I'd like to welcome all of you to this Taster lecture for the Department of Economics. I'd like to welcome all of you even if I can't see you. So spare a thought of my predicament. I'm lecturing to the body. I'm sure you're there and you're listening to me, but I can't see a thing. I'd like to give you a sense of what the Economics Department is about and what kind of education you might expect at postgraduate level with us. So I'll do it by discussing some substantive issues of economic theory. But before that, I'd like to tell you at the outset that the Soyes Economics Department is quite unique. You might not see that reflected in the usual rankings that come out and basically way universities by the kilo across the world. You might not see that there, but there are good reasons for it. But those of you who follow Economics and Political Economy will know already that Soyes stands out at graduate level. And it stands out with good reason because it offers you a training in economics that you are likely to get in much of the rest of the world. It is actually quite unique because fundamentally it will train you in mainstream economics. You'll be a competent mainstream economist when you leave us, but it also trains you in political economy and in development economics. So it gives you an understanding of economic theory, applied economics, and in a sense the world economy gives you an understanding of these things which is quite specific to Soyes. You can't mistake Soyes graduates for anyone else, I can assure you, they stand out. Whereas the graduates of most other universities, you can permute and group-hute in many ways. They are often indistinguishable.  So that much about Soyes and blowing around Trump, as it were, which I suppose is excusable in the circumstances. So let me tell you a couple of things of substance about what we do. Traditionally, we've been very good at developing economics combined with political economy. But obviously that has had an undertow of, in a sense, critical perspective and heterodoxy built in. And so increasingly, we also offer that as a separate specialization at master's level. If you don't wanna do development economics, you simply do an MSc in economics, which will train you in mainstream and heterodox theory. So in a sense, we've separated that out. But for the purposes of this talk, I want to focus on development economics and indicate the type of critical approach that we generally adopt here. And so in what way are we different? Let me say at the outset, in a sense, I'll begin with what I'm gonna finish, that the dominant approach in development economics today, if you go to the IMF or the World Bank or any of the grand multilaterals that shape policy across much of the developing world and so on. If you go there, the dominant approach is what we might still call the Washington Consensus. It hasn't got the grandeur that it used to have. It's not accepted the way it used to be. Again, for good reason because there've been successive crisis that have diminished this stature. But nonetheless, that's the bedrock. It's basically mainstream neoclassical economics that shapes the thinking of economists involved with the world economy in developing countries and approach that basically says markets are the best solution for most things and free flows of factors of production, capital, labor and so on is the way to go. I'll finish with that. That in order to make you see why that is dominant, we've got to go back and we've got to in a sense have a quick look at the trajectory of thought in developing economics and understand and appreciate why we ended up where we are with this kind of approach. And that is very much typical of what we do at SOS. We will give you this kind of depth of historical understanding of why we ended up with this kind of dominant approach which has not always been dominant at this time. It's dominant the last 30, 40 years. So why? Well, let's go back a bit. But before we go back, let's clarify a couple of ideas about growth and development. These are two different concepts although very closely related. So I will use them in a conventional way. Nothing terribly radical in terms of how I will deploy the concepts. So growth would basically be for my purposes here kind of quantitative change of some basic factors, some basic variables. So output, capital, labor and so on. Growth then would be quantitative change by and large. Economy is getting bigger. Development on the other hand would obviously involve quantitative change, would obviously involve growth, but it would be much more than growth. It would also be qualitative change. It would be a shift away from say a condition of pre-development and the development, backwardness to use a very old fashioned term when it comes to that. Towards modernity, towards development, towards the developed state of the world and whatever you're gonna call it. Another way of putting it is development is a shift towards market capitalism basically. The shift towards advanced market capitalism which basically means markets developing internationally and markets developing domestically and the most important market there would be the labor market. People making a living not from the land that much but from being employed for wages. And that would be a state of affairs whereby labor productivity would be rising rapidly and incomes would be increasing and then new forms of inequality would be emerging, a new society in other words. Now, how are we to understand this shift, this transformation, this state of affairs? If you start thinking about that, you won't be able to think of much else. I can assure you in economics, why does this happen? Why do we move into this state of existence of societies? This is not just me asserting it. This is a statement by one of the best known conservative mainstream economists, Robert Lucas, who basically said that once you start thinking about development, you can't think about anything else. And he was right, he was right. Why does it happen then?  So we can start with Adam Smith and think with Adam Smith. Because of course he wrote at the time when this process that had just summed up for you was occurring in England, Britain actually more generally and bits of Northern Europe. And it was just about the only part of the world where this was happening. And that's what interested Smith. Why is it happening here? What does this mean? See, his book was called The Wealth of Nations. That's precisely what he was explaining, the wealth of nations. Why are nations becoming wealthy meaning entering this process of development that I just outlined. And Smith proposed three things. He basically said, the reason why this is happening is because human beings are learning first to engage in the division of labor. In other words, specialization. Specialization of work, division of labor is the key thing for Smith. And there's no doubt to me, we use that in economics all the time. It's a decisive insight that Smith had. If you make a pin by yourself, you can make a hundred in a day. If you divide the tasks of pin making, you can make thousands in a day, argument settled. So the division of labor is the key thing. But Smith, of course, so much more than that, much further than that. And he stressed that the degree to which the division of labor works and is effective depends on the extent of the market. In other words, how effective the division of labor will be depends on how big the market is towards which the product will go. So if you've got narrow markets, you're not gonna be doing very well even if the division of labor is quite elaborate. So markets and the extent of the market and selling for a big market is a key thing for development for Smith. But if you think about the little bit more like Smith did, you realize that there's something else that's missing. You can have big markets, you can have division of labor and still you might not be developing fast, right? Because the third thing is missing, which is of course, capital. Capital is necessary. Accumulated capital to invest in order to catalyze the process or a Smith called it stock. So Smith then mentioned these things and they are reference points for all development economics. The need for capital, the need for specialization in work and the need for markets in which to sell the output. This for Smith should be occurring and should occur in a sense spontaneously. See, don't forget Smith was involved in an argument against what people who are called mercantilists before his time. And these mercantilists had a very different view of development and growth. We're not gonna be going into that in development theory. If you do history of economic thought, you might be taught some stuff this that it serves but not for this purpose. But Smith was engaged in an argument with them. And what was crucial here was to say something about the state, the role of the state. And Smith was very much in a sense against direct state intervention in the economy. Meaning he was against direct state intervention in these three processes trying to shape the map. He wasn't against the state in the economy generally. He wasn't against the presence of the state in the economy. The state is there to ensure that this system works without interference. Works without being in a sense warped or disfigured. And that's about it. It should set the terms of the game, the rules of the game and then development can commence. Smith said a lot more, but I don't have the time. For us, that's the reference point. Another one of the great thinkers following Smith among the classicals was of course Ricardo, David Ricardo. Ricardo didn't have very much to say about the development process itself. Ricardo was much more in a sense static as an economist. Smith was very dynamic as I've just outlined for you. Ricardo was much more static in his concerns. He really wanted to work out the ways and the rules through which this output that kept growing along the lines that Smith suggested, this output was distributed. How is it distributed? Who gets shares of it? In other words, how much of this output end up with the capitalists? How much ends up with the workers? How much ends up with the landlords? The three great classes of society in Britain at the time and no other society is not just Britain. Ricardo was very concerned about that and that really took all his attention. In