{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037243299686738604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014966933518969718, 'mean_word_length': 5.088983050847458, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modelling income distribution impacts of water sector projects in Bangladesh.


 Dynamic analysis was conducted to assess the long-term impacts of water sector projects on agricultural income distribution, and sensitivity analysis was conducted to check the robustness of the 5 assumptions in this study of income distribution and water sector projects in Bangladesh. 7 transitions are analyzed for mutually exclusive irrigation and flooding projects: Nonirrigation to 1) LLP irrigation, 2) STW irrigation, 3) DTW irrigation, 4) major gravity irrigation, and manually operated shallow tubewell irrigation (MOSTI) and Flood Control Projects (FCD) of 6) medium flooded to shallow flooded, and 7) deeply flooded to shallow flooded. 5 analytical stages are involved: 1) farm budgets are derived with and without project cropping patterns for each transition. 2) Estimates are generated for value added/hectare from each transition. 3) Assumptions are made about the number of social classes, distribution of land ownership between classes, extent of tenancy for each social class, term of tenancy contracts, and extent of hiring of labor for each social class. 4) Annual value added/hectare is distributed among social classes. 5) Using Gini coefficients and simple ratios, the distribution of income between classes is estimated for with and without transition. Assumption I is that there are 4 social classes defined by land acreage: large farmers (5 acres), medium farmers (1.5-5.0), small farmers, (.01-1.49), and landless. Assumption II is that land distribution follows the 1978 Land Occupancy Survey (LOS). Biases, if any, are indicated. Assumption III is that large farmers sharecrop out 15% of land to small farmers. Assumption IV is that landlords provide nonirrigated crop land and take 50% of the crop, and, under irrigation, provide 50% of the fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation costs and take 50% of the crop. Assumption V is that hired and family labor is assumed to be 40% for small farmers, 60% for medium farmers, and 80% for large farmers. It is understood that the analysis is partially complete, since there if no Assessment of the impact on nonagricultural income and employment, or secondary impacts such as demand for irrigation equipment, services for processing, manufacture and transport services, or investment of new agricultural surpluses. Few empirical studies have been done and the estimates apply only to individual project areas. The results show that inequality is greatest with major (gravity) irrigation, followed by STW, DTW and LLP, FCD (medium to shallow), FCD (deep to shallow), and the most equitable MOSTI. Changes in the absolute income accruing to the rural poor would lead to the rank of major gravity irrigation as raising more above the poverty line, followed by MOSTI, minor irritation (STW, DTW, and LLP), and FCD schemes.
