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. The name is absent2. Regional specialisation in a transition country - Hungary
3. The name is absent
4. Spatial patterns in intermunicipal Danish commuting
5. References
6. Family, social security and social insurance: General remarks and the present discussion in Germany as a case study
7. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
8. FUTURE TRADE RESEARCH AREAS THAT MATTER TO DEVELOPING COUNTRY POLICYMAKERS
9. Who is missing from higher education?
10. Individual tradable permit market and traffic congestion: An experimental study