 I will start giving you some details on the data we use and some relevant definitions. In our study we use mainly two data sources. First we work with microdata from SEDALAC for 16 Latin American countries from approximately the year 2000 to 2012 or 13, depending on the data that was available when we started with the project. That means that we have been working with more than 150 household services that cover more than 5 million households and 18 million people. The great advantage of this data set is that the household services are processed using the same methodology and that allows us to construct indicators and make cross-country comparisons. Second, we use also some macroeconomic data at the country level. Coming now to the labor market indicators, throughout the study we use 16 labor market indicators. We separate them in two big categories. We have the employment and earnings indicators and the poverty and inequality indicators. So we have, first the unemployment rate, then a big group of indicators related to the job mix. They are we differentiate between the job mix by occupations, by employment position, by the economic sector, by the educational level of the workers, and by whether the workers are registered with the social security system or not. Then we have the monthly labor earnings in real terms, the extreme and moderate poverty rate measured by the international lines, the shini coefficient of the household per capita income, and of labor earnings. What we do is for these 16 labor market indicators and for each of the 16 Latin American countries, we calculate the change from the initial to the final year of the period under study. We assign to each of the labor market indicators and evaluation criteria to decide whether the change was in the welfare improving direction or in the welfare reducing direction. So for instance, we will say that the unemployment rate moved in the welfare improving direction if it fell over the period and the difference was statistically significant at the 5% level. And then as a way to summarize all the information of this large number of indicators, we construct an index that we call C and is defined as the percentage of labor market indicators that moved in the welfare improving direction in each of the countries, considering only the differences that were significant in statistical terms. So throughout the presentation, we'll be analyzing changes in the labor market conditions. Sometimes we will use the summary index C as the dependent variable. And other times we will use the change in each particular labor market indicator. Now we move to the interesting part, to the changes in the labor market indicators and the economic growth rate in Latin America during the 2000s. So the first question we have in our study was a very simple one, from beginning to end, how GDP per capita and labor market indicators change. And what our evidence indicates is that for the average of the region, GDP per capita increased and all labor market indicators moved in the welfare improving direction. And when we perform the analysis country by country, what we found is that in each of the countries GDP per capita grew and most of the labor market indicators improved in all of the countries except for one. And next I will show you some supporting evidence for some of these findings. What we have here is the ranking of the annualized GDP per capita growth rate for each of the 16 countries. What we can see very easily is that GDP per capita increased in all of the countries. Then we have a group of countries that had a very large growth rate by Latin American standards. Those countries were Panama and Peru. Then at the other end of the scale, we have a group of countries that experienced comparatively low GDP growth rates. Those countries were Mexico, El Salvador and Venezuela. And if we calculate the average for these 16 countries, what we have is that the region grew at almost 3% a year. And that rate is well above the average for the OECD region and the growth rate of the United States. Now what happened with the labor market indicators? What we have in this figure is the summary indicator C. That is the percentage of labor market indicators moving in the welfare improving direction for each of the countries. What we can see here is that for all of the countries, but one, there was an improvement of at least 63% of the labor market indicators. The only exception here is Honduras that improved only 19%. And if we move this threshold a little bit to the right, what we can see is that for all of the countries, but three, there was an improvement of 75% of the indicators or more. The exceptions now besides Honduras are the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. And we can also see here that we have three countries that improved all the 16 indicators during the 2000s. Those countries are Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. So what this evidence is showing us is a very successful story for the Latin American countries during the 2000s. And now drawing on two of the 16 country papers that Gary mentioned at the beginning, we prepare a comparison of the GDP changes and changes in the labor market indicators for two of the most successful countries. Those countries were Bolivia that improved all the 16 indicators and Panama that improved 15 of the 16. So these countries were similar in terms of improving the labor market conditions and reducing poverty, but were different in their growth experience. Panama had the largest GDP per capita growth rate in our sample of 16 countries and based its growth on the provision of services to the rest of the world. And Bolivia had a growth rate that was closer to the average of the region. Bolivia only grew 2.2% a year and based its growth on the hydrocarbons and mineral exports. What you can see here is the growth experience of Bolivia. The GDP per capita increased 30% between 2000 and 2012. The growth was very low at the beginning of the 2000s and starting in 2003, the economic activity recovered led by the hydrocarbons and mineral exports. That was related to the increasing commodity prices and also to increases in the volume of exports because of some large investments in this sector. And during this period in Bolivia, there were also a new hydrocarbon law that was passed and that determined an increase in the royalty that is paid on the production of hydrocarbons and that means a large increase of fiscal revenues for the government. And the country was also benefited by a big reduction in the public external debt. And during the international crisis of 2008, there was a reduction in the commodity prices that obviously determined a reduction in the incomes from exports, a reduction in fiscal revenues and in the economic activity. But Bolivia was one of the few countries in our sample that continue having positive growth rates during the episode of the crisis. And that was related with the savings of a large portion of the revenues from hydrocarbon exports during the boom. And in the next year, as the reduction in commodity prices was only temporary, Bolivia recovered the previous high growth rates. And here we have a selection of some labor market indicators for Bolivia. We can see that there was a reduction in the unemployment rate with a mild and temporary increase during the international crisis, a reduction in the share of self-employed workers. That is very remarkable in Bolivia. That is the only country in our sample that started the 2000s with a larger share of self-employed workers compared to the share of paid employees. There was an increase in mille-level earnings that was not affected by the international crisis and a huge reduction in the moderate poverty rate that fell in half during the period. And now we have the evidence for Panama. The GDP per capita in Panama increased 82%. At the beginning of the 2000s, the growth was also slow. And starting in 2003, Panama experienced a real boom of the economy that was related to the provision of services to the rest of the world, like the Panama Canal, the International Banking Center, the transport sector and the construction sector. During the crisis, the GDP growth rate slowed down, but Panama was also a country that continued having positive growth rates. And in the following year, the country managed to recover the previous high growth rates because of some public infrastructure projects as the expansion of the Panama Canal. So the main conclusion from this... Sorry, we have here the indicators, the selection of indicators for Panama. We can see here that the unemployment rate has a big reduction over the period with an increase during the crisis and a posterior decline. The share of higher earnings sectors increased, and that was related with the role of the services sectors in the growth process of the country. Mi labor earnings also increased and the moderate poverty rate fell in half. So the main conclusion from this comparison between Bolivia and Panama is that these two countries were similarly successful in improving the labor market conditions and reducing poverty, despite having very different growth experience. So at this point, our hypothesis is that the GDP per capita growth rate was not the only factor able to explain the improvements in the labor market conditions, and it has to be something else. And that is what we have studied in our project, and we are going to show you now in the following slides.