The concept of inequality is distinct from that of poverty^[1] and fairness. Income inequality metrics or income distribution metrics are used by social scientists to measure the distribution of income, and economic inequality among the participants in a particular economy, such as that of a specific country or of the world in general. While different theories may try to explain how income inequality comes about, income inequality metrics simply provide a system of measurement used to determine the dispersion of incomes.

Income distribution has always been a central concern of economic theory and economic policy. Classical economists such as Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo were mainly concerned with factor income distribution, that is, the distribution of income between the main factors of production, land, labour and capital. It is often related to wealth distribution although separate factors influence wealth inequality.

Modern economists have also addressed this issue, but have been more concerned with the distribution of income across individuals and households. Important theoretical and policy concerns include the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. The article Economic inequality discusses the social and policy aspects of income distribution questions.

Defining income[link]

All of the metrics described below are applicable to evaluating the distributional inequality of various kinds of resources. Here the focus is on income as a resource. As there are various forms of "income", the investigated kind of income has to be clearly described.

One form of income is the total amount of goods and services that a person receives, and thus there is not necessarily money or cash involved. If a subsistence farmer in Uganda grows his own grain it will count as income. Services like public health and education are also counted in. Often expenditure or consumption (which is the same in an economic sense) is used to measure income. The World Bank uses the so-called "living standard measurement surveys"^[2] to measure income. These consist of questionnaires with more than 200 questions. Surveys have been completed in most developing countries.

Applied to the analysis of income inequality within countries, "income" often stands for the taxed income per individual or per household. Here income inequality measures also can be used to compare the income distributions before and after taxation in order to measure the effects of progressive tax rates.

Properties of inequality metrics[link]

In the economic literature on inequality four properties are generally postulated that any measure of inequality should satisfy:

Anonymity[link]

This assumption states that an inequality metric does not depend on the "labeling" of individuals in an economy and all that matters is the distribution of income. For example, in an economy composed of two people, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones, where one of them has 60% of the income and the other 40%, the inequality metric should be the same whether it is Mr. Smith or Mrs. Jones who has the 40% share. This property distinguishes the concept of inequality from that of fairness where who owns a particular level of income and how it has been acquired is of central importance. An inequality metric is a statement simply about how income is distributed, not about who the particular people in the economy are or what kind of income they "deserve".

Scale independence[link]

This property says that richer economies should not be automatically considered more unequal by construction. In other words, if every person's income in an economy is doubled (or multiplied by any positive constant) then the overall metric of inequality should not change. Of course the same thing applies to poorer economies. The inequality income metric should be independent of the aggregate level of income.

Population independence[link]

Similarly, the income inequality metric should not depend on whether an economy has a large or small population. An economy with only a few people should not be automatically judged by the metric as being more equal than a large economy with lots of people. This means that the metric should be independent of the level of population.

Transfer principle[link]

The Pigou–Dalton, or transfer, principle is the assumption that makes an inequality metric actually a measure of inequality. In its weak form it says that if some income is transferred from a rich person to a poor person, while still preserving the order of income ranks, then the measured inequality should not increase. In its strong form, the measured level of inequality should decrease.

Common income inequality metrics[link]

Among the most common metrics used to measure inequality are the Gini index (also known as Gini coefficient), the Theil index, and the Hoover index. They have all four properties described above.

An additional property of an inequality metric that may be desirable from an empirical point of view is that of 'decomposability'. This means that if a particular economy is broken down into sub-regions, and an inequality metric is computed for each sub region separately, then the measure of inequality for the economy as a whole should be a weighted average of the regional inequalities (in a weaker form, it means that it should be an explicit function of sub-regional inequalities, though not necessarily linear). Of the above indexes, only the Theil index has this property.

Because these income inequality metrics are summary statistics that seek to aggregate an entire distribution of incomes into a single index, the information on the measured inequality is reduced. This information reduction of course is the goal of computing inequality measures, as it reduces complexity.

A weaker reduction of complexity is achieved if income distributions are described by shares of total income. Rather than to indicate a single measure, the society under investigation is split into segments, e.g. into quintiles (or any other percentage of population). Usually each segment contains the same share of income earners. In case of an unequal income distribution, the shares of income available in each segment are different. In many cases the inequality indices mentioned above are computed from such segment data without evaluating the inequalities within the segments. The higher the amount of segments (e.g. deciles instead of quintiles), the closer the measured inequality of distribution gets to the real inequality. (If the inequality within the segments is known, the total inequality can be determined by those inequality metrics which have the property of being "decomposable".)

Quintile measures of inequality satisfy the transfer principle only in its weak form because any changes in income distribution outside the relevant quintiles are not picked up by this measures; only the distribution of income between the very rich and the very poor matters while inequality in the middle plays no role.

Details of the three inequality measures are described in the respective Wikipedia articles. The following subsections cover them only briefly.

Gini index[link]

The range of the Gini index is between 0 and 1 (0% and 100%), where 0 indicates perfect equality and 1 (100%) indicates maximum inequality.

