TABLE 6.
Association between labor mobility intensity and Chinese cabbage price
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treat×Labor Mobility Intensity | −0.120*** | −0.139*** | −0.138*** |
| (−11.62) | (−14.66) | (−14.18) | |
| Treat | 1.067*** | 1.301*** | 1.277*** |
| (19.72) | (13.54) | (12.59) | |
| Labor Mobility Intensity | 0.032** | 0.041*** | 0.038*** |
| (2.29) | (2.90) | (3.66) | |
| Constant | 0.016 | −0.033 | 0.023 |
| (0.29) | (−0.70) | (0.51) | |
| Market FEs | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Day FEs | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province×Treat | No | Yes | Yes |
| Market×Time | No | No | Yes |
| Observations | 27,927 | 27,927 | 27,927 |
| R‐squared | 0.553 | 0.607 | 0.661 |
| Control Group | 2018 Jan. ‐2018 May & | 2018 Jan. ‐2018 May & | 2018 Jan. ‐2018 May & |
| 2019 Jan. ‐2019 May | 2019 Jan. ‐2019 May | 2019 Jan. ‐2019 May |
Notes: The time window of observations is from January 29 to May 1. Standard errors are clustered at the market level and t statistics are in parentheses.
* = p < 0.01.
**
= p < 0.05.
***
= p < 0.01.