya, topping the rankings. In Latin America and the Caribbean we have Chile, we have Costa Rica, we have Mexico. Each of those countries have its own lessons, its own indicators of what can be successful in innovating in different ways, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector. One of the key messages that was already highlighted last year is that quality matters. There are different ways to innovate. What we see is that in the sub-indicator we use to define quality of innovation, which includes the quality of top universities, publications, etc. We see countries like China, like Brazil, like India making significant progress. So on that front as well, which is not purely quantitative, we see reasons for hope and reduction of a divide that is still very much there. One important message that emerged, and I will stop there for the time being for this year, from this year's report, is that there is a need to reinforce global governance regarding innovation. There has been attempts made by scientific advisors, chief scientists of various governments to work together. We have examples showing that international and intergovernmental corporations in their research works and CERN, who is represented here by Giovanni Anelli, is a critical example that we have just at hand here in Geneva. So we have examples where this cooperation works, and the report is a call for more of this. Indeed, looking at some of the major challenges, whether they have to do with genomics, with robotisation, with space exploration, with the private sector coming in, there are important innovation components which call for more governance. Because if we don't anticipate what the regulatory challenges will be in the future, they may be more difficult to solve. And the chapters, including this year's report, deal with that in more depth. So this is what I thought might be useful to highlight from this year's report, and we stand ready for your questions. Yes, please. Hello, my name is Ben Simon. I work for the AFP news agency. Is there a way you could summarise in lay terms the methodology that we're using here? What makes one country more innovative than the other? What are the key areas you're looking at? Yes, in very brief terms, this is a composite index. 82 variables this year distributed in six pillars. One side is what we call the input, the other side the output, and basically the input describes the efforts made by various countries. This is how much effort, resources, money they're investing in education, in infrastructure, in R&D spending. On the output side, we look more at what is their success in terms of creative output, in particular in terms of number of patents, licenses they are issuing, and we put all that together. And this is an unweighted index. That is the choice from a methodological point which is made is how many variables we include to describe a particular aspect of innovation. It is a deliberate choice. It was not the only choice that was made ten years ago when the index started, but it proved very robust. It has offered a sound basis for what we think is the main objective of this report, which is not to rank countries, is to provide a policy tool. It provides a basis for which you can improve your innovation performance and guiding you through which steps can be taken to improve it. I mean this kind of topics could trigger millions of questions. I am going now just to stick to one which unfortunately I can only start with mentioning quoting the text in French since I have a French version. The United States of America is dying of one of the most innovative nations. They are getting less and less good results concerning education expenses, higher education, etc. For education university, or we could interpret it in challenging that there is any relation between the spending for prestigious universities and the actual technological dynamism. And I don't know if you have a clue to choose between these two interpretations, but I think that classical economic theory which Director General seems to know quite well has never been able to address this. Between the two explanations, I would definitely choose the first. The coming from an academic institution, and it's a pity that Sumitra Duta cannot be with us because he is the dean of a major US university, so he would have an even stronger point of view on that. But let me not speak on behalf of Sumitra, but on my own behalf. The correlation between education and innovation doesn't need to be proved. It's not just the case of the US. If you look at the top ten in this ranking, you will see that all these countries have indeed a strong university base. Switzerland with the Ecole Polytechnique and other institutions and famous universities is clearly in that category. Regarding the degree of causality, that is, is the US doomed because they are not investing enough in education, I would not go as far as stating it that way. But one could say, if that performance is to be kept in the future, indeed looking at what's happening in the university and research system is important. Keeping in mind that it's not just the quality of the institutions themselves, it's also the ability to attract foreign talents. One of the major strengths of major US universities, and it would go for UK universities and others, is not just the ability to train and create local talent, is the ability to attract foreign brains and create some diversity and mix of these talents. This is a path that China has been taking already a number of years ago. China used to be a country where the brightest people actually went to get a training outside. It has now become a country in which the number of foreign students coming into China is bigger than the number of Chinese students studying abroad. So this ability to attract brains and mix them together is a critical component. It has been part of the success of the US and if everybody is aware of that, I have no doubt that additional efforts are going