OK, well, after listening to these excellent presentations, these excellent presentations, I was asked to be a respondent, to give a response or discussion to Justin Lin's presentation, which I enjoyed very much. Of course, it's very difficult to disagree with anything you said. So my commentary is more about elaborating on some points. I, in particular, liked, of course, your talk about the role of the state, something that is currently being reconsidered again after, for many years, the role of the state was dismissed. But then we noticed that by putting the state out of the picture for a while, really, we did not get many results that were expected. So we had rather dismal results with privatization in many countries and just relying on the private sector, which did not really take on the task in many countries. I also liked the framework where you listed the steps, the six steps. And of course, I agree with that. But I just would like some elaboration about a few of them. So I'm going to go over them, over the ones that I think might need a little bit more clarification with understanding that, of course, you had only 15 minutes. If you had an hour, maybe you could have gotten a lot more. Step two was about taking care of the constraints that face existing firms. In many countries, I'm looking back as a teenager in Morocco with firms and the way they were behaving and everything, the constraints that are put for the new firms to join in some industries were actually put because the special interests coming from the firms that exist wanted those constraints in place. So how would we deal with those things? And I'm sure that in other African countries, we have similar situations. Then step three, which was about seeking FDI from countries that have competing industries, but those industries might be dying now or losing comparative advantage. That makes a lot of sense when, theoretically, we debate it. But really, how many examples do we see? We see now some movement from China setting up some of the, you know, either in Asia or starting in Africa, some of the business industries there. But it's not very, you don't find it in many places. And also, what's really more important is that if you look at the experience of Africa with FDI, I mean, how much does Africa get as a share of world FDI? Very miniscule, what is it? 2% or 3%, which is really nothing compared to any region in the world. So how would you change this picture? And step five was on the special economic zones. Special economic zones are one of those things that also, if you study them theoretically, they are beautiful, they work and everything. But then if you look at the experience, I can pick two countries. Mauritius in the 70s did them and was extremely successful with them. Madagascar tried to implement the same model pretty much and it was a disaster. Madagascar did not really succeed a lot with it. So you don't look at the development story of Madagascar and compare it to Mauritius. Two different trajectories. So again, they work in some places, they don't work in other places. Also in some countries, and I think if I'm not mistaken, Ghana is one of those places where the special economic zone might not be limited to a geographical area. So you can actually say that you are working in special economic zone without even being in that geographical area. So all those nice things that you want to have from the infrastructure being geared towards that geographical area will not really trickle down because you are defined by sector, not by the location or by activity, but not location. And then step six, where you advocate some compensating for pioneer firms or the first mover which makes a lot of sense again. However, some of the incentives and for example tax incentives, we all know that in many African countries they have a problem with even mobilizing taxation so the tax base is small. So if you're on the top of it, you're gonna tell the firms that you know they exist and they're in the formal sector where you could get the tax from that you are getting the incentives. It's gonna really, you are diminishing the revenues that could be gotten for sure from those firms. And I don't think it will work in many countries. Although Morocco tried them and I'm sure others tried them and they were quite successful there but that's very limited number of countries. And same can be said about the exchange rate facilitation in countries where they might have really already problems with international reserves. And I also, before you got to the point on agriculture that was gonna be my big comments but then you got nailed that one and that's good. So agriculture, I completely agree with you. It's a crucial thing for industrialization in Africa. Anybody who wants to do manufacturing or in 10 minutes, I can see from here. Okay, five, thank you. So anybody who wants to do thinking about industrialization in Africa by just going to, I don't know, like smoke stacks and things like that without thinking agriculture, they don't really know the continent. Most countries still rely on agriculture, big time. Productivity is low, we know that. So really starting, industrialization has to start by agriculture in many countries in Africa. And for that a lot is needed. And not specifically just the big machines maybe adapting some type of mechanization for the countries using new types of seeds and all these things. And so that's, I completely agree with you. Agri business should be one huge business in Africa and it is not unfortunately. Some countries have been more successful. Again, Morocco and I'm really more familiar with the story of Morocco and Ghana. But Morocco was quite successful in Agri business. And linking it to, and linking, and the other thing is this. We think even for Agri business, we tend to think, oh, these are big commercial farms. That's not what's happening in Africa. Most people who work in agriculture are really small farmers. So how do we find the solutions that are tailored to these specific things where you don't have the big large farms or even the middle level farmers we don't have. And somebody has to work hard to create that. We don't have those. We have small illiterate farmers and also something, something you didn't, and again, I'm pretty much sure it's just a time constraint. What is the role of gender equity in leading or making transformation, structural transformation in Africa, successful because in some countries, the majority of small farmers are women. Not all, but some countries, they have this situation. I was gonna, I had the regional integration as part of this and then Celestan talked about that. Role of original integration. When you are thinking these huge, powerful infrastructural programs, for one country, it might not be feasible. For a bunch of countries where infrastructure links the countries and the market, it might make sense. So that's also an important thing. And the role of the global economy. Celestan talked about global value chains and I talked about them early on in the morning and that's really very important. I am within the time, I have one more minute so I'm gonna go back to one of the points that I loved today about Deepak Nair's presentation. And that's the fact that we have to learn to and learn from development. People talk about, oh, this country made mistakes and this country, somebody has to, maybe the two of you could come up with this book. We're really, we are just doing the learning part because once we unpack all those things that have led to the disastrous outcomes in some African countries, that's already a huge steps in the road of transformation in Africa and done. Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the two speakers. Those were very interesting and nice presentations. Professor Lin, I'm a huge fan of your work. I'm following a lot of my writing on structure of transformation. And the book, the two books that are coming out, I cannot wait for both of them to be on my shelf, really. And I'll be making an order. I want to respond to Professor Lin's points and I think I will just stick to two of them. Mina has done great work on most of them. I don't want to repeat that. First of all, I want to say that the last extra point that you made, Professor Lin, you took them as extras at the end. The issue of the task of quality reduction in Africa. I believe that should be foremost. It should be the primary thing, really, because what you bring up is that what you say is that you place governments or the state squarely in the forefront of spearheading this. So the state's role in the end is very important, especially when it comes to infrastructure development. No doubt about it. We cannot question the fact that Africa is badly in need of infrastructure development. And the example that we had of power outages is very, very key. And I think I want to go back to the other, to the point that you make, that in the structure of development, as well as in technology, science and technology, Africa should not reinvent the wheel. If anything, we can leap forward. What are we doing? Are we learning from countries that, for instance, have wind power? Are we able to learn to get that technology and use it? Why are we having so much power outages that are even becoming a constraint to the foreign direct investment that we want to attract? So that's quite key. When we place this issue squarely on the state's table, we're going to see that if states are decisive in what they want to do and they know what needs to be achieved, it will allow a high growth rate to be achieved. And in your writing, Professor, you have mentioned that China has done it. We can borrow technology. And that's quite important so that we leap forward. The second point, I think that needs to be emphasized, is in regard to what must be done to leap forward. And I think what's important, you do make it in your writing, skill development. That's quite important. If that's done, it's going to help us develop and build a key resource that we have in Africa. And these are the units. The electricity rates are pretty high. We have curriculum that do not match what industry needs. So that needs to be taken care of. We need to build skills, do that about it, and allow the youth to be part of the growth process that we want to achieve in China. With that, I want to say thank you so much for the two wonderful presentations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this is really great. Absolutely wonderful. It may be best for the presenters to come forward. Right? Now you can sit on the hot stools, have fun with them. Okay, I'm going to entertain a number of questions. You're ready. I've seen some hands up already. That shows the level of interest. Okay, we take a few questions, and then they will respond. You go to the next set of questions. And I think I'm going to start right from the front here. And then maybe I should do one, two, three. Oh. Is that a double-hander or a single-hander? Okay, because what I was going to do was to finish this part here, and then I'll come to that one. So I hope your rate of time preference isn't too high. I'll prove it to them. Okay, all right. Okay, yes, please. Thank you very much. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four, five, six, in that order. But please make it very quick, right? And very precise. Thank you very much. I'll try. My name is Lasse Moller. I am with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I'm with Anita. I was very interested, Justin, in your presentation about the structural economics and about the role of the state. But I want to ask you about the role of the state vis-a-vis the private sector, in view of the fact that there's a lot of hype right now about public-private partnerships, especially in infrastructure. Can you comment on that? I know we discussed it outside, so I just want to follow up on that comment. Okay, thank you. I'm Johanna Moller from the University of Helsinki. Thank you very much. Very interesting presentations. And my question relates to the, actually, social agenda impacts of foreign direct investment. I've been following Ethiopian developments since 98 in different capacities, working at Africa Development Bank and I was a researcher. And I mean, it's hugely impressive what's going on there. I mean, it's the third most attractive country for FDI now in Africa. But the gender aspects that none of you gentlemen took up, but fortunately, Professor Meena did take up a highly relevant because when you see foreign direct investments in the countryside, all these big infrastructure projects, et cetera, it's really the women. It's who are the small farmers or even landless peasants who lose out in that. And the second relates to the textile industry. You see already that companies, multinational companies from Bangladesh are relocating to Ethiopia like H&M. What is it going to mean to the local entrepreneurs who are very often women in the textile sector? I mean, I've been doing research on successful Ethiopian female entrepreneurs and they complain about it. They are those who might lose out with this development. