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. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme2. Hemmnisse für die Vernetzungen von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft abbauen
3. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Exploring the Validity of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives
4. Initial Public Offerings and Venture Capital in Germany
5. The name is absent
6. Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament
7. A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON UNDERINVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL R&D
8. Applications of Evolutionary Economic Geography
9. A Study of Adult 'Non-Singers' In Newfoundland
10. The name is absent