to be made to maintain it. If I am not taking the speaking time of anyone else, first as a reaction to what you said, yes you are right that the main purpose of ranking should not be the main purpose and how relevant and robust our indicators should be the real core of the issue. But I am going to ask a question on two countries which might raise more questions than provide answers. Why is the UK the most messy country in the European Union outperforming Germany, outperforming France, outperforming countries which in a way could be as, I mean, performing and has intellectual and technical traditions which are well worth. There is here a singularity which probably is significant and which would be worth analysing. When concerning regions like Asia, we are not too surprised to see Israel and Cyprus outperforming Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. Does it make much sense even to rank countries in this region this way between states which are nearly virtual cities like UAR and countries which have huge, massive, basic problems to fix. OK, regarding the UK singularity, nobody more the French would agree that the UK is very singular. Indeed, it has been the subject of many research and studies to see what makes the differences between various European countries who very much share a common history, largely a common culture, same traditions in education, etc. What makes the difference? And this is typically the type of areas in which a GI can try to help. If, for instance, we look at the UK performance, we see that the UK is actually rarely number one in any of the variables. But they have a very steady performance. There is a large majority of indicators where they typically rank between 1 and 10. So there is this idea of a very balanced performance, whatever the pillar you look at into innovation, which is also a particularity of Switzerland. Switzerland has a very even performance across all the pillars. As opposed to countries like France, for instance, who have some very bright results in some areas and some less spectacular results in other areas. So there is less in spite of more centralized planning in France. That would be debatable. There is indeed this tradition of centralization, especially even when it comes to granting credits, etc. Which has been actually diminishing during the last few years. We have seen largely for reasons that we need not get into here today. But the change in the fiscal regimes where the national taxes have been reduced and the local taxes have been increased. Particularly this has led also to less centralization in some of the ways in which innovation has been funded. But beyond that, it has not necessarily proved to an advantage to have more centralized ways of dealing with innovation. The example of the US, for instance, is one in which clusters have been maturing more than federal policies. In spite of that, large programs, DARPA, etc., I think of the way the internet was created, has undoubtedly helped. But there is no clearly well-made message that would say centralization is better or decentralization is better. It should, as Francis just whispered, it should. Now, if we look at the way in which Europe as a whole has been looking, has been trying to stimulate innovation. It has been a combination of successes and failures. Successes have included the Eureka program, for instance, by which countries were almost forced to cooperate. This is where we get to the theme of this year's report saying there is a pot of money here. These are European subsidies. To have a chance to get them, you need to present a project that includes at least three countries from the Union. That was a way to force cooperation. This has been successful. The area where success has been less, we can think of failure, has been to try and finance clusters through European funding. Because Europe has been torn between two tendencies. One, it was to say, oh, if Slovenia, I'm taking one country at random, Slovenia has one cluster financed by EU funding, my country, which is six or seven times the size of Slovenia, should have six or seven. The other tendency was to say we need to have an even policy and try to make sure that every country in the Union has a chance to foster innovation. This has proved the dead end. A number of clusters have been financed with very little results. Those who are already successful have become sometimes more successful but with no discriminant effect from EU funding. This issue of centralisation versus decentralisation is definitely a murky one. Regarding the other aspects of your question very quickly, comparing countries of different size is always a challenge in this kind of indices. Clearly Singapore is a city-state. How can you compare Singapore to China? We don't compare Singapore and China. We give indicators that happen to be the same ones. Clearly dimensions come into play when we try to infer from indicators such as those in GII what could be the policy recommendations that would matter for innovation. May I just add one or two words to what Bruno said? It's a very interesting question if I may say that you asked because of course the popular view of the last 50 years was that the United Kingdom was quite good at basic research but not so good at applied the application of it. Here is a result which indicates that that popular view is no longer perhaps correct. I would say one other, in addition to the considerations mentioned by Bruno, one other thing to consider is the high level political attention paid to innovation as a policy. Now I think it's true of all European countries that you get that to a certain extent but it's very explicit in the case of the United Kingdom. So they do have a minister for example, they're the only country which has in Europe, which has a minister for intellectual property. That was a deliberate policy choice. They have taken a range of initiatives such as emulating the German Fraunhofer experience by putting in place the catapult