Table 3. Estimates of Cross-State Weed Regulatory Congruence, 2002
|
Slope Coefficients a |
Sign of |
List 1 |
List 2 |
List 3 |
List 4 NW |
|
I1. Average Temperature |
Negative |
6.0192* |
77.9172** |
-22.3952** |
27.6193** |
|
. (3.0452) |
. (4.3315) |
. (3.3327) |
. (5.5819) | ||
|
Positive |
-97.3348** |
-39.7359** |
-86.9851** |
-29.2558** | |
|
(4.5406) |
(7.2631) |
(4.9156) |
(8.3285) | ||
|
I2. Average Precipitation |
Negative |
10.7105** |
6.9771** (0.8961) |
5.4450** (0.6867) |
12.7726** |
|
Positive |
-17.9395** |
-18.6396** |
-28.2771** |
2.0383 | |
|
(1.8217) |
(2.6990) |
(2.0377) |
(3.1967) | ||
|
I3. Variance of Temperature |
Negative |
0 0024 |
-0 0064* |
0 0081* |
-0 0162** |
|
. (0.0035) |
. (0.0037) |
. (0.0041) |
. (0.0060) | ||
|
Positive |
-6.5445** |
-6.7927** |
-6.3753** |
-9.3485** | |
|
(1.5217) |
(2.2661) |
(1.6075) |
(2.4415) | ||
|
I4. Variance of Precipitation |
Negative |
0 0000 |
-0 0000 |
0 0001* |
-0 0001 |
|
. (0.0000) |
. (0.0000) |
. (0.0000) |
. (0.0000) | ||
|
Positive |
-5.6056** |
-18.1827** |
-4.0619* |
-7.5137** | |
|
(1.4838) |
(2.2530) |
(1.5871) |
(2.5831) | ||
|
I5. Land Share Index |
Negative |
0.0280 |
0.0421 |
0.0071 |
-0.1023 |
|
(0.0234) |
(0.0393) |
(0.0218) |
(0.0682) | ||
|
Positive |
0.0213 |
0.0377 |
0.0058 |
0.0230 | |
|
(0.0281) |
(0.0473) |
(0.0263) |
(0.0946) | ||
|
I6. Water Share Index |
Negative |
0 2331 |
0 4933** |
0 1009 |
0 0644 |
|
. (0.1419) |
. (0.1867) |
. (0.1687) |
. (0.4540) | ||
|
Positive |
-0.1704 |
-0.6096* |
-0.0178 |
0.0195 | |
|
(0.1149) |
(0.1544) |
(0.1375) |
(0.3803) | ||
|
I7. Soil Share Index |
Negative |
-0 0481 |
-0 2558 |
0 0787 |
-0 5541 |
|
. (0.1862) |
. (0.2809) |
. (0.2197) |
. (0.3862) | ||
|
Positive |
-0.0186 |
0.4315 |
-0.3601 |
0.1504 | |
|
(0.1613) |
(0.24151) |
(0.1876) |
(0.3390) | ||
|
A1. Field Crop Land Share |
Negative |
4 6134** |
8 9766** |
4 3584** |
5 9742** |
|
. (1.3560) |
. (1.9970) |
. (1.3247) |
. (1.7632) | ||
|
Positive |
-11.9382** |
1.2836 |
-15.6365** |
1.6604 | |
|
(2.5060) |
(3.7752) |
(2.7747) |
(3.9808) | ||
|
A2. Irrigated Land Share |
Negative |
0 0254** |
-0 0297 |
0 0577** |
0 0135 |
|
. (0.0098) |
. (0.0163) |
. (0.0117) |
. (0.0154) | ||
|
Positive |
-5.2458** |
-3.3891 |
-1.2897 |
-4.6188* | |
|
(1.3962) |
(2.0586) |
(1.5069) |
(2.3250) | ||
|
ωc: Lobby of Consumer |
Negative |
-0.0626 |
0.0272 |
-0.0468 |
0.2804 |
|
. (0.0324) |
. (0.0499) |
. (0.0362) |
. (0.1814) | ||
|
Positive |
-3.1981* |
0.4738 |
-0.4750 |
-7.5734** | |
|
(1.5602) |
(2.2480) |
(1.7143) |
(2.5308) | ||
|
ωs: Lobby of Seed Industry |
Negative |
-0.0235 |
-0.0631** |
0.0241 |
-0.0576** |
|
. (0.0158) |
. (0.0218) |
. (0.0178) |
. (0.0190) | ||
|
Positive |
-1.7488 |
-1.6051 |
1.8992 |
3.1139 | |
|
(1.4492) |
(2.1602) |
(1.5447) |
(2.3757) | ||
|
ωm: Lobby of Commodity |
Negative |
0.4684** |
0.2360 |
0.6222** |
-0.7174** |
|
Producer |
(0.1139) |
(0.1649) |
(0.1260) |
(0.2241) | |
|
Positive |
-3.7354* |
7.8416** |
-3.4817* |
-2.8600 | |
|
(1.5426) |
_________(2.3017) |
_________(1.6396) |
(2.5521) |
** and * denote significance at the 1% and 5% level, respectively; number in parenthesis is standard error.
aI1 through I7 indicate ecological dissimilarity indexes, A1 and A2 are agronomic dissimilarity indexes, and ωk,
k=c,s,m, denote lobbying dissimilarity indexes.
29
More intriguing information
1. The Impact of Optimal Tariffs and Taxes on Agglomeration2. Valuing Farm Financial Information
3. The name is absent
4. El impacto espacial de las economías de aglomeración y su efecto sobre la estructura urbana.El caso de la industria en Barcelona, 1986-1996
5. An Estimated DSGE Model of the Indian Economy.
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
9. Bridging Micro- and Macro-Analyses of the EU Sugar Program: Methods and Insights
10. LABOR POLICY AND THE OVER-ALL ECONOMY