Household Individual
|
(1) off-farm |
(2) farm |
(3) off-farm |
(4) farm | |
|
poorest in asset value in 1999 |
0.681 |
-0.155 |
0.358 |
-0.117 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(2.18)** |
(0.48) |
(2.54)** |
(0.99) |
|
second poorest in asset value in |
1.244 |
-0.273 |
0.479 |
0.040 |
|
1999 (dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(3.22)*** |
(0.68) |
(2.92)*** |
(0.29) |
|
second richest in asset value in |
-0.020 |
0.041 |
0.275 | |
|
1999 (dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(0.06) |
(0.11) |
(1.69)* | |
|
richest in asset value in 1999 |
0.096 |
-0.425 |
0.065 |
-0.191 |
|
(dummy) x treatment x year2004 |
(0.27) |
(1.17) |
(0.43) |
(1.35) |
|
treatment |
-0.126 |
-0.055 |
-0.041 |
0.022 |
|
(0.69) |
(0.29) |
(0.51) |
(0.38) | |
|
year 2004 dummy |
0.057 |
0.503 |
0.021 |
0.161 |
|
(0.30) |
(2.56)** |
(0.30) |
(2.76)*** | |
|
year 2004 * Yangtze basin |
0.438 |
-0.311 |
0.177 |
-0.143 |
|
(2.39)** |
(1.63) |
(2.62)*** |
(2.03)** | |
|
household size |
0.121 |
0.158 |
0.019 |
0.017 |
|
(2.40)** |
(2.88)*** |
(0.92) |
(0.96) | |
|
total land holdings |
-0.001 |
0.009 |
0.001 |
0.008 |
|
(0.10) |
(1.20) |
(0.37) |
(2.47)** | |
|
household members with off-farm |
0.547 |
0.767 | ||
|
work in 1999 |
(6.34)*** |
(12.88)*** | ||
|
household members working |
0.755 |
0.753 | ||
|
on-farm in 1999 |
(11.05)*** |
(13.93)*** | ||
|
Constant |
-0.144 |
-0.198 | ||
|
(0.53) |
(0.68) | |||
|
Observations |
130 |
130 |
453 |
453 |
|
R-square |
0.41 |
0.62 |
58
Appendix Table 2. Program impact on off-farm and farm jobs, treatment indicator
interacted with quartile dummies of asset holdings using participating households that
changed status from nonparticipating to participating between 2002 and 2004.
Absolute value of t-statistics in parentheses in (1) and (2); z-statistics in (3) and (4).
* significant at 10 percent level; ** at 5 percent level; *** at 1 percent level
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
3. The name is absent
4. Incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers
5. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE MEXICAN MARKET FOR U.S. COTTON: IMPACT OF THE ELIMINATION OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING QUOTAS
6. References
7. Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and its determinants in first 6 months of life: A prospective study
8. The economic value of food labels: A lab experiment on safer infant milk formula
9. Using Surveys Effectively: What are Impact Surveys?
10. The name is absent