No abstract

No abstract

The World Income Inequality Database (WIID) is widely used by common readers of economic inequality. It reports, among other, information on Gini coefficient computed from micro-data and corresponding decile and quintile income or consumption distributions. As a part of common practice, a reader may look at a reported Gini and visually examine the corresponding grouped distributions. The precise objective of this paper is to examine whether such a practice of linking of Gini coefficient based on micro-data and the corresponding grouped income distributions is always feasible. A reported Gini may not always correspond to the displayed grouped distribution, as it should be. In the quest of performing a consistency check, if Gini coefficient is computed from the grouped distributions, one may end up finding some non-negligible number of absurd figures, which cannot be explained by our common understanding of the existing literature. One needs to identify and filter out such unusual cases from the dataset to make it useable throughout. As grouping of micro-data into deciles or quintiles involves some sort of shortfall comprising of underestimation and downward bias in Gini coefficient, and as probable magnitude of these can be set, such information may be used to filter out the cases with discrepancies. After a thorough analysis of four different versions of WIID, it is found that nearly 6-11% cases are unusual relating to quintile and decile datasets, respectively in WIID of 6 May 2020 with a gradual improvement of data quality from WIID 3.4 of 2017. Keywords Consistency check • Decile and quintile income distributions • Grouping of income inequality data • Micro-Gini coefficient • World Income Inequality database

This study provided information on housing, feeds and feeding management, mating system and healthcare management of Black Bengal goats at rural villages of Mymensingh sadar upazila under Mymensingh district in Bangladesh. All farmers reared goats in semi-intensive system and most of them had goat house, provided bedding materials at winter season. Most of the farmers took bath of their goats at summer but a few of them did the same in winter season. Most of the farmers used concentrate feed with green grass and supplied water once in a day in particular waterer. Major sources of drinking water for goats were tube well and during rainy season most of the farmers grazed their goats. Farmers supplied little bit more grass and tree leaves to their lactating does than that of pregnant does while they supplied more amount of concentrates feed to their pregnant does than that of lactating does. Birth and weaning weight were higher in male kids than female kids. Few farmers vaccinated their goats. Farmers did not keep breeding buck and they did not use artificial insemination (AI) for their does. Spouses were the main contributor in goat keeping. Above discussions might be indicative that farmers were more careful about housing, feeding but less careful about health care and breeding buck keeping issues.

No abstract