Table 3 Result of Estimation (Regressions Relating to Bureaucrats’ Discretion)
|
Fiscal |
Share of households |
Average cost per bag |
Share of Jishu- ryutsu- |
Adjusted R |
|
year |
with full- time farmers |
of rice |
mai (High quality rice) |
Square (R2) |
|
(FTF) |
(COST) |
(JISHU) | ||
|
1980 |
0.10353(1.42346) |
0.49015**(2.54991) |
-0.14620**(-2.36458) |
0.319883 |
|
1981 |
0.06347(0.92714) |
0.49110* (1.82013) |
-0.13948**(-2.50822) |
0.233590 |
|
1982 |
0.06685(1.03292) |
0.52976**(2.65238) |
-0.11905**(-2.10339) |
0.296930 |
|
1983 |
0.09894(1.48625) |
0.66166***(3.08470) |
-0.14607**(-2.51483) |
0.357808 |
|
1984 |
0.15233**(2.46090) |
1.06927***(4.81020) |
-0.15546***(-3.02321) |
0.492769 |
|
**(2.10653) |
**(5.05181) |
**(-2.68382) | ||
|
1985 |
0.10389(1.49822) |
0.66808***(3.51768) |
-0.19554***(-3.50770) |
0.410533 |
|
1986 |
0.14011**(2.13317) |
1.11849***(4.63530) |
-0.14939***(-2.86602) |
0.498465 |
|
1987 |
0.12383**(2.52331) |
0.79062***(5.09708) |
-0.09852**(-2.49713) |
0.510986 |
|
1988 |
0.08896*(1.69799) |
0.70547***(3.41447) |
-0.12913**(-2.50536) |
0.378622 |
|
(1.49682) |
***(3.85892) |
*(-1.86693) | ||
|
1989 |
0.17634***(3.88629) |
1.02499***(5.61896) |
-0.29165**(-2.15429) |
0.487166 |
|
1990 |
0.14211***(3.41031) |
0.70068***(4.97968) |
-0.14433**(-2.68288) |
0.577618 |
|
1991 |
0.07639 (1.62473) |
0.33884**(2.45223) |
-0.26155***(-3.48585) |
0.365581 |
|
1992 |
0.08941 *(1.95487) |
0.81918***(4.86336) |
-0.29334***(-3.67120) |
0.498842 |
|
1993 |
0.16841***(3.19447) |
0.93959***(4.36878) |
-0.98989 (-1.11960) |
0.379464 |
|
1994 |
0.32378***(4.70731) |
1.55627***(5.34282) |
-0.32353**(-2.53926) |
0.566989 |
|
1995 |
0.19951***(3.40856) |
1.12118***(3.99142) |
-0.34262**(-2.17628) |
0.424676 |
|
1996 |
0.14880***(3.40450) |
0.99551***(5.15642) |
-0.27649**(-2.17636) |
0.507915 |
|
1997 |
0.17312***(3.52664) |
0.89649***(4.53426) |
-0.13040 (-1.14917) |
0.431648 |
|
1998 |
0.13678***(3.31782) |
0.77235***(4.41765) |
-0.09809 (-0.28284) |
0.452057 |
|
1999 |
0.12527***(3.12786) |
0.69758***(4.61436) |
0.04182 (0.16902) |
0.417774 |
|
2000 |
0.16717***(4.18409) |
0.92626***(6.15059) |
0.30184 (0.99480) |
0.520145 |
|
2001 |
0.12702***(3.78763) |
0.67454***(5.20378) |
0.04703 (0.23939) |
0.468927 |
Note: 1) Figures in the first and second columns are the scores of parameters’ coefficients. Those in
parentheses are scores of t-statistics.
2) *P<0.1, **P<0.05 and ***P<0.01
3) Figures on lower lines in 1984 and 1988 are t-statistics calculated from White hetero-skedasticity
consistent covariance.
4) Shaded figures showed different signs from the theoretically expected ones.
More intriguing information
1. Portuguese Women in Science and Technology (S&T): Some Gender Features Behind MSc. and PhD. Achievement2. The name is absent
3. FDI Implications of Recent European Court of Justice Decision on Corporation Tax Matters
4. Philosophical Perspectives on Trustworthiness and Open-mindedness as Professional Virtues for the Practice of Nursing: Implications for he Moral Education of Nurses
5. The Context of Sense and Sensibility
6. Analyzing the Agricultural Trade Impacts of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement
7. Spectral density bandwith choice and prewightening in the estimation of heteroskadasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrices in panel data models
8. The Shepherd Sinfonia
9. Legal Minimum Wages and the Wages of Formal and Informal Sector Workers in Costa Rica
10. The Value of Cultural Heritage Sites in Armenia: Evidence From a Travel Cost Method Study