Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
S
h
a
r
e
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
s
1
9
8
0
0
.
7
8
0
.
1
4
3
8
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
1
1
2
7
0
.
6
9
5
8
.
4
7
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
i
s
u
r
e
3
7
.
7
5
8
.
0
5
3
8
2
4
3
.
3
9
7
.
7
9
1
2
7
-
5
.
6
4
-
7
.
0
1
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
3
8
.
4
6
.
5
9
3
8
2
4
1
.
5
3
4
.
8
8
1
2
7
-
3
.
1
3
-
5
.
7
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
3
5
.
3
2
7
.
7
4
3
8
2
4
4
.
2
7
6
.
0
9
1
2
7
-
8
.
9
5
-
1
3
.
3
6
M
e
a
n
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
9
9
6
i
n
1
0
0
0
C
H
F
3
7
.
9
2
8
.
3
2
3
8
2
3
4
.
1
9
5
.
0
3
1
2
7
3
.
7
4
6
.
0
6
G
i
n
i
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
1
9
9
6
0
.
3
8
0
.
0
7
3
8
2
0
.
3
1
0
.
0
4
1
2
7
0
.
0
8
1
5
.
8
6
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
i
n
m
a
b
o
v
e
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
6
0
0
1
6
2
3
8
2
6
6
9
1
2
1
1
2
7
-
6
8
.
5
1
-
5
.
0
5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
b
o
r
d
e
r
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
k
m
2
1
.
9
4
1
7
.
1
6
3
8
2
-
9
.
0
6
7
.
4
1
1
2
7
3
1
2
8
.
2
7
F
i
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
p
e
r
p
a
r
i
s
h
i
n
1
4
1
6
6
2
.
9
8
9
5
.
4
4
1
4
2
7
6
.
0
5
1
2
7
.
2
4
7
2
-
1
3
.
0
7
-
0
.
8
4
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
s
u
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
l
a
s
t
c
o
l
u
m
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
t
-
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
f
r
o
m
a
t
e
s
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
e
a
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
t
h
e
F
r
e
n
c
h
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
,
i
.
e
.
a
l
s
o
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
f
a
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
o
r
d
e
r
a
n
d
h
e
n
c
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
D
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
R
D
D
)
.
A
b
o
r
d
e
r
p
o
i
n
t
i
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
o
r
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
a
r
o
a
d
o
r
p
a
t
h
.
37
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
T
a
b
l
e
2
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
:
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
d
a
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
M
e
a
n
S
D
N
M
e
a
n
S
D
N
D
i
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
(
1
)
L
o
n
g
e
r
v
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
9
8
5
)
3
0
.
7
4
1
2
.
1
8
3
8
2
3
5
.
5
6
1
2
.
2
1
2
7
-
4
.
8
3
-
3
.
8
6
(
2
)
S
h
o
r
t
e
r
w
e
e
k
l
y
h
o
u
r
s
(
1
9
8
8
)
2
6
.
6
8
9
.
3
9
3
8
2
3
4
.
4
2
1
1
.
3
4
1
2
7
-
7
.
7
4
-
6
.
9
4
(
3
)
S
h
o
r
t
e
r
w
e
e
k
l
y
h
o
u
r
s
(
2
0
0
2
)
2
9
.
0
7
7
.
7
3
8
2
3
1
.
9
6
7
.
9
7
1
2
7
-
2
.
8
9
-
3
.
5
7
(
4
)
E
a
r
l
i
e
r
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
9
8
8
)
3
1
.
5
1
1
1
.
1
3
8
2
3
9
.
9
1
1
1
.
9
1
1
2
7
-
8
.
4
-
7
(
5
)
E
a
r
l
i
e
r
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
2
0
0
0
)
5
0
.
4
1
1
0
.
5
4
3
8
2
5
4
.
7
2
8
.
7
2
1
2
7
-
4
.
3
-
4
.
5
6
(
6
)
N
o
r
i
s
e
i
n
f
e
m
a
l
e
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
5
8
.
0
7
1
0
.
2
5
3
8
2
6
3
.
7
8
8
.
2
2
1
2
7
-
5
.
7
1
-
6
.
3
6
(
7
)
L
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
l
t
h
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
f
o
r
p
o
o
r
(
1
9
9
2
)
2
3
.
1
4
8
.
9
7
3
8
2
2
7
.
2
8
7
.
8
7
1
2
7
-
4
.
1
4
-
4
.
9
5
(
8
)
N
o
c
u
t
o
f
u
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
b
e
n
e
t
s
(
1
9
9
7
)
5
8
.
9
5
1
0
.
1
7
3
8
2
6
3
.