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Alan Rowe from retired from the University of Warwick and also from the World Bank. I'd like to pick up a couple of the phrases from both Justin and Celestine. Find a niche, follow your comparative advantage, join international value chains. No one's going to object to those. But I'm very interested in how you see natural resources in the form of oil and gas and minerals in this context. I'll be talking at the session softening on this myself. But it is a fact that if you look at the success in foreign FDI in Africa in the last 15, 20 years, it has been extremely successful in attracting huge amounts of foreign direct investment in those two areas. If you look at mineral dependence or oil and gas dependence, there are now far more countries where that dependence on minerals and or oil and gas is greater than 25%. So these sectors are becoming more important in Africa. And yet we still live with the legacy of the Saks-Warner resource curse theory. Do the speakers entertain, as I do, some hope that the finding of the niche, the entering international value chains can be achieved with appropriate policies, facilitating policies on the back of these natural resources, which I think in Justin's presentation, you tended to sort of group with agriculture and say that dependence has to be lessened over time. It's not being lessened if you include these particular underground resources. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Peter Quote from University of Ghana. And I'm also privileged to be one of the authors to these two volumes. I think leadership and the quality of governance is very critical in all of this structural transformation. Otherwise, you could have all the infrastructure development and all the policies that you need, but with poor leadership and governance structures we would not achieve. And that is the problem with Africa. Thank you very much. Thank you. One last one from this role. Thank you, too. My name is Vaskunya Bindi and from Mozambique, Edward Modyan University. I'm very much a thank for the two presenters for this on structural transformation. And this slide is still there. And the question is whether the African countries at the political level are prepared to think again back on what is said in that slide. Because most of the issues that have been raised in most of the time is that politically people want the integration but the conditions are not there. The real condition that was raised by the so-called preconditions. People list the preconditions but the real conditions are not there. So are we prepared really for regional integration being done under the real conditions that African countries have? That's the question. Thank you very much. Presenters will indeed respond but please you don't need to be too complete in your responses. So we can go to the next set of questions. By the way, did you discuss it? May you want to jump in? Okay. So I'd like to respond to the first comment from the floor about the role of the state and the practice sectors in regarding the infrastructure. And I think before the 1980s, the consensus in a world was the government should be responsible for infrastructure. Then coming to the neoliberalism, the idea changed that if infrastructure is some kind of economic activities then we should live to the private sectors. But as we discussed outside the door you look into the evidence. You know, under this kind of new ideas except one area of private sectors is interested that is telecommunication, mobile phone. And you see a lot of private sector investment in those areas. And the reason for private sectors is interest in the telecommunication because first it's easy to collect the fees. Secondly, there's some kind of monopoly there. So there's a monopoly rent. But other than that, we did not see any private sectors entering into the infrastructure. And as I mentioned to you, the infrastructure first is a long-term investment. Secondly, the infrastructure provides externalities to private sectors. And it's very hard for the private sector to collect those kind of externalities in their fee except you give the private sector some kind of monopoly. But monopoly is not good. And a certain that the return to the infrastructure very much depends on the intensity of the use. But the intensity of the use of infrastructure depends on the overall development in the countries. Individual private investor has no control of the overall growth in the country. So under the current situation, in the past 30 years or so, there's no infrastructure investment in Latin America, in South Asia, in Africa. As a result, infrastructure became mining country for the country's growth. So I think that the state should play a leading role in providing infrastructure. But whether the PPP will work or not. And if you look into the incentive structure of the private sectors, if you have some kind of public and private sectors in a partnership, very often, that will open the door for a ransom case. So I think it's better for the government to provide the infrastructure. And to be pragmatic, targeting the mining constraint first, and to generate dynamic growth in the country. And when you had a dynamic growth, the government would have more resources to improve the infrastructure to other part of the country. And actually, that related to the last question, the regional integration in Africa. Certainly, it's a desirable goal for Africa. However, you need to consider your resources. If you want to make the market economy in Africa integrated, how many infrastructure investment it would be necessary? So under that kind of situation, it would be, you know, following for the Celestin Mongol said, to target international market first. And if you want to reach international market, certainly you need to have infrastructure. But one industrial park would be sufficient. And a linked industrial park to your port would be necessary. And with that investment, you can immediately reach 21% of the global market in the US. 23% of the global market in Europe. And 15% of the global market in China. And so if you look into the return to your infrastructure investment by this kind of pragmatic way, it will be generally much higher return immediately. And with this much higher return, the government will, you know, earn more resources in the future to improve the other part of the infrastructure. And then you may be eventually to have a regional integration in Africa. And that achieved in China, that achieved in the US, that achieved in all the successful countries. No countries start with, you know, connected all the national market together and with that to develop a country. They all started with something which can generate a high return, quick return first. Then I come into the FDI in Ethiopia in Africa. Certainly in the past, FDI mostly are going to the resources sector for any second purpose and so on. But I think that if the government has some kind of, you know, enabling in a policy to attract the FDI to tap into