Table 3 Regression analysis Model 1:...

Table 3

Regression analysis

			Model 1: FPMGL			Model 2: Non-FPMGL
		Exp. Sign	B	S.E	Exp (B)	B	S.E.	Exp (B)
Independent variables	FixedAssets	+	2.125*	0.928	8.374	3.515*	1.385	33.61
	NoComp	+	0.078**	0.029	1.081	0.025	0.035	1.025
	EquityRatio	−	0.016	0.015	1.016	−0.005	0.025	0.995
	CostSlack	+	0.01	0.037	1.01	−0.012	0.050	0.988
	CostStructure	+	0.000**	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	1.000
	EconActivity	−	−0.001	0.001	0.999	0.003†	0.002	1.003
	IncomeIneq	+	−3.029	6.651	0.048	−2.026	1.369	0.132
	CarbEm	+	−0.192	0.156	0.826	−0.640*	0.306	0.528
Control variables	TaxL	+	−0.027	0.294	0.973	−0.565	0.412	0.568
	MinRule	±	−0.511	0.322	1.667	1.157*	0.454	0.314
	Regions/Networks	±
	Kalmar					2.961†	1.577	19.311
	Kronoberg					2.969*	1.474	19.473
	Norrbotten					4.713**	1.742	111.345
	Värmland					3.884**	1.461	48.628
	Västernorrland					4.187*	1.776	65.835
	Uppland					4.069**	1.526	58.472
	Constant		−9.324	9.967	0.000	12.167	14.122	192307.477
	Correct prediction %		77.5%			90.7%
	Nagelkerke’s R²		0.193			0.341

			Model 1: FPMGL			Model 2: Non-FPMGL
		Exp. Sign	B	S.E	Exp (B)	B	S.E.	Exp (B)
Independent variables	FixedAssets	+	2.125*	0.928	8.374	3.515*	1.385	33.61
	NoComp	+	0.078**	0.029	1.081	0.025	0.035	1.025
	EquityRatio	−	0.016	0.015	1.016	−0.005	0.025	0.995
	CostSlack	+	0.01	0.037	1.01	−0.012	0.050	0.988
	CostStructure	+	0.000**	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	1.000
	EconActivity	−	−0.001	0.001	0.999	0.003†	0.002	1.003
	IncomeIneq	+	−3.029	6.651	0.048	−2.026	1.369	0.132
	CarbEm	+	−0.192	0.156	0.826	−0.640*	0.306	0.528
Control variables	TaxL	+	−0.027	0.294	0.973	−0.565	0.412	0.568
	MinRule	±	−0.511	0.322	1.667	1.157*	0.454	0.314
	Regions/Networks	±
	Kalmar					2.961†	1.577	19.311
	Kronoberg					2.969*	1.474	19.473
	Norrbotten					4.713**	1.742	111.345
	Värmland					3.884**	1.461	48.628
	Västernorrland					4.187*	1.776	65.835
	Uppland					4.069**	1.526	58.472
	Constant		−9.324	9.967	0.000	12.167	14.122	192307.477
	Correct prediction %		77.5%			90.7%
	Nagelkerke’s R²		0.193			0.341

Note(s): All regions used to proxy municipal networks were included in both models, but only significant regions are reported in this table. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). † Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level

Source(s): Author’s own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable