Table 8: MEAN RELATIVE EFFICIENCY DIFFERENCES
|
by sector_________________ |
(1) |
(2) INC-EXIT |
(3) ENTRY- t-test |
(4) INC-SW1 |
(5) INC-SW2 |
(6) |
(7) |
|
ISIC 15 |
0.0137*** |
0.0001** |
0.0000 |
0.0183 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
|
(3.18) |
(2.41) |
(0.12) |
(0.98) |
(1.14) |
(0.78) |
(0.60) | |
|
ISIC 17 |
0.1687*** |
0.0014* |
-0.0003* |
0.1313 |
0.0002 |
0.0004** |
0.0012** |
|
(3.30) |
(1.84) |
(1.75) |
(1.05) |
(0.17) |
(2.53) |
(2.02) | |
|
ISIC 18 |
0.0907*** 0.0009*** |
0.0001 |
0.0982** |
0.0004 |
-0.0001 |
0.0006*** | |
|
(6.94) |
(4.75) |
(0.94) |
(2.21) |
(0.98) |
(0.34) |
(2.97) | |
|
ISIC 19 |
0.2474*** |
0.0021** |
-0.0002 |
0.3207** |
0.0028* |
-0.0005 |
-0.0007 |
|
(3.41) |
(2.42) |
(0.30) |
(2.25) |
(1.73) |
(0.63) |
(0.87) | |
|
ISIC 20 |
0.1009*** |
0.0008** |
-0.0002** |
0.0802 |
0.0007 |
0.0002*** |
0.0001 |
|
(3.86) |
(2.24) |
(2.42) |
(1.36) |
(1.60) |
(2.82) |
(0.82) | |
|
ISIC 21 |
0.0760 |
0.0011* |
0.0005 |
0.1498 |
0.0014 |
-0.0007 |
-0.0003 |
|
(1.42) |
(1.69) |
(0.86) |
(1.54) |
(1.27) |
(0.84) |
(1.12) | |
|
ISIC 22 |
0.1171*** |
0.0010** |
-0.0001 |
0.1310 |
0.0000 |
-0.0001 |
0.0011 |
|
(3.07) |
(2.02) |
(0.19) |
(0.99) |
(0.05) |
(0.14) |
(1.47) | |
|
ISIC 24 |
0.1329*** |
0.0008* |
-0.0005* |
0.1425** |
0.0013* |
0.0000 |
-0.0005 |
|
(4.31) |
(1.89) |
(1.90) |
(2.16) |
(1.95) |
(0.19) |
(0.99) | |
|
ISIC 25 |
0.1083*** |
0.0010** |
-0.0001 |
0.0181 |
0.0010 |
0.0009*** |
0.0000 |
|
(3.68) |
(2.22) |
(0.58) |
(0.25) |
(1.36) |
(3.03) |
(0.08) | |
|
ISIC 26 |
0.0251 |
0.0004* |
0.0002 |
0.0640 |
0.0004 |
-0.0004 |
0.0000 |
|
(1.56) |
(1.65) |
(0.65) |
(1.18) |
(0.80) |
(0.78) |
(0.07) | |
|
ISIC 27 |
0.2762 |
0.0038 |
0.0011 |
0.3941 |
0.0015 |
-0.0008 |
0.0023** |
|
(1.45) |
(1.29) |
(1.12) |
(1.24) |
(0.34) |
(0.77) |
(2.16) | |
|
ISIC 28 |
0.0720*** |
0.0003 |
-0.0004** |
0.0197 |
0.0007** |
0.0005** |
-0.0003 |
|
(4.75) |
(1.41) |
(2.09) |
(0.58) |
(1.99) |
(2.31) |
(1.18) | |
|
ISIC 29 |
0.1938*** |
0.0013 |
-0.0008* |
0.1337 |
0.0011 |
0.0007 |
0.0002 |
|
(2.82) |
(1.32) |
(1.75) |
(1.02) |
(0.95) |
(1.09) |
(0.20) | |
|
ISIC 31 |
0.2776*** |
0.0015 |
-0.0013 |
0.0373 |
0.0024 |
0.0024** |
-0.0009 |
|
(3.17) |
(1.08) |
(1.41) |
(0.20) |
(1.28) |
(2.32) |
(0.53) | |
|
ISIC 32 |
0.9370*** |
0.0079 |
-0.0013 |
1.0713** |
0.0084 |
-0.0001 |
-0.0005 |
|
(2.56) |
(1.59) |
(0.55) |
(2.19) |
(1.54) |
(0.06) |
(0.16) | |
|
ISIC 33 |
1.1092 |
0.0106 |
-0.0004 |
1.1227 |
0.0109 |
0.0005** |
-0.0003 |
|
(1.26) |
(1.32) |
(0.64) |
(1.12) |
(0.96) |
(2.38) |
(0.47) | |
|
ISIC 34 |
0.3180 |
0.0017 |
-0.0012 |
-0.0515 |
0.0031 |
0.0037* |
-0.0014 |
|
(1.61) |
(0.65) |
(0.56) |
(0.16) |
(1.22) |
(1.76) |
(0.61) | |
|
ISIC 35 |
0.1906** |
0.0018 |
-0.0001 |
0.0433 |
0.0015 |
0.0015*** |
0.0003 |
|
(2.27) |
(1.61) |
(0.34) |
(0.37) |
(1.07) |
(2.62) |
(0.93) | |
|
ISIC 36 |
0.1107*** 0.0010*** |
-0.0001 |
0.0731* |
0.0007* |
0.0004*** |
0.0003 | |
|
(5.42) |
(3.00) |
(0.92) |
(1.85) |
(1.79) |
(3.37) |
(1.34) | |
|
Sector difference negative |
0.0 |
0.0 |
78.9 |
5.3 |
5.3 |
42.1 |
52.6 |
|
Percent positive |
73.7 |
57.9 |
0.0 |
26.3 |
21.1 |
47.4 |
15.8 |
Note: Difference in weighted relative efficiency (t-stats in parenthesis - *, **, *** indicate significance at a 10%. 5% and 1% level,
respectively.). Numbers reported relates to the year 2003. A similar general pattern emerges using estimates from 2002. Incumbents
= INC. Sector Switchers = SW. Exits = EXIT. Entrants = ENTRY.
38
More intriguing information
1. PROTECTING CONTRACT GROWERS OF BROILER CHICKEN INDUSTRY2. Spectral density bandwith choice and prewightening in the estimation of heteroskadasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrices in panel data models
3. The name is absent
4. The East Asian banking sector—overweight?
5. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
6. Firm Creation, Firm Evolution and Clusters in Chile’s Dynamic Wine Sector: Evidence from the Colchagua and Casablanca Regions
7. Manufacturing Earnings and Cycles: New Evidence
8. The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy
9. The name is absent
10. Explaining Growth in Dutch Agriculture: Prices, Public R&D, and Technological Change