network. So they've been very actively engaged I think in trying to promote innovation. Of course they have very high performing universities or certain high performing universities and a factor that Bruno mentioned earlier of attracting foreigners to the university is particularly high. I read a survey that was published last week where it was giving the analysis that about 20% of foreign students in the world are going towards the United States of America and about 10% of the United Kingdom as a second ranking. So there is an attraction and of course language can be an advantage in this regard as well. So I think there are a number of factors that do suggest that at the moment the policy settings also are making a contribution to this performance. There was a question in the back. I'm having a hard time trying to interpret this to a general audience about trying to make them understand what which country is higher than the other. Just to make an actual example if you could tell me a little bit about Japan. Now Japan is ranked the highest in the innovation quality but it's 16th. Could you tell us a little bit about Japan why it's 16th whereas it has the most highest innovation quality. Indeed Japan is an interesting example with a high ranking that is 16 is a high ranking. Indeed it's one of the countries in which we have relatively slight discrepancies compared to other countries between the input side and the output side. That is on both sides we have typically rankings which are never above 35 or 36. This is also an indication of a mature economy where the input side and the output side have been developed with equal degrees of attention. Yet Japan remains a country where further improvements of performance could be achieved in the output side. If we look in particular at the creative output there are still areas in which the export of services has not been as high as other exports from Japan. This can be explained in different ways. For instance in the areas of mobile telephony or services related to the internet the presence of a strong and very active domestic market. The docomo syndrome etc can explain that operators have been actually satisfied with developing internally and therefore there was no pressing need to exports as we would find in a smaller economy. This could be an explanation but clearly Japan ranks among those countries who have a very long tradition of higher education. This translates of course in the performance of the country's own industry and research areas. If we look at the traditional sources of competitiveness of Japan there are very much engineer centric sectors. Whether we look at electronics, whether we look at the automobile industry etc. These are sectors which are in a deep phase of recreating themselves. If we look for instance at the automobile industry looking at new sources of power, self driven cars etc. is an area in which two main components of innovation will need to be reinforced. One is the software part. To a large extent the education system needs to allow the graduates to move away from traditional engineering into more software based areas. The other one which should not be underestimated is that if we look at the greater success among companies worldwide innovation has been less and less technology based and more and more business model based. Examples are Uber and other companies and there is a clear chance that all these sectors I mentioned before whether they have to do with electronics, with the car industry would be influenced by the change in business models. So I expect that when Japan gets up to speed in those areas it will be also reflected on the output side. If my understanding is correct, the definition of innovation here is about the level of impact that directly connects to the world economy in a sense. Is it like a technology? This comes from a question from the Japanese mindset that innovation tends to sound like technology itself. So you are actually saying that the definition of innovation in your report is more so like driven from the economic standpoint. Whereas is this certain country a country that is highly efficient in innovation to put capital in. If you get what I mean, is it more like if you see Switzerland and if you see the difference of the United States you would rather pour into Switzerland because you would rather get high I would say return out of it rather than the United States. So I am just trying to make this simple in a sense. This is from an economics point of view, this is a fascinating discussion, it probably takes us too far. So let me just flag three pointers here and I would be very happy to pursue the conversation offline. Number one, the definition of innovation we use is what we call the OSTO definition, the OECD definition that looks at innovation from whatever creates something that had not existed before, which can be either fundamental or incremental. Second, as mentioned before, the GII tries to be a holistic index. So it includes both on the input side in particular things which have absolutely nothing to do with the output. On that side we don't look whether it's successful or not. We look how much money is being spent, how many people are employed, what kind of efforts are developed in the area of innovation. And the third pointer is that indeed looking at the impact is what we should all be striving for. And this is the most difficult part of any index. And it's not just the impact on the national economy, it's the global impact that it has which may have return effects on the national economy. We are not there yet and I don't think that when we look at the 29th or 39th edition of the report we will be there yet. But as Francis Garry mentioned, every year we try to improve on the methodology. And the closer we get to actually estimating impact the better it will be. But it will be a continuing effort. Any more questions? Reuters. Stephanie, I know that Reuters, could you elaborate a little bit on China's sort