 Hello, hi, Nias from Monash University of Malaysia. So my question is directed to the first two speakers, and it's more on the measurement ground because you both have shared finding, which is that, you know, a high achievement in the field of education and how that is helping to improve outcome distribution, but not so much in terms of inequality of opportunities. But again, you know, so Jordan, for example, to highlight, these are countries that carry play with achievement, and it's very well established that all these countries perform at the bottom of the student outcomes, and that's really what matters today. So I wonder how you defend your, you know, assessment that these are countries that are educationally performing very well, and the second point again on measurement ground is that these are rentier states, where, therefore, measured income based on service is really not the right way to assess inequality, and I was wondering why you haven't considered, for example, absolute genie, because the relative income inequality instead of, you know, growing distance of absolute income gaps, right? So that, I think, would have been more reflective of the kind of inequality in this part of the world. And again, you know, I think Vladimir, for you, so where are you using gross income genie or net income genie again? Because this region has very poor transfer, restrictive policies, and again, we know about Nordic countries where, you know, high market income genie, but very low relatively when it is based on net income data. Thank you. Hi. My name is Maria Lobua, University of Bari. So first thanks both for the presentation, it's very, very interesting. My question is for Paul Maguisi. So in your frame, I really enjoyed the discussion and the model. If I understood correctly, in your framework, so the part that, you know, the part of inequality which is not fair is the one which is not attributed, attributable to effort. That's reproduced in a way in your framework. I was wondering, so the part which you call luck, which is basically not effort, not circumstances, but it can be also kind of intelligence or innate abilities. Of course, this component may not be fair source, but might be an efficient source of inequality. And second, it might be correlated with effort, right? So I was wondering whether you take this into account and how does, what are the implications in that? So in both presentations, we have opportunity, inequality of opportunity, which is the chance to go to school, opportunity of education, inequality of opportunity to get an education. So, but that is different from the opportunity that gave someone education, okay? So I'm wondering whether it seems to me that there's a difference between those two. So that's my first question. The second question has to do with how people react to inequality in society, in a community. Does inequality enter utility function, if I can use that term? If it does enter, does it enter as a entity or as a community? It looks like you have not understood me. I don't understand your question, so can you repeat it? Both of them, or both of them or one of them? The second one, the last part I just, I think you want me to answer it. Yeah, yeah. Just a little bit. Okay. I'm getting on. Okay. So inequality of opportunity, does it enter the utility function, does it enter the utility function of an individual? If it does enter, does it enter as a band or as a group? That's my question. Then the other question is, I noticed that you are using conditional quantiles, consistently rather than unconditional. I actually expected that you would use unconditional, but somehow you don't want that. The last question, I think the first presentation about the various inequalities, pollution inequality and so on, can all of this be aggregated into one, and I've understood your question. If they can be aggregated into one, is there a way of constructing that aggregate without having to go through the individual inequalities? Thank you very much. So first, thank you for really correcting some of the language I used during the presentation. It was not about income, it was consumption. And so because that's more reliable and more available across household surveys in developing countries, especially in the, and maybe especially in Arab region, your question about quality of education is very well taken. So I think, so my presentation was kind of a mosaic of the different forms of inequalities that we encounter and that we might worry about in the region, but it's not an exhaustive picture. And so quality of education is one where it's notoriously bad in the region, and that's not covered here because we just don't have data, and we don't have it across years, across countries in a reliable way. So this is really about just the years of education or achieving some attendance, attainment and so on, but not the learning outcomes. So I think we should introduce additional analysis of something like Peace Outims scores as one measure of learning outcomes. That's, should I go to other questions? Yeah. Okay. Then the next question from you. You asked about, I kind of rushed through the presentation and I didn't talk much about the methodology of, let's say the Development Inequalities Index, how it was constructed. A lot of work went into this index and also the related indices, like I mentioned, the Global Human Development Index, and then for the region, Esquia has developed an Economic Resilience Index and Developmental Challenges