The Gini index is the most frequently used inequality index. The reason for its popularity is that it is easy to understand how to compute the Gini index as a ratio of two areas in Lorenz curve diagrams. As a disadvantage, the Gini index only maps a number to the properties of a diagram, but the diagram itself is not based on any model of a distribution process. The "meaning" of the Gini index only can be understood empirically. Additionally the Gini does not capture where in the distribution the inequality occurs. As a result two very different distributions of income can have the same Gini index.

Hoover index[link]

The Hoover index is the simplest of all inequality measures to calculate: It is the proportion of all income which would have to be redistributed to achieve a state of perfect equality.

In a perfectly equal world, no resources would need to be redistributed to achieve equal distribution: a Hoover index of 0. In a world in which all income was received by just one family, almost 100% of that income would need to be redistributed (i.e., taken and given to other families) in order to achieve equality. The Hoover index then ranges between 0 and 1 (0% and 100%), where 0 indicates perfect equality and 1 (100%) indicates maximum inequality.

Theil index[link]

A Theil index of 0 indicates perfect equality. A Theil index of 1 indicates that the distributional entropy of the system under investigation is almost similar to a system with an 82:18 distribution.^[3] This is slightly more unequal than the inequality in a system to which the "80:20 Pareto principle" applies.^[4] The Theil index can be transformed into an Atkinson index, which has a range between 0 and 1 (0% and 100%), where 0 indicates perfect equality and 1 (100%) indicates maximum inequality.

The Theil index is an entropy measure. As for any resource distribution and with reference to information theory, "maximum entropy" occurs once income earners cannot be distinguished by their resources, i.e. when there is perfect equality. In real societies people can be distinguished by their different resources, with the resources being incomes. The more "distinguishable" they are, the lower is the "actual entropy" of a system consisting of income and income earners. Also based on information theory, the gap between these two entropies can be called "redundancy".^[5] It behaves like a negative entropy.

For the Theil index also the term "Theil entropy" had been used. This caused confusion. As an example, Amartya Sen commented on the Theil index, "given the association of doom with entropy in the context of thermodynamics, it may take a little time to get used to entropy as a good thing."^[6] It is important to understand that an increasing Theil index does not indicate an increasing entropy, instead it indicates an increasing redundancy (decreasing entropy).

High inequality yields high Theil redundancies. High redundancy means low entropy. But this does not necessarily imply that a very high inequality is "good", because very low entropies also can lead to explosive compensation processes. Neither does using the Theil index necessarily imply that a very low inequality (low redundancy, high entropy) is "good", because high entropy is associated with slow, weak and inefficient resource allocation processes.

There are three variants of the Theil index. When applied to income distributions, the first Theil index relates to systems within which incomes are stochastically distributed to income earners, whereas the second Theil index relates to systems within which income earners are stochastically distributed to incomes.

A third "symmetrized" Theil index is the arithmetic average of the two previous indices. Interestingly, the formula of the third Theil index has some similarity with the Hoover index (as explained in the related articles). As in case of the Hoover index, the symmetrized Theil index does not change when swapping the incomes with the income earners. How to generate that third Theil index by means of a spreadsheet computation directly from distribution data is shown below.

An important property of the Theil index which makes its application popular is its decomposability into the between-group and within-group component. For example, the Theil index of overall income inequality can be decomposed in the between-region and within region components of inequality, while the relative share attributable to the between-region component suggests the relative importance of spatial dimension of income inequality.^[7]

Comparison of the Theil index and the Hoover index[link]

Illustration of the relation between Theil index Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): T

and the Hoover index Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): H

for societies divides into two quantiles ("a-fractiles"). Here the Hoover index and the Theil are equal at a value of around 0.46. The red curve shows the difference between the Theil index and the Hoover index as a function of the Hoover index. The green curve shows the Theil index divided by the Hoover index as a function of the Hoover index.

The Theil index indicates the distributional redundancy of a system, within which incomes are assigned to income earners in a stochastic process. In comparison, the Hoover index indicates the minimum size of the income share of a society, which would have to be redistributed in order to reach maximum entropy. Not to exceed that minimum size would require a perfectly planned redistribution. Therefore the Hoover index is the "non-stochastic" counterpart to the "stochastic" Theil index.

Applying the Theil index to allocation processes in the real world does not imply that these processes are stochastic: the Theil yields the distance between an ordered resource distribution in an observed system to the final stage of stochastic resource distribution in a closed system. Similarly, applying the Hoover index does not imply that allocation processes occur in a perfectly planned economy: the Hoover index yields the distance between the resource distribution in an observed system to the final stage of a planned "equalization" of resource distribution. For both indices, such an equalization only serves as a reference, not as a goal.

For a given distribution the Theil index can be larger than the Hoover index or smaller than the Hoover index:

• For high inequalities the Theil index is larger than the Hoover index.
  This means for achieving equilibrium (maximum entropy) in a closed system, more resources would have to be reallocated than in case of a planned and optimized reallocation process, where only the necessary minimum share of resources would have to be reallocated. For an open system the export of entropy (import of redundancy) would allow to maintain the distribution dynamics driven by high inequality.
• For low inequalities the Theil index is smaller than the Hoover index.
  Here, on the path to reaching equilibrium, a planned and optimized reallocation of resources would contribute more to the dynamics of redistribution than stochastic redistribution. This also is intuitively understandable, as low inequalities also weaken the urge to redistribute resources. People in such a system may tolerate or even foster an increase the inequality. As this is would be an increase of redundancy (an decrease of entropy), redundancy would have to be imported into (entropy would have to be exported from) the society. In that case the society needs to be an open system.

