. | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . | (4) . | (5) . | (6) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Baseline . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Take-up propensity . | high . | low . | high . | low . | high . | low . |
. | Guarantee . | Years employed . | Earnings . | |||
Guarantee | 0.901*** | 0.054 | 0.299*** | 0.112 | 0.511*** | –0.074 |
(0.205) | (0.055) | (0.061) | (0.067) | (0.080) | (0.111) | |
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 |
.067 | .022 | .044 | .050 | .080 | .064 | |
B. Reallocation | ||||||
Take-up propensity | High | Low | High | Low | ||
Years employed | Earnings | |||||
Other firm | Other firm | |||||
Higher VA/Emp | Higher VA/Emp | |||||
Guarantee | –0.534*** | 0.115 | –0.429*** | 0.047 | ||
(0.108) | (0.148) | (0.089) | (0.134) | |||
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | ||
.097 | .053 | .084 | .051 |
. | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . | (4) . | (5) . | (6) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Baseline . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Take-up propensity . | high . | low . | high . | low . | high . | low . |
. | Guarantee . | Years employed . | Earnings . | |||
Guarantee | 0.901*** | 0.054 | 0.299*** | 0.112 | 0.511*** | –0.074 |
(0.205) | (0.055) | (0.061) | (0.067) | (0.080) | (0.111) | |
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 |
.067 | .022 | .044 | .050 | .080 | .064 | |
B. Reallocation | ||||||
Take-up propensity | High | Low | High | Low | ||
Years employed | Earnings | |||||
Other firm | Other firm | |||||
Higher VA/Emp | Higher VA/Emp | |||||
Guarantee | –0.534*** | 0.115 | –0.429*** | 0.047 | ||
(0.108) | (0.148) | (0.089) | (0.134) | |||
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | ||
.097 | .053 | .084 | .051 |
This table reports the effect of loan guarantees on worker employment and earnings separately for firms with high and low guarantee take-up propensity. We first estimate take-up propensity using observable firm characteristics (log of assets, ROA, log of firm age, dividend/sales, PPE/assets, debt/assets, credit risk and two-digit industry fixed effects) measured in 2008. Columns 1, 3, and 5 show the effect for firms with high take-up propensity, while columns 2, 4, and 6 show the effect for firms with low take-up propensity. Panel A shows the baseline results (first stage and worker outcomes), while panel B shows the dampening of worker reallocation to more productive firms. The main explanatory variable is the regional intensity of the recovery plan, Guarantee, estimated across SMEs outside the border area. All regressions include department pair fixed effects, distance to the border, and changes in regional controls from 2008 to 2010 (public spending, local taxes, public equipment expenditures, public debt, state contribution, value-added of non-SMEs, and regional bank lending), and firm controls (log of assets, ROA, log of firm age, dividend/sales, PPE/assets, debt/assets, credit risk and two-digit industry fixed effects). Columns 3 to 6 add worker-level controls (worker age, gender, and occupation fixed effects). Firm- and worker-level controls are measured in 2008. Standard errors clustered by region are reported in parentheses.
;
;
.
. | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . | (4) . | (5) . | (6) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Baseline . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Take-up propensity . | high . | low . | high . | low . | high . | low . |
. | Guarantee . | Years employed . | Earnings . | |||
Guarantee | 0.901*** | 0.054 | 0.299*** | 0.112 | 0.511*** | –0.074 |
(0.205) | (0.055) | (0.061) | (0.067) | (0.080) | (0.111) | |
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 |
.067 | .022 | .044 | .050 | .080 | .064 | |
B. Reallocation | ||||||
Take-up propensity | High | Low | High | Low | ||
Years employed | Earnings | |||||
Other firm | Other firm | |||||
Higher VA/Emp | Higher VA/Emp | |||||
Guarantee | –0.534*** | 0.115 | –0.429*** | 0.047 | ||
(0.108) | (0.148) | (0.089) | (0.134) | |||
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | ||
.097 | .053 | .084 | .051 |
. | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . | (4) . | (5) . | (6) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Baseline . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Take-up propensity . | high . | low . | high . | low . | high . | low . |
. | Guarantee . | Years employed . | Earnings . | |||
Guarantee | 0.901*** | 0.054 | 0.299*** | 0.112 | 0.511*** | –0.074 |
(0.205) | (0.055) | (0.061) | (0.067) | (0.080) | (0.111) | |
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 |
.067 | .022 | .044 | .050 | .080 | .064 | |
B. Reallocation | ||||||
Take-up propensity | High | Low | High | Low | ||
Years employed | Earnings | |||||
Other firm | Other firm | |||||
Higher VA/Emp | Higher VA/Emp | |||||
Guarantee | –0.534*** | 0.115 | –0.429*** | 0.047 | ||
(0.108) | (0.148) | (0.089) | (0.134) | |||
Department-pair FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Regional controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Firm-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Worker-level controls | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Observations | 23,137 | 15,421 | 23,137 | 15,421 | ||
.097 | .053 | .084 | .051 |
This table reports the effect of loan guarantees on worker employment and earnings separately for firms with high and low guarantee take-up propensity. We first estimate take-up propensity using observable firm characteristics (log of assets, ROA, log of firm age, dividend/sales, PPE/assets, debt/assets, credit risk and two-digit industry fixed effects) measured in 2008. Columns 1, 3, and 5 show the effect for firms with high take-up propensity, while columns 2, 4, and 6 show the effect for firms with low take-up propensity. Panel A shows the baseline results (first stage and worker outcomes), while panel B shows the dampening of worker reallocation to more productive firms. The main explanatory variable is the regional intensity of the recovery plan, Guarantee, estimated across SMEs outside the border area. All regressions include department pair fixed effects, distance to the border, and changes in regional controls from 2008 to 2010 (public spending, local taxes, public equipment expenditures, public debt, state contribution, value-added of non-SMEs, and regional bank lending), and firm controls (log of assets, ROA, log of firm age, dividend/sales, PPE/assets, debt/assets, credit risk and two-digit industry fixed effects). Columns 3 to 6 add worker-level controls (worker age, gender, and occupation fixed effects). Firm- and worker-level controls are measured in 2008. Standard errors clustered by region are reported in parentheses.
;
;
.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.