Skip to main content

Table 10 cDiD coefficient estimates corresponding to Figure 4

From: Are temporary work agencies stepping stones into regular employment?

Percentage change in earnings
  (1) (2) (3) (4)
Variables Full sample Women Men Non-western immigrants
Treatment × 1999 -0.101 -0.135 -0.059 -0.844***
  (0.081) (0.137) (0.100) (0.277)
Treatment × 2000 -0.028 -0.059 -0.009 -0.133
  (0.077) (0.131) (0.095) (0.248)
Treatment × 2002 0.816*** 0.954*** 0.746*** 1.158***
  (0.058) (0.117) (0.063) (0.182)
Treatment × 2003 0.383*** 0.467*** 0.342*** 0.568***
  (0.065) (0.125) (0.075) (0.203)
Treatment × 2004 0.292*** 0.481*** 0.201** 0.317
  (0.075) (0.130) (0.088) (0.193)
Treatment × 2005 0.119* 0.172 0.082 0.368*
  (0.072) (0.125) (0.087) (0.207)
Treatment × 2006 0.074 0.041 0.078 0.161
  (0.068) (0.132) (0.075) (0.177)
Treatment × 2007 0.256*** 0.274** 0.228*** 0.574***
  (0.061) (0.111) (0.072) (0.190)
Treatment × 2008 0.177*** 0.298*** 0.091 0.364**
  (0.060) (0.108) (0.071) (0.179)
Observations 28,891 7,431 21,460 2,443
R-squared 0.219 0.193 0.256 0.274
Control variables YES YES YES YES
  1. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
  2. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
  3. Control variables ( X i,t ): Age, number of kids over age groups and dummies for: region of birth, year of arrival, educational orientation, social welfare benefit received current year and level, and a linear time trend.
  4. Standard errors were clustered on individual level to account for possible serial correlation.