In order to increase the redundancy in the distribution category of a society as a closed system, entropy needs to be exported from the subsystem operating in the that economic category to other subsystems with other entropy categories in the society. For example, social entropy may increase. However, in the real world, societies are open systems, but the openness is restricted by the entropy exchange capabilities of the interfaces between the society and the environment of that society. For societies with a resource distribution which entropywise is similar to the resource distribution of a reference society with a 73:27 split (73% of the resources belong to 27% of the population and vice versa),^[8] the point where the Hoover index and the Theil index are equal, is at a value of around 46% (0.46) for the Hoover index and the Theil index.

Ratios[link]

Another common class of metrics is to take the ratio of the income of two different groups, generally "higher over lower". This compares two parts of the income distribution, rather than the distribution as a whole; equality between these parts corresponds to 1:1, while the more unequal the parts, the greater the ratio. These statistics are easy to interpret and communicate, because they are relative (this population earns twice as much as this population), but, since they do not fall on an absolute scale, do not provide an absolute measure of inequality.

Ratio of percentiles[link]

This graph shows income of a given percentage as a ratio to median, for 10th, 20th, 50th, 80th, 90th, and 95th percentile, for 1967–2003.
(50th percentile is 1:1 by definition.)

Particularly common to compare a given percentile to the median, as in the chart at right; compare seven-number summary, which summarizes a distribution by certain percentiles. While such ratios do not represent the overall level of inequality in the population as a whole, they provide measures of the shape of income distribution. For example, the attached graph shows that in the period 1967–2003, US income ratio between median and 10th and 20th percentile did not change significantly, while the ratio between the median and 80th, 90th, and 95th percentile increased. This reflects that the increase in the Gini coefficient of the US in this time period is due to gains by upper income earners (relative to the median), rather than by losses by lower income earners (relative to the median).

Share of income[link]

Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005.^[9][10]

A related class of ratios is "income share" – what percentage of national income a subpopulation accounts for. Taking the ration of income share to subpopulation size corresponds to a ratio of mean subpopulation income relative to mean income. Because income distribution is generally positively skewed, mean is higher than median, so ratios to mean are lower than ratios to median. This is particularly used to measure that fraction of income accruing to top earners – top 10%, 1%, .1%, .01% (1 in 10, in 100, in 1,000, in 10,000), and also "top 100" earners or the like; in the US top 400 earners is .0002% of earners (2 in 1,000,0000) – to study concentration of income – wealth condensation, or rather income condensation.^[11] For example, in the chart at right, US income share of top earners was approximately constant from the mid 1950s to the mid 1980s, then increased from the mid-1980s through 2000s; this increased inequality was reflected in the Gini coefficient.

For example, in 2007 the top decile (10%) of US earners accounted for 49.7% of total wages (Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): 4.97 \approx 5

times fraction under equality), and the top 0.01% of US earners accounted for 6% of total wages (600 times fraction under equality).[12]

Spreadsheet computations[link]

The Gini coefficient, the Hoover index and the Theil index as well as the related welfare functions^[13] can be computed together in a spreadsheet.^[14] The welfare functions serve as alternatives to the median income.

In the table, fields with a yellow background are used for data input. From these data inequality measures as well as the related welfare functions are computed and displayed in fields with green background.

In the example given here, "Theil index" stands for the arithmetic mean of a Theil index computed for the distribution of income within a society to the individuals (or households) in that society and a Theil index computed for the distribution of the individuals (or households) in the society to the income of that society. The difference between the Theil index and the Hoover index is the weighting of the relative deviation D. For the Hoover index the relative deviation D per group is weighted with its own sign. For the Theil index the relative deviation D per group is weighted with the information size provided by the income per individual in that group.

For the computation the society usually is divided into income groups. Often there are four or five groups consisting of a similar amount of individuals in each group. In other cases the groups are created based on income ranges which leads to having different amounts of individuals in the different groups. The table above shows a computation of inequality indices for four groups. For each group the amount of individuals (or households) per group A and the total income in that group E is specified.

The parameter pairs A and E need to be sorted for the computation of the Gini coefficient. (For the Theil index and the Hoover index no sorting is required.) A and E has the be sorted so that the values in the column "Income per individual" are lined up in ascending order.

Proper use of income inequality metrics[link]

