Table 3.
Local capital spending and industrial development: interaction terms
| Variables | All | Non-SAR | Resource rich | Non-imputation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| MAN(t−1) | 0.956*** (0.023) | 0.961*** (0.023) | 0.961*** (0.020) | 0.964*** (0.022) | 1.046*** (0.011) | 1.042*** (0.012) | 0.956*** (0.022) | 0.964*** (0.022) |
| LCAP | 0.066** (0.029) | 0.057 (0.039) | 0.081*** (0.029) | 0.070* (0.040) | 0.106** (0.047) | 0.082** (0.041) | 0.070* (0.040) | 0.084 (0.058) |
| FDIIND | 0.103*** (0.039) | 0.089** (0.036) | 0.216** (0.107) | 0.109** (0.043) | ||||
| DDIIND | 0.041 (0.030) | 0.030 (0.034) | 0.090 (0.073) | 0.033 (0.029) | ||||
| LCAP * FDIIND | 0.003 (0.006) | 0.004 (0.005) | − 0.021* (0.013) | 0.004 (0.007) | ||||
| LCAP * DDIIND | 0.006 (0.008) | 0.006 (0.007) | − 0.005 (0.006) | 0.002 (0.010) | ||||
| CONS | − 0.654 (0.721) | − 0.554 (0.764) | − 0.813 (0.783) | − 0.809 (0.879) | 3.934 (4.825) | − 0.013 (5.070) | − 0.624 (0.750) | − 0.541 (0.804) |
| Control Var. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 544 | 544 | 464 | 464 | 96 | 96 | 512 | 512 |
| Provinces | 34 | 34 | 29 | 29 | 6 | 6 | 32 | 32 |
| Instruments | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 |
| AR-1 | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.032 | 0.031 | 0.167 | 0.169 | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| AR-2 | 0.254 | 0.390 | 0.229 | 0.373 | 0.954 | 0.806 | 0.189 | 0.292 |
| Hansen (p-value) | 0.341 | 0.358 | 0.385 | 0.439 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.386 | 0.409 |
Source: author
AR-1 and AR-2 denotes Arellano–Bond test with p-values results are reported. They are the necessary diagnostics for dynamic panel data estimation, i.e., GMM
Hansen J-test calculates overidentifying restrictions that occurs due to increasing number of instruments. P-value is reported
Robust standard error in parentheses, *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01