this context as he was working out what determines wages, profits and rent, which is another way of putting in incomes in other words. Working out these incomes, Ricardo postulated a view of the long-term development of this capitalist system and he was pessimistic. He thought that it wouldn't do very well in the long term and the reason why it wouldn't do very well is because the rate of profit would fall. The reason why the rate of profit would fall because it would be squeezed by a rising population and a falling productivity marginal product of land as the population expanded. Rate of profit is of course the rate of return on capital. If the rate of return on capital declines, clearly capitalists will not invest. If capitalists do not invest, then you don't have much development and certainly not much growth. So for Ricardo, the long-term prospects of capitalism given the division between labor, capitalism, labor workers, capitalists and landlords in society wasn't very good. Then the last of the classical economists or near-classical economists that we will be dealing with is of course, Marx. For Marx, the perspective was actually quite different. Now you can talk about Marx for weeks and then, but for our purposes I'll talk about him for about five minutes. And clearly, he learned a lot from Smith and Ricardo and from others. His own point about this process was actually different to both Smith and Ricardo. He was partly dynamic, like Smith, and partly static like Ricardo. He wanted to work out distribution issues and the key distribution issue for Marx was of course profits. What did turn is profits. Ricardo was also very concerned about profits, as I've said, but Marx looked into profits very deeply. And that's his only contribution in an original way, which of course is not accepted by most other economists because he associated profit with unpaid labor. He basically argued that profits come from unpaid labor. Not many economists accept that. Certainly, he's not generally accepted in society. Nonetheless, it's a powerful contribution. The import of which for our purposes is this. If profits come from unpaid labor and in this way, then profits are the driving purpose and the driving force of development. Development happens because there are profits. It doesn't happen because people want to create jobs or they want to create output. No, it happens because there are profits to be made and therefore there must be investment because that's how profit comes about. And so in Marx's analysis of capitalist development, the secret is to analyze why investment takes place. What is it that drives investments? And there, he had a lot of interesting things to say that have to do with competition between enterprises, between capitalists, how you succeed in competition. What does this mean for technology, the introduction of new technology? What does it mean for the productivity of labor, raising the productivity of labor in order to succeed in competition? And what are the implications for profitability as you do that? Because of course, the point is profit. Marx's argument then was that capitalism is very dynamic. It is a system that really capitalizes the growth process and the development process, but it's also very unequal and driven with crisis. As this process takes place, inequality emerges and crisis keep appearing. And you might say that that's an insight that has a lot to tell us about the modern world. So that much about the great in a sense, classicals. But obviously development economics, as we know it today, learns from these people, but works differently and has more specific roots. And the specific roots that it has, for our purposes, but also more generally, lie in the interwar years of the 20th century. Yeah, we learn from the classical theories of the 19th century, but the real foundation for development theory and development economics, the interwar years of the 20th century, the years between the first and the second world war, when very many important things happened. And one of the most important things for us as development economists and development theorists was, of course, Latin American structuralism. That is in an important way, a foundation stone for development economics. Now I want you to cast your mind back to that time and realize why that theory was so important. In the 1930s, the world market and the world economy was in deep crisis. Capitalism in the United States, in a sense, crashed. Europe was in deep trouble in terms of economic performance and employment was very high, production was low. The world market was fragmenting into different components, trade yet shrunk, credit was doing very badly, incomes were falling. It was a very difficult time for working people and others more generally. In that context, a group of economists in Latin America associated with Raul Prebis and many others began to think of what causes this and what are the implications for their countries? What does it mean for Brazil? What does it mean for Argentina? What does it mean for Latin America? What does this situation mean for these countries? And what should they do in order to enter a path of development, deal with this crisis and go down a path that would allow them to increase production, increase output, increase employment and increase the incomes of their people? It's in this context that structuralism emerged. Structuralism here has got many meanings that we can discuss Latin America structuralism for a long time, which of course we're not gonna do today, but structuralism takes its name from the fact that these economists stress the import of economic structure for understanding why development might or might not take place. And the import of structure is straightforward. What did the economies Latin America look like? They had for these structuralists a problematic structure. That's where the name comes from. Why? Because they had a traditional agricultural sector which had low technique and low labor productivity. And often this agricultural sector was dominated by big farms run by landlords, not very effectively with low technique and low labor productivity. They had a modern industrial sector, which was often associated with foreign capital, foreign enterprises coming in and engaging in this modern industrial sector. And the output was aimed for export. So that sector required inputs of capital goods in order to function technology to come from abroad. They had a low level of technical know-how. Know-how would come from abroad, not technical knowledge will come from mostly from abroad. They had several domestic rigidities of supply. In other words, agriculture would not be able to respond rapidly to change the economy. They would respond rapidly to changes because of the large farms operating in a certain way. The modern sector would not be able to respond quickly to changes in conditions in the world economy because it would be dominated by foreign firms and it would be not technologically advanced and producing internal technology and so on. So it would be rigidities of the economy. And last and crucial point, these economies would have high income elasticity of inputs. In other words, as soon as the development process started, given these structures, what would happen would be incomes would begin to rise a bit and as incomes rose a bit, inputs would rise into the country. Imports both partly of capital goods for production, but also of consumer goods for the urban population and more generally that would like to consume foreign consumer goods. As soon as that happened, a stop would emerge in the development process because imported goods would have to be paid for. The country would not generate enough surplus to do that. And then the mechanism was going to reverse and it would be blocked. In that context then Latin America structuralists came up with the development policy which gave its name to this approach and was characterized development economics for decades. And the argument was a structure must change. For the structure to change, policy was necessary. The structure would not change by itself. The government had to make it change. So immediately you see a key difference with the classical theorists. This wasn't a process that would happen by itself. Someone had to make it happen. They had to be development policy in other words. The development policy had to aim at changing the structure. What did that mean? Well, this was a difficult choice. And the way they resolved it at the time was the following. The emphasis should be on what they call a light industry. That's what should be promoted domestically. To promote that, you needed the policy that would protect domestic production. For that, you needed import controls. You needed to ring fence the economy to set an extent from precisely the process that I outlined previously, the incoming of inputs that would create the difficulties. So, import controls were necessary. And in addition to import controls, what was also necessary was government support for domestic industry to allow it to produce for the domestic market. And that meant credit support and tax support and institutional support generally. A whole entire range of measures and policies that would be aimed at strengthening domestic industry and allowing it to capture the domestic market. And on that basis, begin to grow. Inputs were also necessary for this as I indicated, but they would be inputs of capital goods, investment goods in order to support industry, not consumer goods. These would be produced domestically. So, there was a lot more, which I haven't got time to cover here. But that was the basic idea. Now, in that context, rising wages were not a bad thing because rising wages would create a domestic market for consumer goods, for the light industry. And so that could also be part of the development strategy. And that all the government was of crucial importance, as I've already indicated, to supervise the process, to manage it and to organize it. Now, there were many different variants of this. I've simplified brutally here, just to convey the main point. But that's the gist of it. So, input substituting industrialization was the key idea. If you actually look into the history of thought, you can identify elements of that approach long before the Latin America structuralists. For instance, there are German theorists, least above all, who began to think along those lines already from the middle of the 19th century. The idea that if you really wanted to join the advanced countries, Germany was not particularly advanced at that time, you really needed to protect it and use the state in order to do that. So these ideas go back some time, but the most systematic approach for our purposes can be found in the work of the Latin American structuralists. One further key point here is regards finance, which I've already mentioned. Credit was also very important to this process for the structuralists, and credit meant developing a credit system that would support precisely this process and not meant the bank-based system, a system of banks that would be controlled by public authorities, or they would operate within a system of public regulation, and they would support the process of growth and development that I previously applied by channeling savings to investment and by creating credit that would allow businesses and capitalists to invest on the last of their suggestions. But now this approach in different ways became prevalent in the past four years, not necessarily in exactly the same way that Raoul Prebish thought it, or rather Latin Americans began to discuss it back in the 30s or even in the 40s, but recognisably so in the 50s, 60s and much of the 70s. Those years were very peculiar years in the history of capitalism, and they were peculiar not only for developing countries, but also for developed countries, because you see what happened in the United States at that time, or in Britain, in France, and in Japan and elsewhere, what was then the developed world was that controls dominated. These were the years of Keynesianism. Keynesianism meant state intervention in policy to manage aggregate demand, and state intervention to supervise in a way the growth and development process, and crucially state intervention to control finance. These were years of control finance, control domestically and control internationally. These were the years in which the global flow of capital was not free. It was not possible to take your money from one country, move it to another in a matter of minutes, if it's all. These were unusual years. They were also years of the most rapid growth in the history of capitalism, incidentally, and the most rapid growth of incomes for people. So when you hear about the delights of liberalization that followed, you should always remember that the 50s and 60s and the 70s were unique years in terms of income growth and equality and so on. That's the context in which the import substituting industrialization theory prevailed among development theorists. It was the characteristic approach. And in that context, what also happened was that foreign aid for development became very important. Why? What cast your mind to it? Capital doesn't flow freely because controls stop it from doing that, as I've already explained. Capital doesn't flow. There is no such thing as a global capital market which now dominates everything, didn't exist. If capital doesn't flow freely and you put yourself in the shoes of a developing country, then as soon as the development process starts is about lined it, or as prebiased would have outlined it, imports might grow. If imports grow and exports don't grow commensurately, the country will have a problem because it will have a balance of trade deficits and someone has to finance a deficit. Capital must come from somewhere in order to finance a deficit. So if you really want to continue with the process of rapid investment, which means imports, which means a deficit, someone has to be financing the deficit. And that meant foreign aid. So that's the context in which foreign aid was then, back then discussed as a vital element of development policy. And that's how the World Bank began to be thought of back in the day. That's presumably something that the World Bank had to do. That's how the 50s, the 60s and the 70s functioned, not particularly successfully for developing countries incidentally. Growth process was not particularly strong and some development theorists, especially those who came from the Marxist tradition, began to talk of the development and the development. In other words, as this was happening, certain groups of countries were becoming entrenched in low development. So the world was splitting into this developed core, and then underdeveloped periphery. That was the state of affairs until the 70s. What happened in the 70s was of dramatic importance. And in a sense, we continue to live in the same period. That's basically, we haven't actually come out of the period that began in the 70s. And what happened in the 70s was of course a major series of major crises in the developed world, lower crisis of the 70s and before crisis are followed afterwards. The end of Gange isn't basically, and the rise of, in a sense, neoliberalism. The idea that the state has got no business in economic affairs, and it must withdraw, and it must simply act as a night watchman. I'm simplifying again, but I want to convey the main idea. For developing countries, this was of decisive importance. It was of decisive importance in the field of theory, but also in the field of practice. In the field of theory, which is, which matters to us because you have to be taught is, what happened was neoclassical economics began to notice the development process. Until then, they were not terribly interested in neoclassical economists. They were not terribly interested in development economics. But in the 70s, they began to look at it more closely. And you began to get neoclassical treatments, mainstream treatments for the development process. And of course, as neoclassicals always do, the thing that they noticed was that there was something which was very clearly absent from the analysis of, say, the Latin American structuralists and all the others, political economists and others who discussed the development process in the way that they summed up for you before. And that was, of course, price. And price is the key economic variable for neoclassical economists, right? Economics is about price. What the term is price and how. But price was absent in the structuralist process. What mattered to structuralists and others was the structure. In other words, agriculture, industry, the international sector, how they interact with each other, the flows and so on. Price wasn't very important there. And neoclassical said, no, that cannot be. That's not right. Price is what's key.  Price is very important because price ensures the efficient allocation of resources if price is freely determined. The analysis of demand and supply tells you precisely this. If demand and supply are freely determined for by market agents, then that's the optimal allocation of resources. And not just of the good that we're talking about, but also of the factors of production that went into the production of the good. Okay, because choices are freely made and agents will make their choices in a rational way and everybody will leave the market happy, equilibrium. So that was the key thing, which meant from that perspective, if you want the development, you have to let prices be determined freely. Let prices find their level. That in a sense is the Washington consensus. If you think about it, that's basically it. If you really wanted to condense it in one sentence. Development will happen when markets operate freely and prices can actually reflect relative scarcities. They can reflect the conditions of economy broadly understood as the agents perceive it and the agents act. Well, the implications were dramatic. Because if that's the thinking, if that's how you approach development policy, you understand that there is no room for development policy. Development policy is basically to upset yourself from development. It is actually to take a backseat and let millions of development theorists get on with it basically. The field in which this emerged first was in finance, hence financial deregulation, financial liberalization. Because obviously the key price in the financial field is the rate of interest. The rate of interest is a price, right? It is the price of borrowing and lending. That was very tightly controlled for decades until the 70s. And the first terrain in which the freeing of prices took place in a big way was in the rate of interest in finance. Let the rate of interest find its level. Now you understand this has got serious implications. Because if you let the rate of interest find its level, that means that you should stop imposing a ceiling on it. You should stop controlling the supply of credit. You should stop inserting yourself in the demand for credit. You should let banks do what they think they should do. You should let people borrow the way they want to borrow. There must not be regulations of quantities of credit and prices of credit. Let them do it. Yeah, but if you let them do it, as we now know, and let them do it any way they like, you will end up with credit bubbles and booms and busts. At the time, this wasn't that clear. But that was the message. So financial deregulation and financial liberalization began in the 70s. Along those lines, it was part of the new development economics operating in finance. And the idea was if you let them do it any way they like, then they will save more. They will invest more. They will find the right level of interest and there will be growth and development. As I say, it didn't quite work out that way, but that was the logic. If you start with interest, you're not gonna stop them. Because obviously if it holds for one market, it holds for another. And so the same idea should also apply to output markets. Why regulate the production of light industry, as the structuralists said. Why regulate the production of consumer groups? Why encourage the output and said, who are you to choose which industries to support?  That was the logic of it. What does the state know? What is the relative advantage of the state in this? Nothing according to the mainstream approach. Therefore the state mustn't do it, deregulate. Deregulate the free markets. So the process of deregulation as policy began in the 70s and gathered speed. Ultimately, you reach the point when capital itself, the flow of capital itself began to be deregulated. Why regulate the flows of capital? Why tell people how they can shift that money from Brazil to Germany? Why let them do it, let them free, let them move the money anyway they like and in both directions. Deregulate, in other words, the capital account, let international flows be free. So financial deregulation led to general deregulation led gradually to the idea of what was called the Washington Consensus gradually. In other words, private is best, market is best, public doesn't work, state control doesn't work. It should be pushed to the limits. This approach, again, I'm simplifying and I'm being unfair to a certain extent that such is the lot of one hour. But I think I'm conveying the gist of it. This approach continues to be, in a sense, the foundation stone. It's the reference point. But obviously, a lot of water has flown under the bridge, has flown under the bridge since the early 70s and we now know that this mechanism can fail to produce development. It can also produce crisis and we also know theoretically that these markets that are supposed to find a level of price that is natural to them can also malfunction. We know that markets fail. And markets fail because of a variety of reasons, transactions costs and information asymmetries and a host of other factors that might stop them from functioning in the way in which the theory would argue that they should function or that they do function. And therefore, if that's the case, intervention is again necessary because if markets malfunction, then how would you fix the malfunction when you need an authority to do it? That's the way in which critiques of the Washington consensus began to emerge in theory about 20 years ago. But the dominant approach remains, as I said, the Washington consensus. I can say a lot more about that and if you come to source, you will hear a lot more about it in a more reasonable pace with a more reasonable pace. But the point I want to stress finally is this. All that has been happening while real changes have been taking place underneath as well, not just in theory, but in practice. And of course, the biggest change is Asia, right? East Asia in particular, Korea, Japan originally, but then Korea a whole host of countries in Southeast Asia and of course the elephant in the room, right? China, which is where the biggest transformation is taking place. And that has happened the last 40 years. To a certain extent, this has happened because of markets, production for markets. Anyone who tells you though that this confirms the neoliberal, let them free, let them do it. Approach to development would be lying to you because that's not how China developed and that's not how most of these economies developed. It's a peculiar mix of policy that obtained there. Yes, depending on market, but also depending heavily on the state and state control over key areas of the economy to do with the fundamental goods inputs into the production process. And also of course, the financial system which has never been let free in China. This has posed new issues and new questions for development economics. And that is again something which you will be discussing and learning more about it. So together with the crisis prone nature of this and the new inequalities that emerged. Now, I don't wanna say anything much more. My cutie aware of time is 10 too. So I think I've said enough to give you a flavor of how we do things here. Perhaps I should give you the opportunity to ask some questions. I would freely encourage that. And also to say that certainly in my courses and in my lectures interaction is highly valued and that's how we operate. I keep asking questions and I keep inviting questions from my students. So there you go, five minutes to ask all the burning questions you've got and to sort out all the problems of the world economy. Thank you so much. And Shanzana's been doing a wonderful job holding down the floor on the Q&A. We've had a couple of questions come in and everybody should be able to see that if they navigate on the Q&A panel to the answered questions. You'll be able to see the questions that were submitted and Shanzana's responses but there's been a lot of questions about quantitative elements of the course and the maths background that might perhaps be useful for students and different things there. Costas, if you want to pick up on any of that as well. I can't see the questions. I can see one question by Claire. Yeah. Claire McCulloch. And then if you go at the top to answered there should be open, answered, and... Oh, okay, I can see them now. If you click on answered you'll be able to see all the ones that you've responded to. Very good. Okay, so let me ask these questions. The quant element. Now, we will teach you econometrics and quantitative techniques. There are courses that do it at the standard level for us in the advanced level. We will teach you microeconometics and macroeconometics. You will be competent at using packages and engaging in standard econometric techniques that economics uses. You'll be good at reading and assessing papers and using the techniques yourself. And that will be integrated into the general discussion of theory. We do not fetishize technique here at SOS. We'll give you an advanced level but we integrated with the rest of the stuff that we do. You will learn to assess models and to reproduce models and to work with the econometrics test models. And that's good enough for us and for the SOS economists who we want you to be. Now, for MS economics the focus is slightly different obviously. It's not development per se. It is a critical perspective on economic theory. It is actually more model focus and focus more on the advanced countries as well. You can have options there too. You will have options. You can take some development courses as part of your options for that. But you have to make a decision for yourself where you want the emphasis to lie. In terms of area focus we have historically and still do emphasize area specialization. We've got people who know particular areas very well at SOS. And they know the areas not simply as data sets but they know the history, the language and so on of these areas. And you can and you will be encouraged to look at Africa, to look at China depending on what is of interest to you. There are these courses that you can take. Area specialization is also very important for us when it comes to your dissertation. The dissertation for us can be a fairly open-ended thing. You can do a quantitative exercise. You can apply because econometrics to some data that you will gather yourself or that you'll find from some other source. You can do a development of a model. You can do a critical review of the literature. You can do a political economy discussion in a particular country. It's open-ended for us. And there you would be encouraged to have an area focus. It is always sensible to have an area focus which would stand you in good stead when you look at when you finish and you look for jobs. So you'd be able to say, my dissertation is on some aspect of Africa or of African economies, for instance. So it's an Asian economy. In Latin American economies are also acceptable, increasingly. That's about it really. I don't know if there are any questions that have left out of I. We probably have time to answer one more question and then we'll have to end the session. There's a couple of open questions in the first tab. Kostas, if you go up to the top and click over to open, you'll see three that haven't been answered yet. Perhaps if you want to choose one of those and I will pop your email in the chat so that if anyone wants to follow up, they can get in touch with you. Okay, I'll just say very quickly. I'll just say the part-time students know that's basically the same thing. You can shift the courses a little bit about. In other words, instead of doing four and four, which is the usual, the normal split would be four and four. Four in the first year, four in the second. You can do three and five and then answer the circumstances. But I wouldn't encourage that unless you've got good reasons for it. Other than that, you just follow the same process as anybody else over two years. And on the question about applying insights into policy and so on and what career services are available as well as policy and applying the theory to policies, obviously something you will learn from us. That's what we pay attention to. That's why we do economics the way I sum them up. So yes, policy applications are crucial to us. In terms of career, at the MSc level, and again, I'm not blowing my own trumpet, at the MSc level, the quality of source students is world level. The students will get that excellence. We can compete with anybody at that level. So the mix of students is excellent and the career paths that they then have reflect that even in the midst of the pandemic last year, most of our graduates or a lot of our graduates landed incredible jobs. I couldn't believe it actually. I thought they would have great difficulty because of what was happening in the labor market. But no, that's not the case. So typically our graduates will work in the private sector with say big banks or big corporates that want an alternative eye and plenty of those, or with the international multilateral organizations, or they will go back to their own countries and they work in the development field in their own countries. I can say a lot more about that, but I'm aware of time having very short. Yeah, there was one question about the carrier service. So the carrier zone at, I'll just say it very shortly, there is this OS carrier zone who can provide advice on internships, volunteering and they can also help you with interviews. So you can always email them if you need any help regarding your cover letter, CVs, interviews. Perfect, thank you so much. We will have to end the session. I'm sorry, it's a bit abrupt, but we have another one due to start. So I don't want to get cut off. I've popped my email in the chat. Please use that if you have any questions and then we'll make sure that your questions get to the faculty or to anybody that you would like to be pointed in the direction of, but the session will be recorded and available to view in about a week's time. Thank you so much for joining us and do get in touch if we can help you with anything else. Take care everybody. Thank you very much. Thank you to Laurence and Zana for supervising this. Thank you so much. Take care, bye bye. Bye bye now.