the other compartmentities, that is the young, abundant, double force in Africa, then you are going to attract more front-direct investment in those areas. And Ethiopia is a good, you know, example. Before 2012, no front-direct investment to make manufacturing investment in Ethiopia and for export before the Huajin success story. And after the Huajin success story, on the one hand, the government of Ethiopia learned how to create an enabling environment to attract the investment in light manufacturing for export. And also the international investor, you know, as to Ethiopia can be the manufacturing for the global market. International buyer, as you mentioned, H&M also came. And now Ethiopia has become the most attractive places for front-direct investment in explorative light manufacturing, not only in Africa, but in the whole world. And then coming to the front-direct investment in the light manufacturing, further supporting the local entrepreneurship. I say, yes. If you want to go into the international markets, certainly you need to go into the sector which we have comparable advantages. So you have a low factor cost of production. But at the same time, you also need to gain the trust of international buyers that you will be able to deliver the good with consistent quality and deliver the good timely. But local firms, they did not know how to do that. International buyers did not have the confidence. And that's the reason why B.O.2012, no international chain set up their procurement office in Addis Ababa. But after the success of Huajin, now you have more light manufacturing firms entering into Ethiopia. I'm sure very quickly, local entrepreneur will learn from those front-direct investment. And again, the ability to produce good in consistent quality and deliver good timely. And that is also the evidence. Before 1980s, you did not have any in a garment factory in Bangladesh, export to the global market. At the beginning, it started with a front-direct investment from Debu, from Korea. And now almost 95% of the expropriated garment factory in Bangladesh are owned by the local people. And I'd like to say, now they have three million jobs in garment sectors in Bangladesh. And it was also the story in Mauritius. Before 1970s, there was no export of garment and textile from Mauritius to the world. And they set up a special economics zone to attract foreign-direct investment from Hong Kong and Taiwan. And at the beginning, almost all the firm were either owned by Taiwanese or by Hong Kongese. Now more than 70% are owned by the local entrepreneur because later and quickly. Then coming to the question, some of the firm, some of the expropriation zone was in the real part successful and others were not successful. You compare the Mauritius and Osama Gadasca. I think one reason why Mauritius was successful because in the 1970s, its per capita income was about half of the per capita income in Taiwan and in Hong Kong. And that consistent with the principle I have. And other countries, their special economics zone in that part did not work because they are too ambitious. You know, like America's Mastakska, I did not check, but I'm sure Mastakska, per capita income was less than one fifth of the country where they want to attract the industry. And so they are not ready to do that because those sector are not, they are comparavantages yet. And if they are not comparavantages, firm coming to the country for a second instead of for utilize is comparavantages as an expropriation base. Thank you very much. Thank you, Celeste. Still have time? Yeah, because there's this side of the room too. Well, no, perhaps quickly on one or two questions, I think just in address most of the question asked, there was just a comment on the gender. It's kind of interesting to hear that from a woman entrepreneur in Ethiopia because two thirds of the jobs which are being created in Ethiopia today are occupied by young women. To me, that's the headline in Ethiopia. Two thirds of the new jobs are young women. So whatever this woman entrepreneur that you talk to may be upset about with Bangladeshi firms coming in, she should know that they are creating jobs for Ethiopian women. In fact, she should try to connect to, yeah, go ahead. Yes, I'm talking. Yeah, well, at least in the first term, there's always some losses here and there. That's the nature of the dynamics of economics. But very quickly, the country benefits and that's why I can tell you if Ethiopia keeps doing what they are doing today, the next 20 years we'll be having conferences like this around the world on the Ethiopian miracle. I can tell you that. So I'm not too worried about that because I really think that they are recruiting young women and I've seen them, I have pictures on my cell phone when I go to Ethiopia. I've visited all the new industries. Two thirds of workers are young women. No, please, no, no, no, let me catch up after during lunch. On natural resources, yes. I used to be myself very skeptical of the focus on mining. For several reasons. The biggest one being that mining usually do not create a lot of jobs. It brings a lot of money. It's good for foreign exchange, for the balance of payment. It generates rents, which are sometimes difficult to manage but my biggest problem was that they did not mining mineral, natural resources, at least mining, general doesn't create a lot of jobs. And that's a problem with African countries where you have, that's the number one problem.  So they, even there, they use the money from oil to diversify the economy. You go to Dubai now and you see that they've been thinking very long term. They are trying to redefine these economies into something else. Well, the problem is, I think somebody mentioned the social aspect of this. The problem when you have a large economy is that you cannot finance the social safety net with rents from oil. If you're Dubai or Saudi Arabia, you can basically exaggerate it. You can put people at home and then fund a social safety net for everybody. Yesterday I was watching BBC and they were giving numbers on education statistics in Dubai. Very unhappy about it, the Dubai government. And saying that they are very bad. Well, they can afford that. They can even pay people to stay home. But if you're Nigeria, you have 170 or 200 million people, you will never have enough revenues from oil, from mining, to do that kind of social safety net policy. You need to put people to work. So you need to use the revenues and rents from mining to really generate this kind of labor-intensive strategy, which you may have the luxury of not doing if you are Qatar, but Nigeria or Tanzania or Mozambique, you really need to use the rents, but you need to put people to work. Otherwise, you don't want to have millions and millions of angry people out there.  