of having entered this top 25. What it has to do to sort of stay in that category. In addition to attracting bright, foreign brains, what sort of investments does it need to make to maintain that level? Yes, it is symbolic that China this year enters the top 25. Every year we keep repeating that year to year comparison can be delicate. If next year China is 27 we should not starting all China is collapsing, innovation is disappearing. These are very little differences. Breaking into the top 25 is symbolically important. And as I mentioned before it is probably a harbinger for more of the same to come. And we are going to see a number of spectacular things from China, no doubt. We are going to see also other emerging countries emulating China and improving efficient innovators. There are currently a number of concerns about China. How much of a slowdown are going to see in growth. The IMF just issued a warning about China's debt. So there's a number of question mark which are typically there in a fast growing economy of the size of China. So it's not, there are no surprises. But as has been the subject of many debates inside China itself, debate about growth between rural and urban areas, inequalities, the emergence of middle class, turning to smaller to bigger family cells in size, all these pose great challenges. And I'm not saying that innovation is the panacea or the universal answer to all of that, but it's clearly part of the mechanism that is in many of these areas, China will be facing issues that other countries have been facing in the past, but never with the size of the population of China. So that will require innovative thinking. And again, as mentioned before, we're not just looking at technological innovation, we're looking at innovation as a mindset. So this performance of China, which is remarkable, is going to translate in other areas as well. Just if I may add one word to what Bruno has said, it's obviously extremely difficult to address in a few words such a complex phenomenon as an economy in a country the size of China. So that said, I would just emphasise that they are in the middle of a transition, which is an extremely ambitious transition. So if you like, just to use a banal example, on the back of the iPhone, but I still can't read it even if I've got my glasses on it, on I think it says, designed in California and designed in California and assembled in China. So the objective is really to reverse that, if you like, to have a much larger input of intellectual resources in the whole process of the production and distribution of economic goods and services. And that's a very, very complex transition. And it's a very, very complex strategy that is being implemented in China, which is extremely comprehensive and it covers all of the things that are measured by way of the indicators in this index. And what those indicators are showing is steady improvement, consistent steady improvement. And there's no reason to think that that will not continue on the contrary with the amount of resources that are being invested in research and development in education in looking for ways to improve the market performance of innovation. One would expect that the tendency will continue to be extremely positive and that it will continue to climb on the ladder. I think that would be on the basis of the past or yesterday being the best guide to tomorrow. That would be what I think we would expect to see. Just a footnote to that. There are many, you provoke me, Francis, but I'm going to say something I shouldn't say, but there are many clichés about innovation. And one of the most entrenched clichés I've heard for so many years is when a new idea comes up, the Americans turn it into a new business, the Chinese copy it, the Europeans regulate it. Guess which of these three clichés will be destroyed first? I have my own bets. I didn't say that. Look, I would add one other thing if I may. Until 1800, China was preeminent in science and technology. So, in a sense, it is not something new that we are experiencing. It is a renaissance rather than a naissance. Up until 1800, they had a preeminent position in science and technology, and many of the inventions that powered the European renaissance and the European rise came from China, such as, for example, printing, which enabled widespread literacy and, of course, was an extremely important factor in the European renaissance, or, such as, the compass, which enabled navigation and which was an extremely important instrument in the European conquest of the world, or such as gunpowder, which also was an extremely important instrument in the European conquest of the world. So, I think we also need to bear the historical context in mind when we talk about China as well. And just another footnote, China also invented bureaucracy, but France perfected it. There are no more? One more? Jamio, from Tsinghua. Compared to the first edition of this report maybe nine years ago, so which specific area China achieved the biggest progress? It came here to nine years ago, the first edition, and the chair is China the biggest progress. I don't have the time series in front of me, but I'm ready to summarise it in the following way. We've seen progress in all areas. Of course, a quite spectacular one, but Waipo would know better than I do about it, is the number of patterns and licenses issued from China. But if we looked at what I mentioned before, the quality of innovation that we see in education, in publications, et cetera, progress also have been spectacular. My name is Serge Safaron. I write for Neza Visimaya newspaper in Moscow. It's a general newspaper and my questions, two questions will be far from being technical. Question number one relates to economic profiles. Statistics, GDP and GDP per capita in a footnote is a source of data given reports, prospects of population and estimates. Are they really estimates or how reliable and comparable they are? My second question relates to the