Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Probit model marginal effects for the probability of alignment of reporting a specific type of transition from 1998 to 2006, as calculated using contemporaneous 1998 and 2006 panel data and as calculated using 2012 retrospective data by sex, individuals observed in 1998, 2006, and 2012, aged 20–44 in 1998

From: Comparing retrospective and panel data collection methods to assess labor market dynamics

Reference case probability 0.708
Own education (univ. omitted)
 Illit. or R&W − 0.074* (0.033)
 Basic − 0.056 (0.033)
 Secondary − 0.078** (0.026)
Gender (male omit.)
 Female 0.000 (0.018)
Age group in base year (20–24 omit.)
 25–29 − 0.036 (0.019)
 30–34 − 0.088*** (0.018)
 35–39 − 0.064** (0.022)
 40–44 − 0.038 (0.028)
Region (Gr. Cairo omit.)
 Alex. and Suez Canal − 0.013 (0.023)
 Urban Lower − 0.010 (0.023)
 Urban Upper − 0.012 (0.022)
 Rural Lower − 0.020 (0.021)
 Rural Upper 0.018 (0.025)
Consist. respondent (not consist. omit.)
 Consist. resp. 0.005 (0.014)
Contemp. status in 1998 round (public omit.)
 Private formal wage − 0.142* (0.056)
 Private informal wage − 0.115* (0.054)
 Irregular wage − 0.125* (0.054)
 Employers − 0.140* (0.058)
 Self-employed a
 Unpaid family work − 0.121* (0.053)
 Unemployed − 0.133* (0.056)
 OLF − 0.060 (0.059)
Contemp. status in 2006 round (public omit.)
 Private formal wage − 0.157*** (0.036)
 Private informal wage − 0.136*** (0.038)
 Irregular wage − 0.200*** (0.034)
 Employers − 0.125** (0.042)
 Self-employed − 0.134*** (0.040)
 Unpaid family work − 0.198*** (0.035)
 Unemployed − 0.184*** (0.035)
 OLF − 0.159*** (0.040)
N (Obs.) 1693
  1. Source: authors’ calculations based on ELMPS 1998, ELMPS 2006, ELMPS 2012. Standard errors are in parentheses. Marginal effects’ estimates with all other characteristics as observed
  2. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
  3. aSelf-employment in 1998 perfectly predicted misalignment