1. When using income metrics, it has to be made clear how income should be defined. Should it include capital gains, imputed house rents from home ownership, and gifts? If these income sources or alleged income sources (in the case of "imputed rent") are ignored (as they often are), how might this bias the analysis? How should non-paid work (such as parental childcare or doing ones own cooking instead of hiring a chef for every meal) be handled? Wealth or consumption may be more appropriate measures in some situations. Broader quality of life metrics might be useful.
2. The comparison of inequality measures requires that the segmentation of compared groups (societies etc.) into quintiles should be similar.
3. Distinguish properly, whether the basic unit of measurement is households or individuals. The Gini value for households is always lower than for individuals because of income pooling and intra-family transfers. And households have a varying amount of members. The metrics will be influenced either upward or downward depending on which unit of measurement is used.
4. Consider life cycle effects. In most Western societies, an individual tends to start life with little or no income, gradually increase income till about age 50, after which incomes will decline, eventually becoming negative. This affects the conclusions which can be drawn from a measured inequality. It has been estimated (by A.S. Blinder in The Decomposition of Inequality, MIT press) that 30% of measured income inequality is due to the inequality an individual experiences as they go through the various stages of life.
5. Clarify whether real or nominal income distributions should be used. What effect will inflation have on absolute measures? Do some groups (e.g., pensioners) feel the effect of inflation more than others?
6. When drawing conclusion from inequality measurements, consider how we should allocate the benefits of government spending? How does the existence of a social security safety net influence the definition of absolute measures of poverty? Do government programs support some income groups more than others?
7. Inequality metrics measure inequality. They do not measure possible causes of income inequality. Some alleged causes include: life cycle effects (age), inherited characteristics (IQ, talent), willingness to take chances (risk aversion), the leisure/industriousness choice, inherited wealth, economic circumstances, education and training, discrimination, and market imperfections.

Keeping these points in mind helps to understand the problems caused by the improper use of inequality measures. However, they do not render inequality coefficients invalid. If inequality measures are computed in a well explained and consistent way, they can provide a good tool for quantitative comparisons of inequalities.

Inequality, growth, and progress[link]

There is evidence from a broad panel of recent academic studies shows that there is a nonlinear relation between income inequality and the rate of growth and investment. Very high inequality slows growth; moderate inequality encourages growth. Studies differ on the effect of very low inequality.

Robert J. Barro, Harvard University found in his study "Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries" that higher inequality tends to retard growth in poor countries and encourage growth in well-developed regions.^[15]

In their study for the World Institute for Development Economics Research, Giovanni Andrea Cornia and Julius Court (2001) reach slightly different conclusions.^[16] The authors therefore recommend to pursue moderation also as to the distribution of wealth and particularly to avoid the extremes. Both very high egalitarianism and very high inequality cause slow growth. Considering the inequalities in economically well developed countries, public policy should target an ‘efficient inequality range’. The authors claim that such efficiency range roughly lies between the values of the Gini coefficients of 0.25 (the inequality value of a typical Northern European country) and 0.40 (that of countries such as the USA, France, Germany and the UK).

Another researcher (W.Kitterer^[17]) has shown that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth.

The precise shape of the inequality-growth curve obviously varies across countries depending upon their resource endowment, history, remaining levels of absolute poverty and available stock of social programs, as well as on the distribution of physical and human capital.

See also[link]

• List of countries by income equality
• List of countries by distribution of wealth
• Economic inequality
• Income inequality in the United States
• Income deficit
• Human Development Index
• International inequality
• Kuznets curve
• Poverty line
• United Nations Millennium Development Goals
• Socioeconomics
• "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"
• Socialism - political system or objective dedicated to income equality

Notes[link]

Literature[link]

• A.B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon, ed. (2000). Handbook of Income Distribution, v. 1. Elsevier.table of contents
• _____," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2001), pp. 7265-7271. Abstract.

• Yoram Amiel (Author), Frank A. Cowell: Thinking about Inequality: Personal Judgment and Income Distributions, 2000
• Philip B. Coulter: Measuring Inequality, 1989

External links[link]

• Travis Hale, University of Texas Inequality Project: The Theoretical Basics of Popular Inequality Measures; online computation of examples: 1A, 1B
• Samuel Murray Matheson: Distributive Fairness Measures for Sustainable Project Selection, 1997
• Survey data from the government of Sri Lanka
• Luxembourg Income Study conducts comparative income inequality research
• Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States
• Has US Income Inequality Really Increased?
• The Big Picture: Shifting Incomes from 1995 to 2005
• Inequality and Growth: What Can the Data Say? - By Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo
• World Bank: World Development Report 2000/2001, chapter 3 - Income inequality contribution to growth (box 3.5)
• Inequality Worsens across Asia from Dollars & Sense magazine, Nov/Dec 2007
• Software:
  • Free Online Calculator computes the Gini Coefficient, plots the Lorenz curve, and computes many other measures of concentration for any dataset
  • Free Calculator: Online (example for processing data from Table HINC-06, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007: Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Households) and downloadable scripts (Python and Lua) for Atkinson, Gini, and Hoover inequalities
  • Python script using Formulas in Amartya Sen's On Economic Inequality
  • Users of the R data analysis software can install the "ineq" package which allows for computation of a variety of inequality indices including Gini, Atkinson, Theil.
  • A MATLAB Inequality Package, including code for computing Gini, Atkinson, Theil indexes and for plotting the Lorenz Curve. Many examples are available.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)

Gregory Isaacs
Performing at the Sierra Nevada World Music Festival in 2010
Background information
Birth name	Gregory Anthony Isaacs
Also known as	Cool Ruler Lonely Lover
Born	(1951-07-15)15 July 1951 Kingston, Jamaica
Died	25 October 2010(2010-10-25) (aged 59) London, England, UK
Genres	Reggae
Occupations	Singer-songwriter
Years active	1968–2010

Gregory Anthony Isaacs (15 July 1951 – 25 October 2010)^[1] was a Jamaican reggae musician. Milo Miles, writing in the New York Times, described Isaacs as "the most exquisite vocalist in reggae".^[2] His nicknames include Cool Ruler^[3] and Lonely Lover.

