Cross-Commodity Perspective on Contracting: Evidenc e from Mississippi
Table 6. Regression Results, Restricted Sample, Mississippi 2001.
|
Variable |
Estimate |
Standard Error |
Â2 value |
|
Intercept |
-1.854 |
1.6656 |
1.2385 |
|
CVP |
-0.030 |
0.0365 |
0.6867 |
|
HOURS |
0.467 |
0.1904 |
6.0096** |
|
PREF |
0.707 |
0.2513 |
7.9176* |
|
EASE |
-0.681 |
0.2513 |
6.9115* |
|
ASSETSP |
0.021 |
0.0099 |
4.6386** |
|
EDU |
0.620 |
0.5452 |
1.2927 |
|
OFFINC |
-0.016 |
0.0077 |
4.4550** |
|
Age |
-0.017 |
0.0208 |
0.6681 |
|
Log-likelihood Â2 |
39.624 | ||
|
No. Obs. |
264 |
* Statistically significant at the 0.01 level.
** Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
*** Statistically significant at the 0.10 level.
26
More intriguing information
1. The Response of Ethiopian Grain Markets to Liberalization2. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
3. Julkinen T&K-rahoitus ja sen vaikutus yrityksiin - Analyysi metalli- ja elektroniikkateollisuudesta
4. Program Semantics and Classical Logic
5. How do investors' expectations drive asset prices?
6. The name is absent
7. Structural Conservation Practices in U.S. Corn Production: Evidence on Environmental Stewardship by Program Participants and Non-Participants
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Understanding the (relative) fall and rise of construction wages