44
Table 7. Program impact on off-farm and farm jobs, treatment indicator interacted with
quartile dummies of asset holdings, 1999 and 2004.
|
Household |
Individual | |||
|
(1 ) off-farm |
(2) farm |
(3) off-farm |
(4) farm | |
|
poorest in asset value in 1999 |
0.515 |
-0.431 |
0.198 |
-0.164 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(2.54)** |
(1.93)* |
(2.49)** |
(1.97)** |
|
second poorest in asset value in 1999 |
0.331 |
-0.341 |
0.197 |
-0.082 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(1.64) |
(1.54) |
(2.49)** |
(1.03) |
|
second richest in asset value in 1999 |
0.197 |
-0.521 |
0.115 |
-0.115 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(0.96) |
(2.32)** |
(1.50) |
(1.39) |
|
Richest in asset value in 1999 |
0.091 |
-0.399 |
0.105 |
-0.161 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(0.45) |
(1.79)* |
(1.39) |
(1.93)* |
|
treatment |
-0.107 |
-0.003 |
-0.041 |
0.012 |
|
(0.82) |
(0.02) |
(0.78) |
(0.23) | |
|
year 2004 dummy |
0.163 |
0.492 |
0.062 |
0.106 |
|
(0.93) |
(2.55)** |
(1.04) |
(1.62) | |
|
year 2004 * Yangtze basin |
0.156 |
-0.205 |
0.052 |
-0.048 |
|
(1.55) |
(1.86)* |
(1.66)* |
(1.32) | |
|
household size |
0.109 |
0.097 |
0.011 |
-0.013 |
|
(5.34)*** |
(4.03)*** |
(1.77)* |
(2.03)** | |
|
total land holdings |
-0.000 |
-0.000 |
-0.000 |
-0.000 |
|
(0.02) |
(0.09) |
(0.39) |
(0.40) | |
|
household members with off-farm |
0.608 |
0.746 | ||
|
work in 1999 |
(14.36)*** |
(25.89)*** | ||
|
household members working on-farm |
0.687 |
0.730 | ||
|
in 1999 |
(20.84)*** |
(29.00)*** | ||
|
Constant |
-0.142 |
0.343 | ||
|
(0.93) |
(2.01)** | |||
|
Observations |
528 |
528 |
1,928 |
1,930 |
|
R-square |
0.41 |
0.56 | ||
Absolute value of t-statistics in parentheses in models (1) and (2); z-statistics in (3) and (4).
* significant at 10 percent level; ** at 5 percent level; *** at 1 percent level
Notes: In models (1) and (2), the dependent variables are the number of household members with (1)
off-farm work or (2) farm work. In models (3) and (4), the dependent variables are 1 = individual has (3)
off-farm work or (4) farm work and 0 = not. Columns (3) and (4) report the marginal effects of a probit
model and the standard errors are clustered at the household level.
More intriguing information
1. IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY2. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
3. ALTERNATIVE TRADE POLICIES
4. The name is absent
5. Correlates of Alcoholic Blackout Experience
6. Types of Tax Concessions for Promoting Investment in Free Economic and Trade Areas
7. Learning and Endogenous Business Cycles in a Standard Growth Model
8. The name is absent
9. Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control
10. The magnitude and Cyclical Behavior of Financial Market Frictions