Want to learn about stocks, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and the metaverse? Join richTV.io. Guys, how you doing? This is your host and the most, your boy Rich from Rich TV Live. And we're back with our world famous pop 10 stocks for April 2023. And so far 2023 has been absolutely phenomenal for stocks and for cryptocurrencies. We told you Bitcoin would explode. It's having a monster year this year. So we've got a lot of good quality companies today, a lot of mid cap companies today. So I think there's some huge upside. We've had a huge explosion to start 2023. Let's see if we can continue into April and let's see if our top 10 stocks can help you hit your goals, exclusively here on Rich TV Live. All right, in number 10 spot for April 2023 riots. I am a huge fan of Bitcoin. This is a Bitcoin miner. One of the top Bitcoin miners in America. You can see it's been as high as $20 last year when it hit its highs. And you can see in the last year when it's hit its highs. And you can see hit a low, low of 325, currently at 978. So it has been making a huge move off the bottom as most everything that's related to crypto has. You can see it's already up 200% since the bottom. And if we see Bitcoin continue this bull market, this bull run that it's on right now, which I believe we will see for the next two years, then we can see Riot go much, much higher. So that's why they're my number 10 pick because Bitcoin's hot, riots been hot. And if Bitcoin stays hot and Riot stays hot, we could see this go much higher in April and beyond. So put Riot on your radar and all your watches my number 10 pick for April 2023. And in number nine, staying with crypto related mining stocks, Marathon Digital, another one that I absolutely love. Also a miner of Bitcoin, a huge miner of Bitcoin. You can see it's been as high as $19 in the last year, similar to Riot as low as $3 already back to eight. So making this big move up in the right direction, very, very bullish. And I believe if this momentum continues into April, that we will see Mara go much higher and we could see them go back to that $20 or higher range. So huge, huge, huge momentum with Mara. My number nine pick for April 2023. And with Bitcoin on fire, I think we're gonna see Riot and Mara continue to go higher in April 2023. Now in number eight, another company that's actually been doing well so far in 2023. And I believe it has a long way to go higher AMD. You can see in the last year, AMD has been as high as 120, been as low as 54, that would have been the greatest buy. But right now we're at 97 and I think it's gonna go higher. Especially when you look at NVIDIA and how well NVIDIA has been doing and how AMD is kind of like the second biggest player behind NVIDIA, I think that we could see AMD go much higher. And I think that they've done extremely well since hitting its bottom of 54. It's at 97 right now. But I think we could see this go higher from here. That's why they're my number eight pick for April 2023 AMD. So those are three picks that are already doing well and I feel like the momentum may continue into April and they've all been on fire to start 2023. Now in number seven, another one that I've always liked that hit a crazy bottom of $21. Last year it had a high of 53 and we're currently sitting at 44 but I believe this can go much higher. I love this company, Roblox Corp. I think their future is bright and I think the upside is absolutely enormous for them. That's why they are my number seven pick, seven pick for April 2023, Roblox, RBLX. You can see another one that's been on fire trading at the top of the Fibonacci. So lots of momentum here and I believe this momentum might continue. That's why they're my number seven pick for April 2023. In number six, another one that's taken it on the chin, come down a lot, but I think might start being able to find a floor here. You can see in the last year it's been a high is 23. Been as low as $6. That would be an amazing entry point but it's starting to come back up through the Fibonacci's here and we're sitting at $11 and I think we could see some more upside here, especially until at least $13 where we get to the top of the Fibonacci. I think we got some momentum here for this to run higher. So Peloton, I was in the mall in Toronto. I saw a Peloton store in there. I thought, well, you know what? Maybe now is the time to start looking at the Peloton. It's been beat up, it's taken low lows, it's way off the highs, closer to bottom than it is the top, way closer. And I think now might be the time to start thinking about a company like this. Now remember, everything that we talk about is for education and entertainment purposes only.  I'm an investor just like you guys. I'm looking for opportunities like you guys are as well. These are very aggressive trades. These are very risky trades. I can't guarantee anything, but as an investor, these are the types of trades I've been looking for and I'm looking at right now myself in April and if I buy any of these, I will let you know. Grow Generation Corp is my number five pick for April 2023, a cannabis company, but they don't actually touch any flower. They're actually in the business of giving you the tools you need to grow your flower if you're a cannabis company. So I like this company. I think they have huge potential in America. You can see here in the last year, the high high of $9.92, low low of $2.92. We're currently sitting at $3.39 at the bottom of the Fibonacci. This is just like a hunch. I just feel like it's oversold and I think the upside is tremendous at least until they get to the top of the Fibonacci's, which would be about $5. So it's just a good quality company that's been beat up like most cannabis companies right now. And I think that the upside is tremendous and it might be at a bottom. So this is just more of a hunch. There's no real reason. Just looking at the chart, it looks like the upside is big from here for Grow Generation Corp. And it's up 5% on the day today. So it is the end of April. It's the last trading day of March. It's the last trading day of March. And we've had a really, really good month. We've had a good three months to start the year in stocks and in crypto, especially with Bitcoin being up over 70% this year. So looking for a lot of companies that we can really ride momentum with as the momentum continues to grow so far in 2023, despite the fact that we've had, you know, banks go bankrupt, we've had rate hikes. We've had a lot of reasons and there's a war on going in the Ukraine and a lot of tension all over the world. Despite the fact that we have all these things going on, the stock market's doing really well and so is Bitcoin and crypto. So hopefully this trend will continue. My number of four pick is NEO. I've liked NEO for a long time. Obviously we've seen them go much higher in the last year, they've been as high as $24. They've been as low as eight. We're currently sitting at 10.50. So I think we're a lot closer to the bottom than we are at the top. I think the upside is tremendous for these guys. If you can get it at $8, that would be an amazing entry point. But I even think at 10.50, we could get a nice entry point here and we could see this go up to at least the top of the Fibonacci's, which is about 12.50. So a little bit of room there in my opinion for some more movement in April. So NEO, my number four pick electric vehicle play out of Asia, NEO my number four pick for April 2023. And in number three, Rivian. Another electric vehicle play that's been beat up. Too many of these stocks have been beat up. I think now is the time for us to look at them. So you can see Rivian here, it's been much higher as well. You can see it's been as high as $40 in the last year. The low-low is about 12. So we're not that far off the bottom. You can see we are trading at the bottom of the Fibonacci's. Fibonacci tells me that the top of the Fibonacci will take us to at least $26. So I think there's some huge upside here. This is more of a hunch. They're also at up 6% on the day. So electric vehicles are doing well to end the first quarter, doing well to end March and doing well to start 2023 after most of them, including Tesla had a really tough 2022 and now they're starting to rebound. So I think Rivian might be interesting at these levels at $15.30, my number three pick for April 2023. Now in my number two, this is one that's a new pick that I just started watching and it's been on fire and they are working on getting authorization from the FDA on some of their drugs and some of the patents and the products that they're working on. And one of the major reasons why this stock has done so well and ran from $1 to $6.92 just yesterday is because Pfizer is buying millions of shares. The report is that Pfizer has bought 1.8 million shares of PYXS. The stock has been on fire today, it went back down, had a huge dip down to $3.60 region where investors bought in again and now it's already back to 446. So this is one to watch. I think if Pfizer continues to buy this or maybe Pfizer requires this, we could see PYXS go much higher. So that's why they're my number two pick for April 2023. And they've been on fire for the whole month. Today's the first day, pretty much all month that they've really gone down a lot. I think this is more of a strategic market maker making a move on this. And I think we could see this go much higher in April. So one to watch PYXS. And my number one pick for April 2023. Perron Orbital. This is a satellite company and developer and maker. They just signed a contract for $2.4 billion. I believe that this is undervalued, underappreciated, underexposed. They had this huge explosion up to $3.45 when they announced the news of the $2.4 billion project funding for a project. And the stock has then since sold off very aggressively, hit a low of a dollar 50 zone. And that's where I think we would love to buy this. I've been hunting it looking for position myself, but I wanted to see a little bit of a trend reversal after this downward movement. I've now seen that. So now it's kind of shown its hand to me, shown me that the floor is about 149, 150 zone. That's where I plan to buy some. I was gonna buy some before this run, I just didn't get in. So now it's making a little bit of a run here. Let's see if this will be sustained or not, whether or not it comes back down. If it does, my goal is to buy at least 3,000 shares at about a dollar 50 US. That's my goal. It's my target. I could have hit it a couple of days ago, but I didn't. And right now it's at 181. So I'm watching them closely. L L AP, $2.4 billion contract for a stock sitting at a dollar 81, just to me makes me feel like there's some huge upside here. That's why they're my number one pick for April 2023. Hope you love our top 10 stocks for April 2023. If you like these videos, please smash the like button, comment down below, share the video everywhere and subscribe. Great start to 2023. Let's continue with this price action. I hope you like our top 10 stocks for 2023. If you do, please comment on the video. Let me know what you think about my top 10. Is there any picks you think I should be adding to this list? Do you like my picks? Do you dislike my picks? Please let me know and stay tuned to our top 10 cryptos that are also gonna be coming out over the next few days for April 2023 and cryptos have been heating up. Thank you for watching. If you're not winning, you're probably not watching. Bring you the winners, CEO interviews, interviews, we bring you trending topics, analysis, chart analysis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and we bring them to you first. Thank you for watching. You're hosted the most. You're boy Rich from Rich TV Live and I'm up.


In honor of World Kindness Day, we went around and passed out post-it notes with positive affirmations.


Hello. This unit provides an overview of the period between 1500 and 1700. It mainly serves as a preparation for more detailed linguistic aspects to be dealt with in further e-learning units about early modern English. In the virtual session where you can use the question sheet as default guidance, we will discuss the main historical events of that time, from the invention of printing to the beginning of colonization. We will look at William Shakespeare's role in early modern English and will mention some linguistic milestones that shaped this period. The mastery worksheet is a dynamic multiple-choice test with general questions about the early modern English period. And the practical uses two of Shakespeare's sonnets in order to find out as many as possible differences between early modern English and present-day English. In summary, this unit provides the background for more detailed discussions of the linguistic developments between 1500 and 1700.


What's up everybody Jason here from jaskies case breaks comm we just sold out 1920 panini eminence basketball This is a case break random hit number seven. That's a ten-spotter break guys Everybody's guaranteed a hit. It's random the way. We're gonna do is first we're gonna open up the case Showcase all the ten hits that pop out of here. Then we'll go to the dice roller randomize the customer names Right from Roy down to Bradley Customers bought in straight up Ken Brian Ryan Ryan Jay and Orin and then Roy got that in a filler hoops number four John they got hoops five six and Bradley just got the last spot hoop seven then eventually we'll type in the hits Randomize the name and hits and whatever you match up is what you get guys pretty much So switch scenes Here's the eminence case guys My first time actually breaking this specific eminence Feel like most of the times we've done the few we've done Joe pretty much did most of them Of course, we did a couple on release night too as well Hopefully this is a nice case. They've all been really nice though, but I just want to pull those straight bangers straight bangers All right, so it's like we'll lift it up here in the little part right there, so let's Rip it. It's like a shoebox There's also like a seal right here Well, um, yeah, actually I believe I Was supposed to go with Nick to the Chicago one in the previous Dallas one, but I think Nick is still gonna go I'm not making this one, but I think he's supposed to go And be there this weekend. I believe so Case with the styrofoam Little messy with all that styrofoam All right, well actually the case feels heavier than actually the whole case itself all the main Main weight was in here Well, I guess good luck I believe there's like a little cushion on the top protecting all the cards So you guys don't get to see them and then they're all right there guys I don't think we're just gonna grab from like left to right And I believe there's also a second layer at the bottom holding the rest of the card, so You know the first one out here guys. Good luck First one is a two out of three magic Johnson. It looks like a little diamond gem Emerald as well. Look at that two out of three magic Johnson. There you go. That's pretty nice let's go with I don't even know which way to go. I just want to grab them all four out of five 14 karat gold Troy ounce Allen Iverson four out of five MVPs as well, this is a beautiful looking card very nice AI Four out of five. That's a piece of gold gold We have a one of one Cam reddish Troy ounce of fine fine silver and the autograph very nice Cam reddish Troy ounce of fine silver and it's a one of one. There you go Even number two saying yikes already. I'm only showed a handful of cards though Still plenty of cards to pop out of here. Wow How about a Shaquille O'Neal 2000 NBA finals MVP? That's a piece of the diamond the auto and a one of one That is a beaut Shaquille O'Neal man with the Lakers with Kobe So that's four hits and the last one up here more Lakers The logo Jerry West fine fine silver Troy ounce autograph 1972 NBA champs six out of ten Jerry West It's pretty good That a Platinum one-on-one nice. Yeah camera. She's a baller. There's that We'll lift up this part here I don't know Randy. What's the what's the difference in price? I have no idea. All right, we have Kareem Abdul Jabbar two out of ten it's Milwaukee Bucks edition of Kareem fine silver And the autograph we still got some we still have at least four more cards guys I'll try to Downplay this case All right A lot of these cars do sell well though. It's shockingly. I mean it's pretty good though Let's go over here How about a Chuck four out of five Four out of five patch autograph Charles Barkley four out of five How about a two out of three Anthony Davis look at that Lakers patch right there three color patch and the on-card auto Beautiful AD Two out of three patch. All right. That is a patch. All right two more guys six out of ten Diamond and autograph of Kevin Durant All-Star It's Golden State Warriors edition six out of ten KD the diamonds also look bigger this in ten minutes, right? I want to say these diamonds are much bigger than the normal flawless ones So you can actually probably wear on your earring All right, last but not least guys top right corner Think everyone knows this guy Looks like it's a patch autograph Three out of five Zion Williamson three color patch three out of five How about that Zion? Look at that. That is a panger. I was definitely gonna pay for the spot Three out of five. I can't stop looking at that All right, nothing else in here Let's actually just put everything back to the way it was. This is gonna be a really good randomizer I know everyone's gonna want that Zion, but fortunately there's only one But good luck to everybody though All right, let's just do a quick recap just so you guys know what we're looking at here guys for people That are just popping in we had a Zion three out of five patch autograph beautiful patch autograph Kevin Durant Diamond auto six out of ten Anthony Davis beautiful patch two out of three and autograph We got Charles Barkley four out of five three color patch and autograph or four out of five star And then we got Karima doge a bar Troy ounce Out of ten and autograph bucks edition We have Jerry West six out of ten Troy ounce and autograph a one-of-one MVP Shaquille Neil diamond and autograph Kam Reddish One-of-one someone said platinum right Troy ounce and autograph Alan Iverson the 14k one Troy ounce four out of five the answer and then we got Magic Johnson two out of three diamond autograph Showtime and there you go guys. So give me a quick minute or so. I'm gonna pause the video I'm gonna type in the list of hits and we'll come back randomize customer names and the hits and see what the customers got guys All righty. Welcome back guys wrote all the names List is confirmed. Here's a dice roller. Here's the customer names. Good luck to Roy Ken Brian Ryan Ryan J Orin Jonathan Jonathan and Bradley you're guaranteed something of course I know some people want certain cards, but you are guaranteed something says the beauty of this and of course here The hits again, so let's do a quick recap Magic Johnson diamond auto two out of three Allen Iverson MVP 14k gold Four out of five Kam Reddish Troy ounce silver auto one-of-one Shaquille O'Neal MVP autograph diamond one-of-one That Jerry rest Troy ounce silver autograph six out of ten got Karima build your bar Troy ounce silver two out of ten Which is auto as well Charles Barkley, excuse me Almost sneeze at the same time Charles Barkley Patch auto four out of five Anthony Davis two out of three patch autograph We got Kevin Durant diamond auto six out of ten and Last but not least diamond Wilson patch autograph three out of five So good luck everybody. Let's