Can public works programs mitigate the impact of crises in Europe? The case of Latvia

IZA Journal of European Labor Studies

Table 10 Coping strategy adopted by Treatment and Control households

	Difference in adoption rate (Treatment-Control)	T-stat (Treatment = Control)
Reduced consumption of food staple	−7.31	2.70
Skipped meals	−8.12
Reduced lighting/heating/water consumption	−5.73	2.13
Reduced entertainment consumption	−2.04	0.78
Bought less clothes	−3.62	1.40
Withdrew preschool kid	−1.08	1.39
Withdrew from university	−0.21	0.24
Withdrew from training classes	−0.97	0.86
Reduced educational expenditures	−0.64	0.39
Reduced doctor’s appointments (preventive)	−6.68	2.61
Reduced doctor’s appointments (when ill)	−3.54	1.36
Stopped buying medicine	−5.14	1.99
Cancelled phone service	−3.21	2.26
Postponed investments in business	−1.13	1.05
Reduced help to friends	−3.36	1.95
Cut TV service	−4.23	3.25
Change transportation mode	−1.49	1.26
Cut internet service	0.28	0.21

Note: The difference is the difference in percentage of the households in Treatment and Control group reporting using the particular strategy as a response to crisis.