Thank you very much. Right, I have to be complete. They don't have to be so to be fair, we have to come to this side right now. Exactly, that's right. So, Alema Sempe, yeah, that's right. One, two, three, four. And then one in the back to make five. Okay. The rest of the discussion can be the last one. So you can hear me, right? So Augustin, when you give the presenters a chance, make sure that they don't present their stuff again, okay? So I'm from the African Economic Research Consortium, and I've heard Justin's presentation actually twice. The first time was in Abidjan, and I really appreciate that. What is interesting is that you have an economist who has actually come up with a plan of action, right? So it's pretty refreshing. And I, but also wanted to caution our African brothers and sisters that we should always be aware that one side does not fit all, and that we should actually be careful. But then Justin should be really part of a toolkit that we should be considering. But I have a couple of observations. I hope that Justin, maybe in your next presentation, because it comes across as if infrastructure is kind of unitary, like physical, power, electricity. We always kind of under-appreciate the value of soft infrastructure, capacity. I come from a capacity-building skills, governance. Somebody talked about governance. And then I think in terms of quality of governance, I have an issue with your response to the private sector, in PPP, and one of the angles that you used was rent-seeking. Rent-seeking occurs in the governance sector. Governments are run by individuals. And in fact, if you have this industrial policy that you mentioned, industrial policy makers could be captured. So it's really, you cannot simply take away the private sector. I think there is really kind of like overdue kind of under-appreciation with the role of markets and private sector and what we're doing. The second is, who is going to finance, transformation, industrialization? There was a huge United Nations meeting last time in others, that was deal. And one thing that came up was the whole idea of domestic resource mobilization and self-reliance. And also having a wealth-functioning financial system. I think that part should actually come into play. And here, I take an issue with my friend.  In finance, I see the need for regional integration in Africa. And we have a large number of stock exchanges in them, is that right? Very barkalized, very thin. But having them integrated will also help us, not only is it domestic resource mobilization, it's also helping us integrate globally. So I really need, I think we need to resist the temptation of making very kind of gigantic statements. Thank you very much, Salema. One more thing, I felt like you went too far when you mentioned that if you have missing industries, you should go to FDI. I think, you know, basically if you're searching around for comparative line somehow, I think you need to be, you should also ask the following question, why is it missing? You know, it might well be that there are substantial barriers, one of which is access to finance. So I think one of the things I would do is to see if I can actually cultivate that gap before I jump into FDI. So anyway. Thank you very much, Salema. I think we need to organize that conference to discuss these issues all over again. I'll take one from here, from the middle and one from the back, that's it. Okay, in fairness to everyone, it is not possible, it's not feasible for us to be able to answer all these questions. And so one in the middle, one in the middle, yes. You already selected me before, so I'll do it. Yes, so the lady, yes, go ahead. And then one in the back, that's it, I'm sorry. So one comment and a request to Justin, I had the opportunity to visit the CNH garments factory in Rwanda and it is a pioneer factory and it would be good to emphasize or highlight some of the soft infrastructure aspects, not just training and the fact that you have to spend money for up to a year to get the capacity on board, but also things like minimum wage, that you start off from a low wage base and if you want to incentivize your workers, then you need to, and if you rise above the minimum wage, then it becomes, it's taxed to the government. So there may be some adjustments that go beyond the pioneer industries and there's some trade-offs there that are worth highlighting based on your experience. My main question is with respect to regional integration. One thing is that while intra-Africa trade is low, about 46% of that is manufacturing. So do we have an endowment or comparative advantage in that respect, meaning that manufacturing of manufactured goods could be a way to boost the industrial base? And then with respect to again Rwanda as a case in point, Rwanda is a landlocked country. So even to access international markets, it depends on cooperation with its neighbors. So how do you reconcile this don't bet on regional integration when you depend on your neighbors to be able to access the international markets physically? Thank you very much. The last question from the back. Yes, thank you. I think they were very good presentations. My name is Akbar Netbo from Wyetham. Those are two or three specific questions. I'm sorry, are you on the back there? You said one in the middle. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. That's the middle of the middle. The Rwanda please. Just one second. Please be very brief and then after that, Professor Ajay. We're going to come this far from our countries. All right, okay. And you start giving us one minute, otherwise we would go. Please. This is a very important meeting. You did compare Nyeri and Febuane. I think we should be careful because at times we confuse modernization with development, okay? Nyeri had his own purpose, he had his own challenges, but the two are not really the same. One is a subset of the other. My question, again, your framework, you mentioned Ethiopia here. And others have argued that Ethiopia is a place under a developmental state framework. How does that fit into your most totalist economics framework? We've talked about the role of the state in the early Chinese development, up to the time when the Communist Party, okay? And for years, you are restrictive. You don't open up, okay? That you open up, the world became, in quote, amazed. In Africa, it is a little bit different, okay? With this so-called democracy where debates and debates could create problems. I'm not saying it's not useful, could create problems. So how do you reconcile that? Because now we're asked to liberalize, open up, you know? And the African thing, again, was very careful. Africa is light, as we've said, but 55 countries with different ways of doing things, okay? So the important thing is that, you talk about FDI coming to Africa. In Nigeria, the stories we have done show that the FDI is mainly portfolio investment, speculative investment, and it's not taking us anywhere. So we need more country-specific studies in our continent. And perhaps, see whether there are a few countries that could drive the process, and others could emulate. Then in representation, I've not read the book, the international financial architecture, the Heimer, the Warband, the rest, okay? How, I know there were committees to work on a new architecture. How does that affect African development going forward? Final question, development is a struggle, as you all know, it's a struggle. So the type of state that is necessary to understand that is very important, and my view is that the so-called democratic states in Africa would not support development the way you are thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely, in a very precise way, right? Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My name is Ibi Ajiayi from University of Ibadan. To please you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to be very brief. I have so many questions. These are two excellent scholars, and they have made very beautiful presentations. So they've really raised a lot of questions. But there were only two. The first one is, during Justin's presentation on growth at education and facilitation, he says, avoid government doing wrong things or being captured by investor groups for rent-seeking. Is that not the problem of governments all around the world, and in particular in Africa, always doing the wrong things, always being captured by the big shots, you know, the money bags and so on? Isn't that the problem, and how do we address that? Secondly, I want to go to Dr. Munga. Of course, in the past, when you were at the World Bank, you were sending so many desired materials to me. Now I know why you stopped. You moved to different institutions. But let me ask you a question. From what you've said in the book presentation, when you look at the general economic theory, I'm trying to ask you, should we really develop a different economic theory for Africa? And if so, why and why should we and what area? Thank you very much. I have other questions, but I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Okay, I assume there are no more questions. There shouldn't be any more questions. And as far as presenters are concerned, could you respond with each one with two minutes? Each one has two minutes, so please concentrate. And after the session, please come forward and have additional discussions with them. Please. Well, the first one, I'd like to respond to the issue of no one size fits all. Certainly agree with that. No one size fits all, right? But we know if we want to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth, we need to create jobs. And if we want to create a job in a sustainable way, then the job should be in a sectors which are competitive, domestically and internationally without protection and subsidies from the government. And how can you have the sectors which can make you create a job and a competitive domestically and internationally, then you need to follow the competitive advantages. I don't know whether that is one size fits all or not, but I know if you want to have competitive job in a sustainable way, the sector need to be consistent with your competitive advantages. So you can say that's one size fits all, but I do not see any alternative than that. That's one thing. Secondly, agree. Certainly any kind of policy interventions require capacities, but if you want to have import substitution, you need to have capacity. If you want to improve the governance following the Washington consensus reform, you also need to have capacity. If you want to improve education for all the citizens in the country, you also need to have capacity. If you want to achieve gender equalities, you also need to have capacities. So it's not unique for any policy recommendation. And I'd like to say the policy recommendation from what I advocate is a new structural economics in a pragmatic way. Actually, the capacity requirement will be much limited compared to everything I mentioned, import substitution, governance, education for all, gender equality for all. And actually, from what I see or all my interactions with the government in Africa or in other parts of the world, if the sectors that they try to facilitate is consistent with your competitive advantages and in a pragmatic way starting with something small like industrial parking and so on, every country should have sufficient capacity to do that. Thank you. Okay. The private sector certainly is important, but the program I'm advocating is to facilitate the development of the private sector. So I did not externalize that. But we know that in a structural transformation, without a government facilitation to reduce the transaction costs by improving the infrastructural institution, the private sectors cannot be competitive, domestic and international. So I think that it's not either the state or the private sectors. We need to have a partnership between the state and the private sectors. And certainly, if you have those kind of partnerships, we need to avoid ransacking. And again, to follow in the competitive advantage will be crucial. Because in the sector which you have advantages, what the government do is to help reduce the transaction costs instead of trying to give rent to protect them. And so that can also reduce the possibility of ransackings. And here certainly you need to compensate for the first movers. But in the framework I'm arguing is tax incentive for a few years. First it's very small and it's time limited. So you can avoid the ransacking that you give a lot of protection and subsidy. And I have many other to respond, but I don't have time, it's limited. Yeah, please understand. Well, I'm in the same situation. So I'll just take a minute to say, perhaps on the question on should Africa have an economic theory? I think it's an important question, but it's also really purely an intellectual exercise because even assuming that Africa could have a new African economic theory, what would be the purpose? We live in a war, okay? We live in a war. Growth in Africa will come from trade, okay? By definition, low income countries don't have domestic demand. So growth will have to come from trade. So whatever economic theory we could come up with, if it doesn't allow us to maximize the opportunities of trade, we won't get there. And that's nothing new. Everybody has done that. Now, there's been a