Index, which, and a lot of, you know, validation tests went into the structure, the, which dimensions and subdimensions, so there should be what weights each component should have, how each indicator should be formatted, do we cut off the values of these variables and so on? But I think, so I guess we could say that the current form of the index is kind of a compromise of where we try to achieve continuity and comparability with the other indices. We also were restricted by data available, so especially in the governance inequalities and the environmental dimension, there are clear limitations. So for example, on the environment, we don't have any, remember that we need a global indicator available for 159 or more countries for, for multiple years so that we can compare the development between say 2010 and 2020. And so for the environment currently, we have only two horizontal measures of exposure to environmental degradation. So it's the mortality to, mortality to ambient indoor pollution and mortality to lack of hygiene and water and so on. So the, so it's, it's especially in those dimensions, the current index is kind of a compromise of what, what was available. So I will answer your question first and then move to your many questions. So you correct me if I'm wrong, if I, because I don't have any, I don't have a table with a pen to take notes. So you ask what about innate talents or until, let's call it IQ or, no, I don't like the IQ concept, but ability, okay, general ability. Some people have more ability at birth and this may influence the capacity to make an effort and this may influence also the outcome. How could we account because this is circumstance, essentially this ability is a circumstance at birth. And it's a very important question because those are in the circumstances we don't have in the data set. But if, if you follow me and we make the following assumption and I think we will be okay if we make the following assumption, but I may be wrong and I'm open to criticism. If we assume that ability is independent of circumstances at birth, then it enters into this residual lock term. And then we are back to the framework that we are in. And whatever remains that influence this capacity to invest in an effort is these initial circumstances and in the way that we have measured it, we are into Romer's framework. We have wiped out those differences that are explained by initial circumstances. So for instance, I'm a professor, my spouse is a professor, we have three kids, two of them have PhDs and jobs and the other one has finished a master and she's doing a jurist doctors, they are good. We're proud of them. But probably the initial circumstances were good at home, okay? Because in term of education, we were at the top of the distribution. So they have some merit, but part of this is influenced by this circumstance at birth. And of course, a rich parent can invest into private tutoring and all these kind of things that influence the investment in effort of the person. So this is wiped out when you take Romer's framework. Is it a sufficient answer? Yeah, okay. Then your question. So I will start first with the does inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity both enter the utility function of homo sapiens, not homo economicus, homo sapiens. So we are homo sapiens here. My answer is yes, of course. And so I have an experimental economist here and our experimental friend know that. So if you run, how do you call this an ultimatum game where you share a game, and the person can decide to keep everything for himself? This decision is always punished, okay? So you have to move to something that is closer to half enough, not to half enough, but closer to half enough. We know that homo sapiens behave like that. We know that most primates behave like that because they repeated the experience with other kind of primates except the chimpanzee. This guy behave like homo economicus, so none of us here are chimpanzees. So it enters into our utility function. We also know and we thanks to our Scandinavian colleagues that people make a difference between inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome when they compensate. They have run experiment these brilliant Scandinavian and they can show that when the inequality of outcome is more due to an effort in an exercise, then it's less compensated than when it's pure luck. This is a 2020, I'm not sure of political economy, a very interesting paper. It's not my feed, so I don't have the exact citation. Now we know that it enters into the utility function. Do we want to account for this in our measurement framework? Maybe I don't know. It depends. So if we are utilitarian and we have a measurement framework that is based on the utilities of people. Of course we want to account for that. Equality of opportunity is not based on the utilitarian framework. If you go out of economics and you look where it comes from, essentially it's a response to Nodzik's, so the Marxist, they don't have an ethical principle but implicitly they don't like exploitation. And when Nodzik, the libertarian guy, came with his critique, it hurt a lot Marxist and it was on the procedure of extracting the work of someone. And the answer of analytical Marxism was this inequality of opportunity concept. And John Romer is an analytical Marxist, so this is how it came into economics from the analytical Marxist philosopher. It's not a utilitarian framework, it's a different framework, so they don't care about utility, they care