roll the dice boom and It's eleven times five and a six Five and a six eleven times. Good luck One two Three four six seven eight Nine and just to confirm it's a five and a six eleven times All right, eleven times Jay at the top down to Ken Goldberg. Alrighty five and a six eleven times Here on the hits one two three four five six seven eight eight nine Ten and eleven the final time Boom eleven the final time. There you go eleven eleven magic Johnson diamond auto at the top down a Karima build your bar and Somewhere in the middle of the pack. I don't know where the Zion is but it's in there somewhere So Jay you have the magic Johnson diamond autograph two out of three Roy with the Allen Iverson MVP 14k gold out of five Oren with the Kevin Durant diamond autograph six out of ten Brian Frank with the Shaquille Neil MVP autograph diamond one of one congrats Bradley from hoops number seven Getting Cam Reddish Troy ounce silver autograph one of one congratulations, and there it is Ryan Bloss Zion Williamson patch auto three out of five Congratulations, man, as well as you get the Charles Barkley patch autograph four to five Jonathan that's also a really nice one man. Congrats Anthony Davis patch autograph two out of three as well as Jerry West Troy ounce Silver autograph six out of ten and Ken Goldberg Karima of doger bar Troy ounce silver autograph two out of ten What a case guys what a break Not sure if we have more of this, but if we do let's run it back You know within the next few days whenever we do post up another one if we get more But this stuff is beautiful guys high-risk a super high reward All it takes is one car to turn it around but you are getting a very very nice hit regardless So I appreciate it guys. This is Jasper's case breaks calm. Have a great night


Hello and welcome to the session. Let's work out the following question. It says prove that y equal to 4 sin theta upon 2 plus cos theta minus theta is an increasing function of theta in the closed interval 0 to pi by 2. So let's now move on to the solution. Before moving on to the solution we should first know the criteria for an increasing function. A function is increasing in an open interval if its derivative is greater than 0 in that interval. So we'll show that the derivative of this function is greater than 0 in the open interval 0 to pi by 2. Now the given function is 4 sin theta upon 2 plus cos theta minus theta. Now we'll differentiate this with respect to theta. So dy by d theta equal to we'll differentiate this with quotient rule. So we have 2 plus cos theta as it is into derivative of 4 sin theta which is 4 cos theta minus 4 sin theta as it is into derivative of 2 plus cos theta which is minus sin theta upon 2 plus cos theta whole square minus derivative of theta with respect to theta is 1. Now again this is equal to 4 into 2 cos theta plus cos square theta plus sin square theta we have taken 4 common upon 2 plus cos theta whole square minus 1. Now again this is equal to 4 into 2 cos theta plus 1 upon 2 plus cos theta whole square minus 1.   This is equal to 4 cos theta minus cos square theta upon 2 plus cos theta whole square. So this is equal to cos theta into 4 minus cos theta upon 2 plus cos theta whole square. Now we have to show that dy by d theta is greater than 0 in the open interval 0 to pi by 2. So for theta lying between 0 pi by 2 dy by d theta which is equal to cos theta into 4 minus cos theta upon 2 plus cos theta whole square. Now in the open interval 0 to pi by 2 cos theta is greater than 0. 4 minus cos theta is also greater than 0 because theta lies between 0 to pi by 2 therefore cos theta lies between 0 and 1 right.  Hence y is increasing function of theta close interval 0 to pi by 2. Hence the result is this completes the question and the session. Hope you enjoyed the session. Bye for now. Take care. Have a good day.


The national leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria has declared a week of prayers for the nation over the current insecurity challenge. Kaduna State in recent times has been in the news over the insecurity issues ranging from incest and killings, kidnappings for ransom, banditry and other related crimes. Here is the detail in this report as presented from our studios. Christian Fetfu in Kaduna State have held special prayers for peace and other challenges confronting the nation. They clad in black and tagged the prayers for insecurity and restoration of peace in Kaduna and Nigeria at Equa Church, Kaduna. The state can chairman Reverend Joseph Hayab says the prayers becomes necessary considering the unpleasant happenings in the state and other parts of the country. He argues that Nigeria is at war, even if it is not a physical battle for a battle with conscience, peace and unity of the people. The challenge of insecurity, the instability in our land, the lack of positive progress that we can visibly see even as we march towards another day that government was sworn in for Christians all over Nigeria to fast and pray, to seek the face of the Lord concerning this country and to also challenge ourselves on the need to act responsibly My call to my people in Nigeria, particularly in Kaduna State, is for us to be more prayerful. We need to seek the face of God with the situation we have found ourselves, a lot of trials and temptations. We have been pushed to the wall and every angle is boiling. There is no doubt that we are not in the best of times today and there is no doubt that we do not have challenges but there is no challenge that cannot be surmounted by understanding, by dialogue, by discussions, mutual discussions, through discussions, opening up to ourselves and by the grace of God light, when light sets in, darkness will certainly disappear. Other leaders express sadness over huge amounts of money paid to secure the Greenfield students. They say government that doesn't take pride in securing its citizens only come out to issue its statements after the people have paid over 150 millionaire and bought motorcycles that is less than 500,000aire. We got news from parents of the Greenfield University because we even prayed for the Greenfield University last Sunday and their parents now call us that this is the idea of rejoicing. We celebrate with them. The most important thing is that we thank God they are saved, though they told us the money they paid, the things they did, quick shows that we really have a long way to go if our government will be truly a government. According to these religious leaders, enough is enough of the carnage and an end must be devised to all the criminalities. So you get notified about fresh news updates.


So all of the philosophers we looked at so far, all the different theorists, they've all been trying to answer the question, how should I live my life? They've all offered different theories for this. Now the approach that they take is they'll say, well, look, I'll answer that question, how should I live my life by answering a different question? We can't just go ahead and directly. We got to figure out the justification for our views. So if you remember, Hume and Sumner each offered their theories as an answer to the question of what justifies more belief, what justifies more belief. Then we get to Glaucon and Hobbes, and they, at least in part, are answering the question, who's interest in most important? We look at Epicurus and the first reading of Aristotle. Epicurus asked both Aristotle, what has more worth? What has more worth? Now here's the question. We get the second reading from Aristotle. The second reading from Aristotle. We have these questions so far. What justifies more belief? Who's interest in most important? What has more worth? Is Aristotle answering that question again, that more worth question again? Or has he moved on to a different question? So what question is he trying to answer, and what's his answer?