question whether the recent trend in global trade still give or leaves room for countries in Africa. If African countries can do today what the Asian countries did in the 80s. I think it's a wrong question because global trade and global markets have expanded so much that even a decline of 5, 10% still doesn't change the basic dynamics. So we can have an economic theory for Africa but to me it's not really useful. Then shopping didn't look for economic theory for China. And even today, people tend to dismiss some of the ideas which are put in the table. They say, oh, these are Chinese stuff. Well, there's really nothing Chinese about it because then shopping, when he became the boss, he was 74 years old in 1978. He was coming from jail. The country was big, no infrastructure. Really, even though human capital, even though people think that human capital was very high, but Mao Zedong had closed down universities and colleges for 10 years. So I don't believe that human capital was very high. They certainly have no mining, no gold, no gas, no infrastructure. And one billion angry people, and he needed to deliver.  He simply needed to do something pragmatic. He went to see Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, who told him what he had learned. But Lee Kuan Yew didn't invent anything if you look at what has happened in the world in the past 200 years. The Italians did the same thing with industrial district. In fact, the industrial parks that we're talking about today, they are not very different from what Adam Smith described in Scotland 200 years ago. So there's nothing Chinese about it. We just need something that works in the context of today's world.  Well, we have had many communists. We have had many communists, the government in Africa, they didn't deliver anything. We've had some brutal dictatorships.  Absolutely one. So let's just be pragmatic. And I will be more than happy to continue this chat and discussion. I have a Twitter account. So if you Google me and you find me on Twitter, we can debate and fight these matters as long as you want. Thank you. Pragmatism, pragmatism, pragmatism. I know that there's an excess demand for engagement, but guess what? It's a huge other price of time because we have to eat. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you presenters. Thank you discussions. And there will be additional time for additional engagement elsewhere. Bye-bye.


In the Indian Ocean, Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia participated in the annual exercise Citadel Pacific August 26th through the 28th. The exercise included a small boat attack drill that simulated a hostile attack. The exercise so far is going quite well. We're getting really good training from the security department on real-world operations of how to operate the boats and what to do in the event of a real-world attack. Exercise participants also trained for an active shooter drill where security and medical teams collaborated to test their reaction to a possible real-life situation. Citadel Pacific is designed to test anti-terrorism plans, readiness, and the response of local commands and agencies. From the Defense Media Activity, I'm Petty Officer Ian Cotter.


What's good y'all it's your boy Ross back again with another video. So we got to talk about what happened on this episode of smack now. A lot of people were looking for it to this particular episode to see what Seth and Cody were going to say to the rock and Roman Reigns in their response to their night one tag team match. And before the show went on air, the rock dropped a 10 minute promo on his Twitter basically talking trash about Seth and Cody. I thought it was entertaining and it definitely hyped me up to see what they were going to do for tonight's show. So at the beginning of the show, they essentially were showing. I guess you could say like Lou. I wouldn't call him vignettes, but you know how they show people walking to the arena like they were showing footage of people walking to arena and getting there that was showing the rock and Roman getting to the arena and Seth and Cody and both of them had security team by their locker room. Nick Aldous had got these GAG securities to be there just in case some shenanigans were going to take place. Which I like that element of this could be a volatile situation. So let's get air security by each of these guys locker rooms. Seth and Cody has some security. Rock and Roman has some security. So I like that the aesthetic of it. So before we get to the main event, this was the last segment of the show, Nick Aldous goes to Seth and Cody to get them out their locker rooms. He walks in. He doesn't see them. He asked the GAG security. Hey, where is Seth and Cody? They don't know and I like that because I thought that we're going to do something with it, but they really didn't.  Then the rock comes out there.  It looked pretty cool. And then you saw the rock's logos with the red eyes. I thought that was a nice touch that they added to his entrance.  I thought that was cool. I like that. Just that addition to his entrance now that he's more or less a heel. I thought that was very entertaining. Just just that little bit. It didn't have to do too much and it made his entrance that much more special.  And at this point, we're trying to see what's about to happen. Um, I want to say Roman does his normal stick, but then he says instead of acknowledge me, he says acknowledge us. He's talking about Roman and the rock. I like that. And then Cody's music kit and smoking all the other stuff is going at the entrance ramp.  I guess you can say to get into the arena, but I was expecting something different because that's their way of tricking security. You just go through the crowd and insecurity. The JG security still came out to meet them at ringside. So I don't know if that was a way to nod at the shield, like a little reference to the shield, or that was a way to get around security when security still met you at ringside and security didn't even get in the ring. I thought they were going to split the ring up with security there, but security didn't even get in the ring. They were just ringside. So Seth and Cody, they, they would come through opposite sides, but before the commercial break, they came through one aisle through the crowd and then after commercial break, they were separated. I think the commercial break placement was kind of miskewed. I think you could have cut up the Rockins Romans entrance just a little bit to kind of make the pacing a little bit better. I definitely have some gripes with how the pacing was because it took them and we timed as damn near 10 minutes just for like eight minutes for the Rockin Roman just to get into the ring. So that ate up so much time, but they finally get into the ring. Oh, and that and Cody starts off a little bit too diplomatic for me. I know that's his character. I wish he wouldn't. He's like, I know we got to take time to really baskin this all four of us in this ring right now. We got to really baskin this moment.  