Marginal effects on probability of being informal using total agglomeration as an explanation variable
| Explanatory variable | Probit | IV-probit |
|---|---|---|
| ln (Agglomeration) | −0.1051 (0.023)*** | −0.6953 (0.107)*** |
| Size of the firm | (–) | (–) |
| Industrial sectors (47) | Yes | Yes |
| Distance from CBD | Yes | Yes |
| Distance from main corridors | Yes | Yes |
| Number of observations | 51,454 | 51,454 |
| F-statistic (weak instrument) | 18.81a |
| Explanatory variable | Probit | IV-probit |
|---|---|---|
| ln (Agglomeration) | −0.1051 (0.023)*** | −0.6953 (0.107)*** |
| Size of the firm | (–) | (–) |
| Industrial sectors (47) | Yes | Yes |
| Distance from CBD | Yes | Yes |
| Distance from main corridors | Yes | Yes |
| Number of observations | 51,454 | 51,454 |
| 18.81a |
Notes:
Marginal effects at the means of the independent variables. Clustered standard errors by neighbourhood in parenthesis; *** p < 0.01; aThe F-statistic for weak instruments is higher than 10, which implies that instrument has a strong effect on agglomeration (Stock and Yogo, 2005)
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.