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. Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 112. APPLICATIONS OF DUALITY THEORY TO AGRICULTURE
3. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
4. Two-Part Tax Controls for Forest Density and Rotation Time
5. The name is absent
6. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?
7. Creating a 2000 IES-LFS Database in Stata
8. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI
9. Yield curve analysis
10. The name is absent