3
7
8
.
7
3
1
2
7
-
4
.
4
2
-
4
.
7
4
(
9
)
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
o
l
d
a
g
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
(
1
9
9
5
)
2
5
.
4
4
9
.
1
3
8
2
2
6
.
8
7
.
8
8
1
2
7
-
1
.
3
6
-
1
.
6
2
(
1
0
)
N
o
c
u
t
o
f
b
e
n
e
t
s
f
o
r
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
(
1
9
9
5
)
4
3
.
8
8
.
5
3
7
8
5
1
.
1
4
8
.
6
5
1
1
0
-
7
.
3
4
-
7
.
8
7
(
1
1
)
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
(
1
9
9
5
)
4
0
.
8
5
8
.
7
2
3
7
8
4
0
.
4
2
6
.
3
1
1
0
0
.
4
3
0
.
5
7
(
1
2
)
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
r
m
f
r
o
m
m
a
r
k
e
t
a
b
u
s
e
(
1
9
8
1
)
4
7
.
9
5
1
3
.
4
3
8
2
6
2
.
4
5
1
3
.
2
1
2
6
-
1
4
.
5
-
1
0
.
6
5
(
1
3
)
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
r
k
e
t
(
1
9
8
6
)
5
0
.
7
7
1
2
.
6
6
3
8
2
6
5
.
8
8
9
.
1
2
1
2
7
-
1
5
.
1
1
-
1
4
.
5
8
(
1
4
)
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
o
o
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
(
1
9
9
8
)
1
0
.
0
5
4
.
7
7
3
8
2
1
1
.
8
2
4
.
7
7
1
2
7
-
1
.
7
7
-
3
.
6
2
(
1
5
)
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
r
k
e
t
(
2
0
0
3
)
3
2
.
5
1
9
.
8
8
3
8
2
3
7
.
1
4
7
.
2
3
1
2
7
-
4
.
6
3
-
5
.
6
7
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
s
u
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
l
a
s
t
c
o
l
u
m
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
t
-
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
f
r
o
m
a
t
e
s
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
e
a
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
F
r
e
n
c
h
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
,
i
.
e
.
a
l
s
o
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
f
a
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
o
r
d
e
r
a
n
d
h
e
n
c
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
D
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
R
D
D
)
.
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
d
a
(
1
)
-
(
6
)
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
i
s
u
r
e
,
(
7
)
-
(
1
1
)
t
o
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
(
1
2
)
-
(
1
5
)
t
o
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
38
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Table 3: First stage results
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Share Share Share Share
of of of of
Protestants Protestants Protestants Protestants
T .66*** .69*** .73*** .75***
(.06) (.03) (.02) (.02)
Distance .02 .02*** .00 .00
(.03) (.01) (.00) (.00)
T*Distance .00 -.01 -.00 -.01***
(.04) (.01) (.00) (.00)
Constant .14*** .13*** .10*** .10***
(.04) (.02) (.01) (.01)
BW 2 5 10 20
N 72 133 208 305
T is an indicator for whether a municipality is on the historically Protestant side of the border;
Distance is walking distance to the closest border point in km. In column (1) bandwidth in km is
chosen optimally following Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009). Columns (2)-(4) show results for bandwidths
of 5km, 10km, and 20km. Robust standard errors in parentheses. * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
Table 4: Reduced form results
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
T -9.41*** -2.36 -7.91*** -1.81* .10***
(2.24) (1.86) (1.90) (1.02) (.03)
Distance .32 -.30 -.37 .25 -.03
(.56) (.41) (.33) (.18) (.02)
T*Distance -.41 -.33 .01 .72** .04
(.70) (.64) (.55) (.36) (.03)
Constant 44.38*** 41.24*** 42.35*** 32.87*** .27***
(1.66) (1.12) (1.33) (.66) (.02)
IK OB 7.01 5.60 7.00 5.64 1.54
N 166 143 165 144 56
T is an indicator for whether a municipality is on the historically Protestant side of the border;
Distance is walking distance to the closest border point in km; Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally
following Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009). Preferences in columns (1), (2) and (3) based on the share
of yes votes averaged across respectively referenda (1)-(6), (7)-(11) and (12)-(15) in Table 2. Robust
standard errors in parentheses. * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
39
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Table 5: Second stage results
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
Share Protestants -13.25*** -3.37 -11.20*** -2.59* .15***
(3.03) (2.57) (2.62) (1.43) (.05)
Distance .43 -.25 -.26 .29 -.04*
(.56) (.42) (.35) (.19) (.02)
T*Distance -.51 -.37 -.10 .68** .04
(.68) (.61) (.52) (.35) (.03)
Constant 45.91*** 41.67*** 43.69*** 33.20*** .25***
(1.92) (1.33) (1.59) (.79) (.03)
IK OB 7.01 5.60 7.00 5.64 1.54
N 166 143 165 144 56
Share Protestants is the share of Protestants amongst those either Protestant or Catholic, as of the
1980 census. Scaled to the unit interval the coecients give the estimated dierence between a fully
