Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Regression results of the influence of informationization on entrepreneurial performance

From: Study on the promotion effect of informationization on entrepreneurship: an empirical evidence from China

Explanatory variable (1) Entrepreneurial choice (2) Income effect (3) Income effect (4) Entrepreneurial choice (5) Employment effect (6) Employment effect
Informationization 0.9483*** (0.3144) 3.8555** (1.8589) 4.0260** (1.9471) 1.0327*** (0.3631) 0.9521* (0.5780) 1.4647*** (0.5029)
Political network − 0.5193*** (0.1757) 0.2476 (0.9029) 0.1387 (0.9277) − 0.4773*** (0.1397) 0.7683 (0.4688) 0.5013 (0.3523)
Social network 0.0377*** (0.0100) 0.1707*** (0.0661) 0.1783*** (0.0489) 0.0366*** (0.0107) 0.1070*** (0.0239) 0.1282*** (0.0188)
Number of members 0.0589*** (0.0110) 0.0649 (0.0934) 0.0779 (0.0643) 0.0591*** (0.0120) − 0.0738*** (0.0280) − 0.0367* (0.0203)
Risk aversion − 0.1054*** (0.0167) 0.0447 (0.1318) 0.0237 (0.0852) − 0.1031*** (0.0167) − 0.0332 (0.0331) − 0.0910*** (0.0267)
House ownership − 0.0440 (0.0600) 0.5175 (0.4571) 0.5034 (0.3895) − 0.0124 (0.0660) 0.3045*** (0.0979) 0.2751*** (0.0783)
Average age 2.1919** (0.8576)    2.6539*** (1.0216)   
Average age squared − 0.3769*** (0.1191)    − 0.4421*** (0.1419)   
Unemployment rate 16.0362*** (3.5687) − 11.1587 (21.6587) − 8.4651 (17.8867) 10.1414*** (3.8959) − 27.9465*** (7.9599) − 23.0478*** (8.1081)
Population density − 0.0175 (0.0290) 0.0743 (0.2205) 0.0727 (0.2260) − 0.0168 (0.0297) 0.1052* (0.0592) 0.0996* (0.0558)
Educational level − 0.3774*** (0.1352) 1.0807 (0.7505) 1.0247 (0.7733) − 0.2453 (0.1545) 0.4281 (0.2720) 0.3295 (0.2735)
Economic development level 0.1254 (0.2172) − 2.7548** (1.1235) − 2.7474* (1.4428) − 0.0003 (0.2714) − 1.1043*** (0.3858) − 1.1373*** (0.3839)
Minimum wage standard − 0.5425*** (0.2025) 2.6156** (1.0547) 2.5369** (1.2097) − 0.4750** (0.2263) 0.8021* (0.4212) 0.6033 (0.3719)
Proportion of fiscal revenue − 3.5249*** (1.2360) − 9.3368 (7.2345) − 10.0404 (7.6272) − 4.0176*** (1.9842) − 1.2939 (2.4633) − 3.4162* (1.9060)
Inverse Mills ratio   − 0.2031 (0.9772)    − 0.5720** (0.2603)  
Goodness of fit    0.0442    0.1588
Sample size 7938 7938 977 8037 8037 1076
Size of samples not deleted   977    1076  
  1. “*,” “**,” and “***” represented significance levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively; the numbers in brackets were robust standard errors of estimated coefficients