about the process that have generated that outcome. But we may want to care, but not in that paper because this is not the approach we take. Then another question, I don't remember you, a conditional quanta, yes. If you are within Romer's framework and this is not our work because I'm not alone on this paper, this is John Romer's work, the mathematical object of interest on which you assess inequality of opportunity is the conditional quanta function, not the unconditional. The unconditional quanta function is the inverse of the CDF and the CDF is pure inequality. It's inequality of outcome, but we're not interested in inequality of outcome, we want to compare those conditional quanta function. Why are we using Chernozkov et al. to estimate? Because we have mass probability at zero and this approach allows us to do that. You do a probate at zero and it's consistent. If you have a continuous outcome other than income with no mass probability, you can use a standard conquer and beset on a grid of point and it will do the job also. Does this answer all your question? Thank you so much. I think Vladimir and Paul have answered, covered all the points, but maybe one thing, if I understood it correctly, so your question was about the improvement in the countries when it comes to access to education and health and basically the findings show that everybody goes to school. So when we look at every attendance, regardless of gender, regardless of the well-squintile, the household or the child belongs to, everybody goes to school, but the question is how long they remain in school, right? And this is still problematic in many countries in the region. In some countries, a lot of children, in disadvantaged groups, they drop out of school in early years, even before completing primary, but in most countries, the problem occurs at secondary levels. And this is what has been shown in so many studies on inequality of opportunity in education, but I'm not sure if I answered your question though, but I, you know, we can... Yes, please. No, no, please, go ahead. So again, my point was, because both of you refer to governance, and your simple is comprising of countries that are auto-credit, have very good regards for new law and renter states. Right. Where art and venture has been used to build schools, we don't have a difference. And then this is why it has been happening, because it's an aspirational failure that you gave developers without skills and opportunities, right? So I think the point is that when you do this in a lot of opportunities, the opportunity set has to be context-excessive, so that trend is really going, otherwise it's all clear. No point, very well taken. And I totally agree that the region, when we talk about the MENA region, you know, we shouldn't talk about it as if it's a one group, because there are lots of differences if we talk about GCC countries and the other countries. And if we include Iran and Turkey, that's another issue, so point very well taken. One question for you. My question is that you haven't quite told us anything about what it means to be a parent. For example, on this stage here, we have different titles like helicopter parenting, tiger parents, and there is this sort of literature on the station advantage in the states that children of this age are not children, they actually are the people of this power of children, right? So I think that brings up this question of, you know, influence of families and effort, because apart from you know, there is Brian Garry who would say that we should respect effort regardless, whether it's a human or a parent. And there are papers actually that I'm there, written for example in the region but it has actually all the data on effort. How much of an improvement does it make when you use a peer measure? And when you come and actually it says that there's not much difference, right? And what they do is to define all these problems, right? Challenge, preference, effort, all together, that is Brian Garry. So again, you know, that's something I want to hear from you because this has a game culture component that what does it mean to be a parent in a Chinese region? Because we know what that means in China. We've been here last year, we've spent twice compared to Vietnam. And here Vietnam is half the area in Pisa. Malaysia is down here in Jordan and in Turkey. Thank you. You asked this to me? I'm not Egyptian. Yeah, I can tell you what it means as Lebanese parents. So we're not cool parents. So we're rough on our kids. From the Western standard they will say, oh, this is crazy. No, you have to work. My spouse lived under bombs and things like this. Oh, I think I'm a little bit stressed. It doesn't feel well with her. It doesn't fly. So this, I think, is part of the white advantage, this idea that you should be. Yeah, anyways, and I think it influence performance. But in Egypt, I don't know. I don't know. I have Egyptian friends, but I didn't talk about their parenting style. We talk about papers more. I wouldn't let you answer. I don't know. I mean, we have lots of Egyptians in the room. I don't know. But maybe I want to suggest to continue this conversation. We have two hours that we'll be spending in the reception. And I'm happy to continue this conversation later. But I don't want to keep the others more than that. I really want to thank the speakers for really informative presentations. And I want to thank you all for being here and for your active participation. And yeah, and see you in the reception.