He been talking about your dog. He called your dog a shithead. Pack him up. Anywho, so Cody, I like what he was doing at the beginning. Trying to be trying to, I guess you can say be messy. He said, all right, so I heard your challenge rock, but I'm kind of confused. Do you have that authority? Do you have that power to make that match? I mean, after all, you did just acknowledge Roman reign. So I would think you would have to ask him first to make that match. I like that. That was that's what I need more from Cody.  Kind of built that dissension. That's what I would be doing. I would try to build the dissension because I know y'all both have huge egos and I know y'all want to feel like y'all are are the best in the bloodline family. So I would play that up.  That's what I would do.   So I'm like, but I didn't say nothing. And then at that point, rock really just reinerates what he said last week. That's all he did. The stuff that we heard on the promo segment that he did on Twitter, like the little segment he had on Twitter, obviously it was more trash talk, but here it was literally what he said last week. And I like when Seth Rollins interrupted him here.  Damn. Like be quiet, bro.  I'm like, there we go. That's what I like when Seth Rollins took them glasses off and got serious. That's what I was. I was really, I was really rocking with. Like, I like that.  Like, damn, you're going through a midlife crisis. We get it. You was great back then, but right now this is our time.  So I'm like, all right, cool. But then Roman does that little sarcastic laugh. Like, wait, what? So then he spins what Cody said earlier to the Rocky. Like, really, bro? This is, this is what you're going to do. You're going to let this cross dresser speak for you. God, this is the concept of cross dresser, bro. He said, you're going to really let this cross dresser speak for you. Hey, look, when it's all said and done, when I beat you at WrestleMania, it's done. Your story will be done. You will never finish it. It's over. Okay. It'll be done. And then the rock interjects and this is when the rock start getting disrespect when he starts pushing his power. He said, I had it enough from both of you guys. At the end of the day, I am at the board. I am at the top. I am your bosses. I will do whatever it takes to do what I have to do for our family. I will get rid of that title. I will make sure that you never finish your story.  And I knew, I was like, oh, he's going to bring up his father again. You know, that's a quick way to trick a Cody, bring up his father and then he brought up Cody's father. Let me start talking about the children he's had. And then he says the big line. He says, your father's not looking down upon you. If anything, your father made a mistake. He said, you were a mistake. And that's when Seth was about to do something, but Cody told him right now, I'm good.  And then he smacked the rock right across the face.  That was it. Now here's the thing. One of the homies sent me the clip of what happened after the show. So if you guys want to see that, it's on my Twitter right now. So you guys want to see what happened after the show. Someone was recording the footage, but I'm going to just make it very simple for you. What happened after the show was absolutely nothing. They stood in the ring. Crowd was electric.  And then the Rocks music hit and then the rock and Roman left. That's literally what happened. They did nothing. So I know a lot of us was disappointed, but I think we would have been disappointed if we saw what happened anyway because they absolutely did nothing. This is why I think it would have been better if you had the security in the ring and then that happened and then you have to pull apart. That would have been better. They were outside the ring. Nothing happened. So we didn't miss nothing. It's just the way they formatted it looked like we may have missed something. But once the Rock said you were a mistake, you know, you were a mistake by your father. Your father made a mistake in having you. Once he put that out there, you knew Cody was going to slap him. I think it was kind of it was it was telegraphed in a sense. I would have. I know you want to hear him say something disrespectful that warrants to slap or whatnot. And I get it. It's just it seemed a little bit telegraphed. That's the route they were going. Granted, it was cool to see Cody actually lay off the smack if at least on the rock. So I will take that. That's all I really wanted. I really wanted it to be just a we accept Patrick to the face, but we got the slap. That's what they've been kind of teasing and in predicting. So I'm glad we got that. It's just I wish the security was in the ring to give the image of chaos. Because if someone slaps you like the rock slap, Cody, everybody that was in that area were trying to hold back Cody and Seth. That was good. But when Cody slapped the rock, the rock sat there. Roman sat there and nobody did nothing. We didn't see it, but nobody did nothing. It's implied. If you didn't, if you don't check on social media, nothing happened. So I don't know. I don't know. That's that's just one of those type of things where it's like just having the J.A.G. He's in there with added a better visual, but we'll see how things go. But things are heating up. I definitely enjoyed the segment. I just wish it was paced better, but just commercial wise, but I enjoyed the segment. I need Cody to really amp up that aggressiveness. Keep that aggressive side going. I'm all for that. I like it when Seth Rollins is more serious. And I would like a pull apart bra, at least on a go home show for Smackdown doesn't have to be now on a go home show for WrestleMania. I need a pull apart bra. I think that would be perfect to really get us hyped up and we go from there. So it'll be interesting to see what they have to say going forward. It'll be interesting to see what the rock does because he did get slapped and he's been talking like he's the boss and he runs things. So we're going to see what happens. But comment down below. Let me know. Do you guys enjoy this segment? What do you guys feel like the segment could have been done to make the make it better? Or do you feel like it was perfect the way it is? I appreciate all the love and support. Road to 150 K and I'm still young speedy YouTube wrestling champion world. Appreciate y'all kicking with me. See y'all next one. Peace.