Welcome, members, to the third meeting of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I could invite members to turn off any mobile phones, please, or, at the very least, turn them to silent. Elaine Smith, sadly, is unable to attend the meeting this morning and has submitted her apologies. Monica Lennon is attending the meeting this morning in her place. Welcome, Monica Lennon. If I might invite you, in the corridor section 3, of the code of conduct, to declare any relevant interests, if you have any, please. Thank you, convener. I would draw committee's attention to my register of interests, where you will note that I am an elected member of South Lancer Council and a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Okay, thank you very much. I will now move to item 2. The decision on taking business in private is to propose that the committee discuss item 6 in private. That will be an opportunity for the committee to discuss its working practices. Do members agree to consider item 6 in private? Yes, they agree. Thank you very much. Agenda item 3, instrument subject to affirmative procedure. Agenda item 3 is consideration of instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on public appointments and public bodies, etc. Scotland Act 2003, treatment of Crown Estate Scotland interim management as specified authority, order 2016 draft. No points have been raised on children and young people. Scotland Act 2014, part 4 and part 5 complaints revocation order 2016 draft. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is consideration of instrument subject to negative procedure. The named person's training qualifications, experience and position and the child's plan Scotland revocation order 2016 in brackets 2016 slash 234 closed brackets. The order was laid before the Parliament on 24 August 2016 and came into force on 30 August. The order therefore does not respect the requirement that at least 28 days should elapsed between the laying of an instrument that is subject to the negative procedure and the coming into force of that instrument. As regards its interests in the Scottish Government's decision to proceed in that manner, the committee may wish to find the failure to comply with section 282 to be acceptable in the circumstances. The reasons for doing so are outlined by the Deputy First Minister in his letter to the Presiding Officer dated 24 August 2016 and are in connection with the halting of commencement of parts 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014. Does the committee agree to draw the order to the attention of the Parliament under reporting grounds J as the instrument fails to comply with the requirements of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee agree to find the reasons for doing so to be acceptable in the circumstances? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the health and care professions council, miscellaneous amendments, rules orders of council 2016, brackets SI 2016 slash 693, closed brackets. Is the committee content with the instrument? Contend. Agenda item 5 is a consideration of instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, which is the act of simple procedure 2016 slash 200 closed brackets. The committee may wish to note at the outset that the Lord President's private office has undertaken to amend almost all of the errors in respect of which the briefing invites the committee to report. A number of errors will be corrected in time for the commencement of the new simple procedure on 28 November 2016. However, the LPPO explains that some corrections will require further deliberation by the Scottish Civil Justice Council and may accordingly be resolved following implementation. The committee may wish to welcome the LPPO's commitment to correcting errors and to encourage the LPPO to take all steps available to it to correct the errors in time for the commencement of the new procedure on 28 November 2016. Do we agree to that? The committee may wish to also agree that, for an instrument of approximately 260 pages in length and one that deliberately adopts a drafting approach, which is in many respects novel, the number of errors identified by the committee in the new rules does not appear to be unilaterally disproportionate. Rhyw 10-11 brackets 1 provides that a person who has particular documents must tell the court that the person believes them to be confidential. The provision is intended, however, to require a person to tell the court that documents are confidential only if that person believes the documents to be confidential. The error means that the proper policy intention is not delivered. The LPPO has agreed that there is an error in Rhyw 10-11-1 and proposes to change the word that to if at the next available opportunity. Rhyw 11-7-3 provides that when a special measures review application is received, the sheriff may do one of four things. The policy intention, as confirmed by the LPPO, is that the sheriff should be able to do five things, and Rhyw 11.73 omits to include a fifth option enabling the sheriff to vary an existing special measure. To the extent that the rule does not fully deliver the policy intention and the full suite of options that are to be available, the committee may consider that it is defectively drafted. The LPPO has undertaken to amend Rhyw 11.73 at the next available opportunity so as to include the fifth option of varying a special measure. With respect to those errors, does the committee wish to draw the instruments to the Parliament's attention under reporting grounds I as the drafting of the rules appears to be defective? Thank you very much. The definition of the term a case where the expenses of a claim or cut set out in paragraph 3.1 of the instrument is unclear, as it defines such a case by reference to a provision where a sheriff has specifically directed that an order capping expenses is to be supplied with the effect that the expenses are not cut. The LPPO acknowledges that there is an error in this definition and has undertaken to amend it at the next available opportunity. Rule 10.53 uses the wording within two weeks of the end of either the four-week period or the appeal being decided, whichever is the later. The meaning of the end of the appeal being decided could be clearer given that there are a number of options available to the sheriff appeal court when considering an appeal as set out in rule 16.4. The LPPO has agreed to consider whether rule 10.53 can be drafted more clearly and whether the rules can be explicit in setting out the stage in an appeal when the two-week period begins. There is also a lack of clarity as to the relationship between rules 11.33 and rule 12.34. Rule 11.33 provides that a sheriff may not continue a hearing to another day solely because a witness did not appear. Rule 12.34, however, provides that a sheriff may continue a hearing to another day only if it is necessary to do so. The rules do not make clear which rule is to take precedence in circumstances where the reason why the sheriff considers it necessary to continue a hearing to another day in the language of rule 12.34 is to enable the court to hear from a witness who did not appear. In particular, the rules do not make clear whether rule 11.33 is intended to preclude the continuation of the hearing in these particular circumstances. The LPPO has undertaken to reflect on whether the relationship between the two rules could be clarified. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting grounds H as the meaning of the provisions could be clearer? The preamble to the instrument fails to cite paragraph 1A of schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 as an enabling power under which the instrument is made. The committee may consider that this error constitutes a failure to follow proper drafting procedure. The preamble fails to explain the basis for making the reference to service regulation in paragraph 3 1 of the rules and ambulatory reference. Proper drafting practice for creating an ambulatory reference to rate the intention to do so in the preamble to the instrument. The committee may consider that amitting to do so constitutes a failure to observe proper drafting practice that falls to be reported under the general ground. Paragraph 3 1 of the rules contains four definitions that do not appear in the body of the instrument. The definitions are a decision absolving the responding party, a decision ordering the responding party to deliver something to the claimant, a decision ordering the responding party to do something for the claimant and restart a case. The LPPO has undertaken to amend the definitions at the next available opportunity. Further, paragraph 3 1 defines the terms child's property administration order as an order under section 11 1 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The correct reference should however be to section 11 1d of the 1995. The LPPO acknowledges the lack of specification and has agreed to amend the reference at the next available opportunity. Also, rule 18.22c refers to rule 6.16102. The correct reference, as confirmed by the LPPO, should be to rule 6112. Again, the LPPO confirms that it will amend the error at the next available opportunity. There is also an error in section C2 of form 20e of the rules, which contains two OTOs tick boxes, those referring to buy a next day postal service that records delivery and other. The LPPO has undertaken to remove these tick boxes at the next available opportunity. Rule 19.716 refers to the confirmation of formal service notice. The LPPO has confirmed that it should instead refer to the confirmation of formal service. The LPPO has undertaken to correct this error at the next available opportunity. The heading to rule 10.9 indicates that a party may apply for a special order to recover documents if that party does not believe that the standard order to recover documents has been complied with. The LPPO has acknowledged that the heading to rule 10.9 does not accurately affect the policy intention, which is that a party should be able to make an application for a special order for recovery of documents where a standard order has not been complied with and not only when the party does not believe that the order has not been complied with. The LPPO has undertaken to amend the heading to rule 10.9 to better reflect the content of the rule at the next available opportunity. Section B2 of Form 9G admits to include a tick box for an interested person who is neither the claimant nor the respondent but who nevertheless is a person entitled to make an application using that form by virtue of the provision made in rule 20.62. Form 9G also instructs the person filling it out to refer to rule 9.10 before completing the form. Rule 9.10 is of no relevance to interested parties who may make applications using Form 9G by virtue of rule 20.6. The introductory note to Form 9G should also, therefore, instruct the person filling it out to refer to rule 20.6. The LPPO has acknowledged those admissions from Form 9G and intends to correct them at the next available opportunity. With reference to the preceding errors, does the committee wish to draw the instruments to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting grounds? Yes. Moving on now to the act of Sederent Court rules amendment personal injury pre-action protocol 2016-16 slash 215 closed brackets. The appendix 1A, the personal injury pre-action protocol contained in schedule 2, should properly have been numbered 1B. In consequence, the reference is to appendix 3 in paragraph 3-2 of the instrument and to appendix 1A in paragraph 3-3 and in the heading of schedule 2 are errors. SSI 2016-229 is also considered by the committee this week. Paragraph 5 of that instrument corrects the errors to monthly. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting grounds as the instrument contains two drafting errors? Many thanks. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the following instruments. The Succession Scotland Act 2016 commencement transitional and saving provisions regulation 2016 brackets 2016 slash 210 brackets C19 closed brackets closed brackets. The act no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of Sederent rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Sheriff Court rules amendments number 2, miscellaneous 2016-269. Again, no points have been raised on Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 commencement number 11, partial revocation order 2016 brackets 2016-233 closed brackets. Is the committee therefore content with the instruments? Many thanks. That concludes that part of the agenda, so we will now move into private session. Everyone is happy with that.