Table 1.
Evaluation of the strength of potential impact on the economic development
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SClogistics | 0.010** | ||
| − 0.004 | |||
| Energy consump | 0.003 | ||
| − 0.003 | |||
| CO2 emissions | 0.011*** | ||
| − 0.004 | |||
| GDP(t − 1) | − 0.009*** | − 0.009*** | − 0.009*** |
| − 0.003 | − 0.003 | − 0.003 | |
| Financial aid | 0.018*** | 0.018*** | 0.018*** |
| − 0.006 | − 0.006 | − 0.006 | |
| Tax cut | 0.271*** | 0.273*** | 0.268*** |
| − 0.087 | − 0.088 | − 0.087 | |
| Subsidy | 0.010** | 0.011*** | 0.010** |
| − 0.004 | − 0.004 | − 0.004 | |
| Insurance | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| − 0.003 | − 0.003 | − 0.003 | |
| Elasticity | |||
| Logistics measure | 1.439** | 0.471 | 1.760** |
| − 0.672 | (0.489) | − 0.695 | |
| Cameron and Trivedi’s IM-test | |||
| Heteroskedasticity | [0.000] | [0.000] | [0.000] |
| Skewness | [0.089] | [0.087] | [0.095] |
| Kurtosis | [0.140] | [0.132] | [0.146] |
| Total | [0.000] | [0.000] | [0.000] |
| Observations | 522 | 522 | 522 |
| R-squared | 0.231 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
Author calculation