Table 3.

Regressions explaining respondents’ well-being

(1)(2)(3)(4)
Female−0.243***−0.221***−0.198**−0.242***
Age0.00627*0.00988***0.00812**0.00475
University degree0.184**0.176**0.118*0.153*
Urban (Prague or Brno)−0.0290−0.01580.000611−0.00230
Children in household−0.0265−0.0463−0.0382−0.0327
Necessity entrepreneurship−0.0565−0.0203−0.0316−0.0582*
Locus of control0.244***0.154***0.193***0.210***
Self-efficacy0.147***0.111**0.112**0.133***
Breadwinner
Respondentref.ref.ref.ref.
Respondent and sb else0.05370.04690.02540.0153
Somebody else0.1190.246**0.1390.0981
Business type
Established businessref.ref.ref.ref.
Other new business (f. 2018+)0.05090.09860.1020.0960
Startup0.04450.1040.07770.0727
Satisfaction with income from ent. 0.411***  
Other new bus. × satisf. inc. ent. −0.251***  
Startup × satisf. inc. ent. −0.512***  
Disposable income  0.302*** 
Other new bus. × disp. income  −0.0159 
Startup × disp. income  −0.346* 
Financial problems   −0.185***
Other new bus. × fin. problems   0.0421
Startup × fin. problems   0.164
Industry dummiesYesYesYesYes
R20.1540.2530.2280.178
N1113111311131113
p(interaction terms) <0.00010.0390.402
Notes:

(i) The last row shows the p-value of a Wald test for the joint significance of both interaction terms (based on a heteroscedasticity-robust variance matrix); (ii) *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Columns present individual models differing in the included financial indicators (satisfaction with income from entrepreneurship, disposable income and financial problems)

Source: Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal