Skip to main content
Latin American Economic Review

Table 6 SP availability and private transfers. Municipality-level variation

From: Does access to free health insurance crowd-out private transfers? Evidence from Mexico’s Seguro Popular

Sample

OLS: amount of private transfers received

LPM: probability of receiving private transfers

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. Full sample

−28.05 (28.56)

2.660 (36.43)

−0.0097 (0.0081)

−0.0145* (0.0084)

B. First quartile

−46.57*** (13.88)

−37.80** (18.54)

−0.0249* (0.0129)

−0.0358** (0.0178)

C. Second quartile

−14.72 (25.91)

5.351 (28.94)

0.0004 (0.0137)

−0.0128 (0.0158)

D. Third quartile

−64.15* (38.05)

−53.92 (41.23)

−0.0190 (0.0130)

−0.00611 (0.0148)

E. Fourth quartile

83.41 (91.44)

88.26 (126.0)

−0.0031 (0.0143)

−0.0067 (0.0165)

HH-level controls

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Year fixed effects

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

State fixed effects

Yes

No

Yes

No

State-level controls

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Municipality fixed effects

No

Yes

No

Yes

Municipality-level controls

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

  1. Full sample and divided by position in the income distribution
  2. Source: Author’s elaboration based on the ENIGH. Figures presented represent coefficient estimates for SP availability at the municipality level. HH-level controls include the variables presented in Table 2. State-level controls include the state population size and binary variables that indicate the political affiliation of the Governor. Municipality-level controls include government revenue, number of housing credits granted and number of workers affiliated to IMSS. Monetary figures are in real 2006 pesos. Standard errors are clustered at the municipality level
  3. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Back to article page