Table 5. Hypothetical Bias Probit Model
|
Explanatory Variables |
RDD Sample |
NPF Sample | ||||||
|
Mean |
Coefficient P -Value |
ME |
Mean |
Coefficient |
P -Value |
ME | ||
|
Hypothetical |
0.082 |
1.362*** |
0.001 |
0.136 |
0.039 |
0.348** |
0.034 |
0.126 |
|
All Revenue |
0.628 |
-0.177 |
0.395 |
-0.007 |
0.636 |
0.030 |
0.376 |
0.012 |
|
Low Visits |
0.803 |
-1.329*** |
0.002 |
-0.131 |
0.453 |
-0.409*** |
0.000 |
-0.157 |
|
Young |
0.149 |
0.580 |
0.163 |
0.038 |
0.138 |
-0.055 |
0.346 |
-0.021 |
|
Old |
0.242 |
-0.400 |
0.206 |
-0.014 |
0.300 |
0.177** |
0.043 |
0.067 |
|
Male |
0.433 |
-0.517 |
0.106 |
-0.022 |
0.477 |
0.062 |
0.252 |
0.024 |
|
BS degree |
0.357 |
0.537 |
0.140 |
0.026 |
0.394 |
0.093 |
0.210 |
0.036 |
|
Professional degree |
0.236 |
0.068 |
0.452 |
0.003 |
0.353 |
0.129 |
0.144 |
0.049 |
|
Low Income |
0.312 |
-0.400 |
0.204 |
-0.019 |
0.255 |
0.054 |
0.361 |
0.020 |
|
White |
0.846 |
-0.577 |
0.156 |
-0.038 |
0.877 |
0.224* |
0.080 |
0.087 |
|
NE |
0.048 |
0.168 |
0.438 |
0.008 |
0.079 |
-0.475*** |
0.008 |
-0.187 |
|
ENC |
0.113 |
0.178 |
0.383 |
0.008 |
0.117 |
-0.297** |
0.038 |
-0.117 |
|
WNC |
0.160 |
0.117 |
0.427 |
0.005 |
0.155 |
-0.375** |
0.012 |
-0.147 |
|
GP |
0.071 |
0.122 |
0.433 |
0.005 |
0.082 |
-0.730*** |
0.000 |
-0.285 |
|
SE |
0.165 |
-0.187 |
0.383 |
-0.007 |
0.177 |
-0.307** |
0.018 |
-0.120 |
|
WSC |
0.065 |
-3.832 |
0.461 |
-0.032 |
0.025 |
-0.471** |
0.046 |
-0.186 |
|
SW |
0.067 |
-1.256 |
0.084 |
-0.020 |
0.071 |
-0.353** |
0.039 |
-0.139 |
|
RM |
0.097 |
-1.114 |
0.133 |
-0.022 |
0.109 |
-0.171 |
0.147 |
-0.067 |
|
Constant |
1.000 |
-0.639 |
0.235 |
-- |
1.000 |
0.435** |
0.037 |
-- |
|
Sample Size |
180 |
830 | ||||||
|
Hypothetical Bias Scaling Factor (eδ) |
1.43 |
1.30 | ||||||
Notes. (***), (**), and (*) refer to statistical significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels. The estimation was carried out
using the Constrained Maximum Likelihood (CML 2.0) package in Gauss version 3.5. The nonlinear optimization routine
was Newton-Raphson with a convergence criterion of 1×10-5 for the gradient of the coefficients. The estimates for “don’t
know” and “missing” dummy variables are not shown. ME = Marginal Effect. 26 and 17 protest households (those that
would not be interested in the NRP even if it were offered free of charge) were removed from the RDD and NPF samples.
30
More intriguing information
1. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence2. The name is absent
3. EFFICIENCY LOSS AND TRADABLE PERMITS
4. What Contribution Can Residential Field Courses Make to the Education of 11-14 Year-olds?
5. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
6. Cross border cooperation –promoter of tourism development
7. Tax Increment Financing for Optimal Open Space Preservation: an Economic Inquiry
8. An Efficient Circulant MIMO Equalizer for CDMA Downlink: Algorithm and VLSI Architecture
9. Pursuit of Competitive Advantages for Entrepreneurship: Development of Enterprise as a Learning Organization. International and Russian Experience
10. The Integration Order of Vector Autoregressive Processes