From: Can public works programs mitigate the impact of crises in Europe? The case of Latvia
Treatment group | Control group | Matched Difference (ATT) | Standard error | T-stat | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labor income | 68.0 | 94.6 | −26.6 | 7.5 | −3.6 |
Income from WWS | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | - | - |
Income from informal sources | 3.5 | 4.6 | −1.1 | 0.9 | −1.2 |
Income from other sources | 7.5 | 8.3 | −0.8 | 2.3 | −0.4 |
Pension | 41.5 | 35.4 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 1.3 |
Social transfers | |||||
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) | 4.2 | 9.8 | −5.6 | 1.5 | −3.8 |
Housing Allowance | 1.2 | 2.4 | −1.2 | 0.7 | −1.7 |
Heating Allowance | 3.9 | 4.1 | −0.2 | 1.1 | −0.2 |
School Meals | 1.8 | 3.0 | −1.3 | 0.7 | −1.7 |
Other municipal assistance | 1.6 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 |
Children’s Allowance | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Parental/maternal Benefit | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | −0.1 |
State Family Benefit | 5.4 | 5.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Other family state benefit | 1.2 | 2.3 | −1.1 | 0.7 | −1.5 |
Unemployment Benefit | 0.4 | 4.0 | −3.6 | 0.8 | −4.5 |
Sickness Benefit | 0.5 | 1.0 | −0.5 | 0.5 | −0.9 |
Disability Benefit | 3.6 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 |
Other state benefit | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.3 |