Biography[link]

In his teens, Isaacs became a veteran of the talent contests that regularly took place in Jamaica. In 1968, he made his recording debut with a duet with Winston Sinclair, "Another Heartache", recorded for producer Byron Lee.^[1] The single sold poorly and Isaacs went on to team up with two other vocalists (Penroe and Bramwell) in the short-lived trio The Concords, recording for Rupie Edwards and Prince Buster.^[1] The trio split up in 1970 and Isaacs launched his solo career, initially self-producing recordings and also recording further for Edwards.^[1] In 1973 he teamed up with another young singer, Errol Dunkley to start the African Museum record label and shop, and soon had a massive hit with "My Only Lover", credited as the first lovers rock record ever made.^[1] He recorded for other producers to finance further African Museum recordings, having a string of hits in the three years that followed, ranging from ballads to roots reggae, including "All I Have Is Love", "Lonely Soldier", "Black a Kill Black", "Extra Classic" and his cover version of Dobby Dobson's "Loving Pauper".^[1] In 1974 he began working with producer Alvin Ranglin, and that year he had his first Jamaican number one single with "Love Is Overdue".^[1] Isaacs recorded for many of Jamaica's top producers during the 1970s, including Winston "Niney" Holness, Gussie Clarke ("My Time"), Lloyd Campbell ("Slavemaster"), Glen Brown ("One One Cocoa Fill Basket"), Harry Mudie, Roy Cousins, Sidney Crooks and Lee "Scratch" Perry ("Mr. Cop").^[4] By the late 1970s, Isaacs was one of the biggest reggae performers in the world, regularly touring the US and the UK, and only challenged by Dennis Brown and Bob Marley.^[4][5] Between 1977 and 1978, Isaacs again teamed up with Alvin Ranglin, recording a string of hits including "Border" and "Number One" for Ranglin's GG's label.

International stardom seemed assured in 1978 when Isaacs signed to the Virgin Records offshoot Front Line Records, and appeared in the film Rockers, in which he performed "Slavemaster".^[4] The Cool Ruler (which became one of his nicknames) and Soon Forward albums, however, failed to sell as well as expected,^[4] although they are now considered among his best work.^[6] In 1981, he made his first appearance at the Reggae Sunsplash festival (returning annually until 1991), and he moved on to the Charisma Records offshoot Pre, who released his The Lonely Lover (another nickname that stuck) and More Gregory albums along with a string of increasingly successful singles including "Tune In", "Permanent Lover", "Wailing Rudy" and "Tribute to Waddy".^[7] He signed to Island Records and released the record that finally saw him break through to a wider audience, "Night Nurse", the title track from his first album for the label (Night Nurse (1982)).^[7] Although "Night Nurse" was not a chart hit in either the UK or US, it was hugely popular in clubs and received heavy radio play, and the album reached #32 in the UK.^[8] This success for Isaacs coincided with drug problems with cocaine which saw him serve a six-month prison sentence in Kingston in 1982 for possession of unlicensed firearms.^[7][9] Isaacs claimed that he had the weapons only for protection, but it emerged that this was his 27th arrest and that Isaacs had become involved in drug dealing and had become addicted to crack cocaine.^[9] He celebrated his release from prison with his second album for Island, Out Deh! (1983).^[7] Isaacs was featured in the 1982 documentary Land of Look Behind.

When his contract with Island ended, Isaacs returned in 1984 with the "Kool Ruler Come Again" single, and began a period of prolific recording, working with producers including Prince Jammy, Hugh "Redman" James, Bobby Digital, Tad Dawkins and Steely & Clevie, maintaining a consistent standard despite the volume of work produced.^[5][7] Isaacs then built a strong relationship with Gussie Clarke of the Music Works label. They began with Isaacs' 1985 album Private Beach Party, and had a massive hit with "Rumours" in 1988, which was followed by further popular singles including "Mind Yu Dis", "Rough Neck", "Too Good To Be True" and "Report to Me".^[7] The association with Clarke continued into the early 1990s, teaming up with singers including Freddie McGregor, Ninjaman and JC Lodge.^[7] He dueted with Beres Hammond on the 1993 Philip "Fatis" Burrell-produced "One Good Turn", Burrell also producing Isaacs' 1994 album Midnight Confidential.^[7]

In the 1990s the African Museum label continued to release all of Isaacs' music, and that of artists he produced. In 1997 Simply Red covered "Night Nurse^{[disambiguation needed ]}" and had a hit with it. Isaacs continued to record and perform live in the 2000s. In 2005 Lady Saw produced another version of "Night Nurse" with her toasting over the original lyrics.

Isaacs' drug addiction had a major impact on his voice, with most of his teeth falling out as a result.^[9] Isaacs said of his addiction in 2007: "Drugs are a debasing weapon. It was the greatest college ever, but the most expensive school fee ever paid – the Cocaine High School. I learnt everything, and now I've put it on the side."^[9]

He also performed at the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 Inauguration at Jamaica.

In 2007 he collaborated with the Spanish rap group Flowklorikos / Rafael Lechowski album Donde Duele Inspira.