Protestant and a fully Catholic municipality. It is instrumented with T, an indicator for whether a
municipality is on the historically Protestant side of the border; Distance is walking distance to
the closest border point in km; Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally following Imbens-Kalyanaraman
(2009). Preferences in columns (1), (2) and (3) based on the share of yes votes averaged across
respectively referenda (1)-(6), (7)-(11) and (12)-(15) in Table 2. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
* P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
Table 6: Varying bandwidth
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
BW 5km
ITT -8.47*** -1.85 -7.76*** -1.69 .07***
(2.58) (1.97) (2.13) (1.08) (.01)
IV -12.30*** -2.69 -11.28*** -2.45 .11***
(3.61) (2.79) (3.03) (1.54) (.02)
N 133 133 133 133 133
BW 10km
ITT -9.06*** -4.15*** -8.42*** -.06 .07***
(1.84) (1.42) (1.61) (.91) (.01)
IV -12.46*** -5.71*** -11.58*** -.08 .10***
(2.45) (1.90) (2.17) (1.25) (.01)
N 208 208 208 208 208
BW 20km
ITT -10.28*** -4.98*** -9.80*** 1.22 .07***
(1.50) (1.12) (1.27) (.76) (.01)
IV -13.62*** -6.61*** -12.99*** 1.62 .10***
(1.92) (1.43) (1.62) (1.00) (.01)
N 305 305 305 305 305
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) and second stage (IV) estimates for bandwidths 5km, 10km,
and 20km as alternative to the IK bandwidth used in Tables 4 and 5. Distance is walking distance to
the closest border point in km. Preferences in columns (1), (2) and (3) based on the share of yes votes
averaged across respectively referenda (1)-(6), (7)-(11) and (12)-(15) in Table 2. Robust standard
errors in parentheses. * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
40
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 3: Share of Protestants conditional on walking distance to the border, binwidth
5km. Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
41
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 4: Preferences for leisure conditional on walking distance to the border, binwidth
5km. Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
42
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 5: Preferences for redistribution conditional on walking distance to the border,
binwidth 5km. Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
43
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 6: Preferences for intervention conditional on walking distance to the border,
binwidth 5km. Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
44
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 7: Average net income per head conditional on walking distance to the border,
binwidth 5km. Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
45
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Figure 8: Gini coecient conditional on walking distance to the border, binwidth 5km.
Prediction from linear regression, including 95% prediction interval.
46
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
C Tables for the Robustness Checks
Table 7: Smoothness of covariates
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Population Share of Share of Share of Participation
per km2 inhabitants inhabitants inhabitants in general
(2000) foreign (2000) married (2000) male (2000) election (1999)
ITT 112.62 -1.36 1.89 -1.60* -4.81
(82.95) (1.85) (1.32) (.92) (2.99)
FS .75*** .70*** .70*** .68*** .71***
(.03) (.03) (.03) (.04) (.02)
IV 150.48 -1.96 2.71 -2.35* -6.76
(112.26) (2.62) (1.89) (1.38) (4.28)
IK OB 12.62 5.35 5.85 3.20 6.75
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) and second stage (IV) estimates of the eect of the treatment
on placebo outcomes. Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally following Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009).
* P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
47
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
T
a
b
l
e
8
:
I
n
t
r
a
c
a
n
t
o
n
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
l
i
g
i
o
n
i
n
F
r
i
b
o
u
r
g
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
o
n
L
o
r
d
s
h
i
p
M
u
r
t
e
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
F
R
M
e
a
n
S
D
N
M
e
a
n
S
D
N
D
i
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
S
h
a
r
e
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
s
1
9
8
0
0
.
8
5
0
.
1
2
1
8
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
0
2
8
0
.
7
0
2
0
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
i
s
u
r
e
2
4
.
1
6
7
.
6
8
1
8
3
7
.
0
1
8
.
5
6
2
8
-
1
2
.
8
5
-
5
.
2
9
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
3
0
.
3
0
7
.
6
1
1
8
3
8
.
0
7
4
.
1
1
2
8
-
7
.
7
7
-
3
.
9
7
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
3
8
.
2
5
6
.
4
2
1
8
4
3
.
5
7
4
.
0
1
2
8
-
5
.