future of this report. It's draft has been discussed within secretariat and also within expert groups outside the secretariat. Will it be discussed by member countries when will member countries have an opportunity, a chance to question some conclusions or to make some additions? Sorry, I just started in this area. So let me answer the second one first. It's a scientific index, so it's not subject of a political process. It is a scientific index that is prepared with the approval for the process of our member states. We have been involved in this for a number of years now and there has never ever been any complaint on the part of the member states. On the contrary, they find it to be an extremely useful tool. But the scientific element of it will remain predominant and that is exceptionally important for the credibility and acceptability of the index. So I think that our member states look with great interest at the index. They use it as a resource but they don't seek to influence, of course, the development or the findings of the index. Now, as far as the specific questions about two indicators are concerned, maybe Bruno or Sasha could make a comment on that. Yes, I would like to address the GDP and population issues because they are very much linked to recognise sources and reflect the methodology. But I want to echo what Francis Garrett just said because it's critically important for what this document is about. I like the objective scientific. Some others would use academic. It boils down to the same. This is an exploration. We try to understand better. We try to explore. The document, the report does not draw conclusions saying this is the way you should do innovation. There is no recommendation of that time. It seems that those countries who have been more successful in the ways we define success have been doing ABCD. Draw your own conclusions. But we also try to understand what are the mechanics behind and what makes the difference between two countries who apparently follow the same policy and have achieved different results. So this notion of exploring, questioning, looking at the future as a range of possibilities rather than something predetermined is critically important for the philosophy of this document. Sasha, you want to address the GDP and population issues? Thank you, Bruno. I suggest I take this issue up bilaterally with the journalist. I think the point I want to mention is that we then take this index into the discussion within countries after the global launch. And one of the advisory board members of the GII is actually from Russia, Leonid Goghberg, and he will host such an event to discuss the different strengths and weaknesses of the country in question as well. My question relates to Russia or to any other country. Sure, sure. On this country, we have new statistics. GDP per capita and population, yes. And as a source on page 172, it's indicated that, first of all, population prospects is not for the last available data non-appropriate. And the second is the economic outlook is also not for the data that is available and it's not for the real ability or... Yeah, yeah. So in other words, if I may... ..and try to understand... ..for Ukraine, yes, data. Is it really for 2015? Yeah. Or can I compare data for Iran, maybe for the best possible case, 2014, to the data that you say? So do it for 2015? No, no, I understand perfectly your question. So Bruno, yeah. Yes. I did not understand your question. I understand it. It's about prospects and outlook. There may be misnomers. These are the choice made by the population division of the UN and the IMF. They call their regular publication outlook and prospects. The data, including those publications, are not prospective data. They reflect the past. So I think you raise an interesting point, which is that the title of the application is not an indicator of what actually the data is. But what here? What here, 2015, 2014, or in general, even for general publication? Yeah, no, this is an important point. So I can also answer it very quickly. Our philosophy, our methodology in the report, is to provide the latest available data. Latest available data depends on what the institution of origin is considered as available. For instance, if we use IMF data, these are data collected by IMF, checked with the governments of the relevant countries, and then published. At the point where it is published, it is the data we use. That's a background we share. Yes, please. Hi, Shin from CCTV, the National TV of China. My question is probably not totally related to this ranking, but rather related to the G20 summit that's going to be held in China, because one of the top priorities is about innovation. Actually, among the four eyes, if anybody heard any related information about this year's G20, it's innovation, invigoration, interconnectedness, and inclusiveness. Are we talking about the same innovation here? Thank you. Short answer, yes. What's the significance of this ranking for what G20 leaders are committed to do, to lift the world sluggish growth into a more stronger footing? Taking up Bruno's point, it is a resource. The G20 will presumably discuss what sort of policies it might be useful to collaborate on as the G20 in order to advance, in this case, in this eye, innovation. And this is, we believe at any rate, an important resource for consideration in the development of that political discussion about what policy orientations would be useful for the world. Can innovation really live up to the expectation of world leaders? Well, I think, yes, innovation can, personally I would say, innovation can live up to the expectation. But whether the right policy mix and implementation is going to achieve the sort of innovation that will actually deliver the results is a different question. So innovation can do it. Then it's up to countries to see if they can get their policies, settings and their ecosystem into a position in which they will deliver on the promise of innovation.