In 2008, after some 40 years as a recording artist, Isaacs released a new studio album Brand New Me, which was nominated for the Grammy Awards for 2010. The album received positive reviews from critics, such as this review from Reggae Vibes: "Gregory is back, and how! 'Brand New Me' is a very suitable album title for the cool ruler's new album. He is back in a different style, more or less like we were used to from this great 'lovers & roots' artist"^[10] This was followed in 2009 by the album My Kind Of Lady.

In 2010, Gregory Isaacs put out the last of his albums to be released while he was still living; Isaacs Meets Isaac, with Zimbabwean reggae singer, King Isaac. In November 2010, Isaacs Meets Isaac was nominated for Best Reggae Album for the 2011 Grammy Awards, giving Gregory Isaacs his fourth Grammy Nomination, and Zimbabwe's King Isaac, his first.

An advertisement for a Gregory Isaacs concert in Negril

Death[link]

After a long battle with lung cancer, Isaacs died on 25 October 2010 at his home in south London.^[11] A memorial service was held on 20 November at Kingston's National Indoor Sports Centre, including a musical tribute from artists including Lloyd Parks and We the People Band, Ken Boothe, Freddie McGregor, Shaggy, Judy Mowatt, Mavado, The Tamlins and Bongo Herman, before his remains were interred at the Dovecot Cemetery.^[12]

Discography[link]

More than 500 Gregory Isaacs albums have been released during his career, many being compilations. Studio albums of original material are listed below:

• In Person (1975) Trojan
• All I Have Is Love (1976) Trojan
• The Best Of Vol. 1 (1977) GG's
• Extra Classic (1977) African Museum
• Mr Isaacs (1977) DEB
• Cool Ruler (1978) Front Line
• Soon Forward (1979) Front Line
• Slum (Gregory Isaacs in Dub) (1978) Burning Sounds
• Gregory Isaacs Meets Ronnie Davis (1979) Plant (with Ronnie Davis)
• Showcase (1980) Taxi
• Lonely Lover (1980) Pre
• More Gregory (1981) Pre
• The Best Of Vol. 2 (1981) GG's
• Night Nurse (1982) Island/Mango
• Out Deh! (1983) Island/Mango
• Let's Go Dancing (1984)
• Judge Not (1985) Greensleeves (with Dennis Brown)
• Private Beach Party (1985) Greensleeves & RAS
• Easy (1985) Tad's
• Double Dose (1986) Blue Trac (with Sugar Minott)
• All I Have is Love Love Love (1987) Tad's
• Victim (1987) VP
• Watchman of the City (1987) Rohit
• Come Along (1988), Live & Love
• Red Rose for Gregory (1988) Greensleeves & RAS
• Warning (1989) Firehouse
• Feature Attraction (1989) VP for Mixing Lab records
• No Contest (1989) Greensleeves & VP (with Dennis Brown)
• I.O.U. (1989) Greensleeves & RAS
• On The Dance Floor (1990) Heartbeat
• Call Me Collect (1990) RAS
• Set Me Free (1991) VP, Digital B & Vine Yard
• No Intention (1991) VP
• Boom Shot (1991) Shanachie
• State of Shock (1991) RAS
• Past and Future (1991) VP
• Pardon Me! (1992) RAS
• Cooyah! (1992) Label Unknown...
• Can't Stay Away (1992) VP & Xterminator
• Rudie Boo (1992) Star Trail
• Unattended // Absent (1993) Pow Wow & Greensleeves
• Unlocked (1993) RAS
• Midnight Confidential (1994) Greensleeves for Xterminator records
• Dreaming (1995) Heartbeat
• Not a One Man Thing (1995) RAS
• Private Lesson (1996) Heartbeat
• Mr. Cool (1996) VP
• Maximum Respect (1996) House of Reggae
• Hold Tight (1997) Heartbeat
• Hardcore Hits (1997) Ikus
• Dance Curfew (1997), Acid Jazz – with Dread Flimstone
• Kingston 14 Denham Town (1998) Jamaican Vibes
• Do Lord (1998) Xterminator
• New Dance (1999) Prestige
• Turn Down The Lights (1999) Artists Only
• So Much Love (2000) Joe Gibbs Music
• Future Attraction (2000) VP
• Father & Son (2000), 2B1 – Gregory Isaacs & Son
• It Go Now (2002), 2B1
• Life's Lonely Road (2004)
• Give It All Up (2004) Heartbeat
• Rat Patrol (2004) African Museum
• Masterclass (2004) Greensleeves for Blacker Dread records
• Revenge (2005) P.O.T.
• Substance Free (2005) Vizion Sounds
• Come take my hand (2006) Mun Mun
• Hold Tight (2008) Mafia & Fluxy
• Brand New Me (2008) African Museum
• My Kind Of Lady (2009) Rude Productions
• Isaacs Meets Isaac with King Isaac (2010) King Isaac Music

