Table III.- Distribution of the sample depending on firm´s surviving behaviour and
Province's classification.
|
All firms |
Survived |
Disappeared | ||||||
|
N° |
% |
N° |
% |
% surv. |
N° |
% |
% disap. | |
|
PROVINCE 1 |
369 |
34,4 |
202 |
54,7 |
26,9 |
167 |
45,3 |
519 |
|
PROVINCE 2 |
271 |
25,3 |
234 |
863 |
312 |
37 |
137 |
∏J |
|
PROVINCE 3 |
276 |
25,7 |
188 |
681 |
25,0 |
88 |
319 |
27,3 |
|
PROVINCE 4 |
157 |
14,6 |
127 |
80,9 |
169 |
30 |
191 |
9,3 |
Table IV.- ANOVA of the variables depending on province's classification.
|
All firms |
Survived |
Disappeared | ||||
|
F statistics |
Sign. |
F statistics |
Sign |
F statistics |
Sign | |
|
Employment 1990 |
0.353 |
0.787 |
0.722 |
0.539 |
0.306 |
0.821 |
|
Age |
1.853 |
0.136 |
2.542 |
0.055 |
2.244 |
0.083 |
|
Liability |
0.068 |
0.977 |
1.287 |
0.278 |
1.280 |
0.281 |
|
Sector’s Technical Development |
5.354 |
0.001 |
8.712 |
0.000 |
0.307 |
0.820 |
|
Innovation of Product |
1.306 |
0.271 |
1.279 |
0.281 |
0.898 |
0.442 |
|
Innovation of Process |
7.565 |
0.000 |
4.395 |
0.004 |
1.241 |
0.295 |
Source: Drawn up by author.
10