Skip to main content

Advertisement

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