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Barrow, Steve & Dalton, Peter (2004) The Rough Guide to Reggae, 3rd edn., Rough Guides, ISBN 1-84353-329-4
• Kiviat, Steve (1996) "Gregory Isaacs", Washington City Paper, December 6 – 12, 1996 (Vol. 16, #49)
• Larkin, Colin (1998) The Virgin Encyclopedia of Reggae, Virgin Books, ISBN 0-7535-0242-9
• Miles, Milo (1992) "RECORDINGS VIEW; Gregory Isaacs, the Ruler of Reggae", New York Times, 2 February 1992
• Perry, Andrew (2007) "The cool ruler of reggae makes a comeback", The Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2007
• Thomspon, Dave (2003) Reggae & Caribbean Music, Backbeat Books, ISBN 0-87930-655-6

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Gregory Isaacs

• Profile @ Reggaeville.com
• Biography: Reggae Vibes
• Biography: Greensleeves Records
• RAS Records discography
• Gregory Isaacs Vinyl Page Some of Isaacs' vinyl releases
• Free Downloads @ JahSmoke.com Isaacs' albums and vinyls

Prachi Desai
Prachi Desai at Launch of Neutrogena's products
Born	Prachi Desai (1988-09-12) September 12, 1988 (age 23) Surat, Gujarat, India
Other names	Prachi
Occupation	Model, Actress
Years active	2006–present

Prachi Desai (Gujarati: પ્રાચી દેસાઈ; born 12 September 1988)^[1] is an Indian film and television actress. She is best known for her role as Bani Walia in the Hindi television drama Kasamh Se which aired on Zee TV.^[2] Prachi is the endorser, spokesperson, brand ambassador and the face of Neutrogena products in India.^[3] She is also the brand ambassador of Goa Tourism, a popular holiday destination in India.

Early life[link]

Prachi was born in Surat,[Gujarat]], India.^[4] She studied in St Joseph Convent, Panchgani and completed her schooling till ninth grade in Surat.^[5] After that, she went to Pune for higher studies. She studied at Sinhagad college, Vadgaon, Pune. During her school time she was an outstanding student and always received prizes for many dancing and acting competitions .^[1]

She was in Pune for higher studies and had almost finished her junior college when her pictures were sent to Balaji Telefilms who called her for audition.^[5] She was 17 when she left her studies and started her career with Kasamh Se.^[5]

Career[link]

Telivision[link]

Prachi starred in the serial Kasamh Se on Zee TV that got her fame.^[6] She left Kasamh Se on 15 April 2008 and was replaced by Gurdeep Kohli, after being burnt and drowned in episode 562.^[7] Kasamh Se ended 12 March 2009. In the last episode, Prachi Desai made a special appearance as the former Bani. She also did a two day cameo in Kasautii Zindagii Kay, which was aired on Star Plus. She played a school student in Prerna's school.^[5] On 7 September 2007, Prachi entered Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, the Indian version of America's dancing show, Dancing With The Stars, with choreographer Deepak Singh.^[5] She was eliminated on 10 November 2007. However, she entered the contest again via the wild-card entry on 23 November 2007.^[8] Prachi then landed a spot in the grand finale of the dance show on 15 December 2007 and won the first place amongst the contestants.^[8] She was awarded the dancing star of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 2. It was alleged that she was made to return as a wild card entry in spite of her elimination due to a direct intervention from her close personal friend, Ekta Kapoor, though the channel denied the allegations.^[8] Prachi also competed in a tribute show to Jhalak competition called Dard-e-Disco, alongside other former contestants, which aired on Sony Entertainment Television Asia on 31 December 2007.^[9]

Endorsements[link]

Prachi Desai is the brand ambassador for Goa Tourism Board, a popular holiday destination in India. She is one of the two spokesperson from India for Neutrogena Products in India, along with Deepika Padukone. She has also promoted Oral-B Smile India Movement with Sonali Bendre. Active Wheel endorsement with Salman Khan was a top rated among viewers for the chemistry between the two. On viewers' request, the other several adds of the brand were cancelled, and the same advertisement airs till date. She also endorses Sofy Sanitary Napkins and Nyle Shampoo. She has also has been signed up to be the brand ambassador of Pure-it water purifier with Farhan Akhtar. Recently Prachi was chosen the brand ambassador for Gili Signature Diamond Jewellery along with several other actresses. She also endorses Taj Mahal Tea along with actor Saif Ali Khan.

Films[link]

Rock On!! was Desai's breakthrough in Bollywood, Prachi with the film cast.

Prachi's first film was Rock On!! (2008), where she played the wife of Farhan Akhtar.^[4] Prachi had to leave her role of "Bani" in Kasamh Se to act in Rock On.^[2] Her performance was highly appreciated throughout the film. "Prachi Desai scores in her very first feature. She has a challenging role and footage-wise too, it's substantial. Prachi brings in a lot of freshness and poise. Plus, she's a competent actor," says Taran Adarsh. It was an average box-office commercial but was critically appreciated, even getting the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi. She got several nominations as debutant including the Filmfare Award. She even won Anandalok Awards as Best Actress (Hindi).

Her next film was Life Partner (2009).^[10] It didn't do well at box office but her performance was again much appreciated. "Prachi Desai showed abundant promise in ROCK ON!! and excels in LIFE PARTNER too. This pretty girl has the potential to carry off most difficult scenes with aplomb." says Taran Adarsh^{[citation needed]}

In July 2010, she appeared in Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai with Ajay Devgan, Emraan Hashmi and Kangana Ranaut.^[11] The film proved to be a big box office success and critically praised. "Prachi Desai is a bundle of talent who proves her mettle yet again. She's proficient in emotional scenes and sizzles in the BOBBY song-sequence." says Taran Adarsh. Prachi's performance earned her many awards including IIFA Awards, Stardust Awards, Zee Cine Awards, Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards and many more and nominations for supporting role at Filmfare Awards and Star Screen Awards.