3
2
-
3
.
1
5
M
e
a
n
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
9
9
6
i
n
1
0
0
0
C
H
F
4
2
,
1
2
8
1
8
,
9
5
0
1
8
3
3
,
4
1
6
3
,
0
0
7
2
8
8
7
1
2
.
1
1
2
G
i
n
i
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
1
9
9
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
8
1
8
0
.
3
0
0
.
0
2
2
8
0
.
0
5
2
.
4
3
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
f
o
r
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
t
h
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
o
f
F
r
i
b
o
u
r
g
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
o
r
d
s
h
i
p
o
f
M
u
r
t
e
n
w
a
s
j
o
i
n
t
l
y
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
b
y
B
e
r
n
e
a
n
d
F
r
i
b
o
u
r
g
.
A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
B
e
r
n
e
s
e
i
n
u
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
o
r
d
s
h
i
p
o
f
M
u
r
t
e
n
b
e
c
a
m
e
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
p
r
e
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
l
y
P
r
o
t
e
s
t
a
n
t
.
T
h
e
l
a
s
t
c
o
l
u
m
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
t
-
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
f
r
o
m
a
t
e
s
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
e
a
n
s
.
48
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Table 9: Triangular kernel
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
ITT -8.99*** -2.39 -8.52*** -1.43 .09***
(2.10) (1.75) (1.79) (.94) (.03)
FS .71*** .70*** .71*** .70*** .63***
(.02) (.03) (.02) (.03) (.06)
IV -12.65*** -3.43 -11.99*** -2.05 .15***
(2.89) (2.48) (2.53) (1.35) (.05)
IK OB 8.92 7.13 8.91 7.18 1.96
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) and second stage (IV) estimates of the main outcomes based
on a triangular kernel. Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally following Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009).
* P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
Table 10: Great-circle distance
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
ITT -8.80*** -3.81** -8.43*** -2.01** .06**
(1.84) (1.49) (1.68) (.99) (.03)
FS .74*** .73*** .74*** .72*** .67***
(.02) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.05)
IV -11.94*** -5.22*** -11.44*** -2.80** .09**
(2.42) (2.01) (2.24) (1.37) (.04)
IK OB 6.78 6.19 6.48 4.83 1.66
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) and second stage (IV) estimates of the main outcomes based
the great-circle distance between a municipality and the closest border point. A border point is an
intersection of the border line with a road or path. Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally following
Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009). * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
49
ECB
Working Paper Series No 1393
October 2011
Table 11: Latitude & longitude
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Preferences Preferences Preferences Mean Income
for for for Income Inequality
Leisure Redistribution Intervention in 1996 in 1996
Share Protestants -12.68*** -6.16*** -13.34*** 1.24 .10***
(1.79) (1.34) (1.41) (.78) (.01)
Longdis -33.92 2.24 7.63 -21.88* -.00
(32.66) (22.42) (21.04) (11.80) (.34)
Latdis 12.81 -10.21 24.93 -24.02** -.59
(43.76) (27.06) (31.11) (11.44) (.37)
T*Longdis 33.45 -14.94 20.21 -18.61 .62
(37.57) (29.86) (28.88) (21.84) (.58)
T*Latdis -25.65 7.93 -48.46 -52.70** .07
(47.40) (33.11) (37.23) (25.31) (.60)
Constant 45.26*** 42.35*** 44.84*** 32.18*** .29***
(1.12) (.62) (.78) (.37) (.01)
IK OB 6.78 6.19 6.48 4.83 1.66
N 199 189 193 159 77
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) estimates of the main outcomes controlling separately for
longitudinal and latitudinal distance between the municipality and the closest border point. A border
point is an intersection of the border line with a road or path. Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally
following Imbens-Kalyanaraman (2009). * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
Table 12: Income and inequality in 2003
(1) (2)
Mean Income
Income Inequality
in 2003 in 2003
ITT -2.73** .05*
(1.17) (.03)
FS .71*** .66***
(.03) (.07)
IV -3.84** .07*
(1.64) (.04)
IK OB 6.31 1.77
The Table presents reduced form (ITT) and second stage
(IV) estimates using data on income and inequality for 2003.
Bandwidth in km is chosen optimally following Imbens-
Kalyanaraman (2009). * P<0.10, ** P<0.05, *** P<0.01.
WORKI NG PAPER S ERI ES
NO 1118 / NOVEMBER 2009
DISCRETIONARY
FISCAL POLICIES
OVER THE CYCLE
NEW EVIDENCE
BASED ON THE ESCB
DISAGGREGATED APPROACH
by Luca Agnello
and Jacopo Cimadomo