Prachi was working on her fourth film titled Main... Joker, opposite television actor Rajeev Khandelwal.^[12] The film is in title issues with a similarly named project and thus postponed.

Prachi Desai is also expected to act in a supporting role in Teri Meri Kahaani along with Priyanka Chopra and Shahid Kapoor. It is a tri-periodic film and she is casted for 1960 segment. Kunal Kohli, the film's director, says he cast her because he liked her in Rock On!! and Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai. "She plays an independent, progressive girl from the 1960s, and is a point of conflict between Shahid and Priyanka Chopra. Prachi will definitely make people sit up and notice her, as she has some of the most entertaining and romantic scenes in the film. She effortlessly held her own alongside Priyanka and Shahid and is really coming into her own as an actress. She had a good run with Rock On!! and OUATIM, and now she's doing Teri Meri Kahaani.Slowly and steadily, she's making it into the big league. It's a welcome and much-deserved entrance." he says.

Prachi has already started on her coming project, Bol Bachchan opposite Abhishek Bachchan, along with Ajay Devgn and Asin. The film is scheduled to release on July 6, 2012. She replaced Genelia D'souza who withdrew from the film for unknown reasons. Bol Bachchan director Rohit Shetty says, "What I like about Prachi is that she's extremely talented and very sincere. She is a natural performer. With time and experience, she will grow into a star. In my film, she plays a young Rajput girl who is Ajay Devgn's sister, and the only girl in a group of pehelwans. Prachi is effortless in her scenes."

Prachi will soon be seen working with John Abraham for I, Me aur Main (2012 film) which is going to be produced by Goldie Behl and directed by debutant director Kapil Sharma. Prachi is also supposed to reprise Sridevi in one of the songs in the film.

Television[link]

Filmography[link]

Awards and nominations[link]

Television[link]

Indian Telly Awards

• 2006: Winner, Couple of the year – Prachi and her co-star Ram Kapoor.^[13]
• 2006: Winner, Fresh New Face of the Year (Female) – Prachi shared the award with Rajshree Vaidya.^[13]
• 2007: Winner, Best Actress – Kasamh Se.^[14]
• 2008: Special Recommendation Honour for Successful Breakthrough from Television to Films

Kalakar Awards

• 2006: Winner, Best Actress (Television) for Kasamh Se^[15]

Sansui Television Awards

• 2007: Winner, Best Actress – Kasamh Se.^[16]
• 2008: Winner, Best Actress (Popular Category) for Kasamh Se.^[17]

Zee Rishton Ka Utsav

• 2007: Winner, Favourite Bhabhi-Nanand Rishta for Kasamh Se

The Global Indian TV Honours

• 2008: Winner, Best Actress for Kasamh Se

Films[link]

Filmfare Awards

• 2008: Nominated, Best Promising Newcomer Female for Rock On!!
• 2011: Nominated, Best Actress in a Supporting Role Award for Once Upon A Time in Mumbaai

Star Screen Awards

• 2008: Nominated, Best Female Debut Award for Rock On!!
• 2011: Nominated, Best Actress in a Supporting Role Award for Once Upon A Time in Mumbaai

Zee Cine Awards

• 2011: Winner, Best Actress in Supporting Role (Female) for Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai^[18]

Lions Gold Awards

• 2011: Winner, Best Actress in Supporting Role (Female) for Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai

Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards

• 2011: Winner, Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Female) for Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai^[19]

Stardust Awards

• 2011: Winner, Best Actress in an Ensemble Cast (Female) for Once Upon A Time In Mumbai

IIFA Awards

• 2011: Winner, Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Once Upon A Time In Mumbai

Others

• 2008: Anandalok Purashkar Award for Best Actress (Hindi), Rock On!!
• 2008: Sabse Favorite Kaun, Best Newcomer Female for Rock On!!
• 2010: Top 10 Bollywood Best Supporting Actress of the Year 2010 for Once Upon A Time in Mumbaai
• 2012: Times 50 Most Desirable Women Rank #32

References[link]

External links[link]

• Prachi Desai on Twitter
• Prachi Desai Website
• Prachi Desai at the Internet Movie Database
• Prachi signs three films outside Balaji banner
• I want to explore different styles of dancing: Prachi Desai
• Prachi Desai in dilemma as she is caught between two films
• My ticket to my own little world: Prachi Desai
• Socialising is a full-time job, says Prachi Desai

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Prachi Desai

• Prachi Desai Fanclub on Twitter

Steve Park may refer to:

• Steve Park (comedian), American comedian
• Steve Park (racing driver) (born 1967), American NASCAR driver
• Stephen Park (born 1962), British artist and performer
• Stephen Park (wildlife painter) (born 1953), British wildlife painter

See also[link]

• Stephen Parke (born 1950), New Zealand physicist

This disambiguation page lists articles about people with the same name. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.