Did tuition fees in Germany constrain students’ budgets? New evidence from a natural experiment

IZA Journal of European Labor Studies

Table 7 Difference-in-differences estimates (log. of total expenditure, 2003 and 2009 and 2003 and 2006)

		2003 and 2009			2003 and 2006
		(1)	(2)	(3)	(1)	(2)	(3)
Pooled	Coeff.	−0.041***	−0.041***	−0.031**	−0.004	−0.005	0.002
	S.E.	(0.013)	(0.013)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.012)	(0.012)
	No. of obs.	29,847	29,847	29,847	31,818	31,818	31,818
Men	Coeff.	−0.003	−0.003	0.002	0.014	0.013	0.018
	S.E.	(0.020)	(0.020)	(0.019)	(0.019)	(0.019)	(0.018)
	No. of obs.	13,014	13,014	13,014	13,725	13,725	13,725
Women	Coeff.	−0.068***	−0.068***	−0.054***	−0.017	−0.018	−0.010
	S.E.	(0.017)	(0.017)	(0.017)	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.016)
	No. of obs.	16,833	16,833	16,833	18,093	18,093	18,093
Treatment group		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Year 2009		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Men			✓	✓		✓	✓
Citizenship			✓	✓		✓	✓
Studying time (in semesters)				✓			✓
Studying time (in semesters) squared				✓			✓

Note: difference-in-differences estimates are displayed obtained from ordinary least squares estimations. The dependent variable is the logarithm of expenditure. Specification 1 includes only the difference-in-differences estimate, a dummy variable for the treatment group, and a dummy variable for 2009 (after the reform) or 2006 (placebo for after the reform). Specification 2 controls for socio-demographic background variables (gender, citizenship), studying time (in semesters), and studying time squared. * denotes statistical significance at the 10% level, ** at the 5% level and *** at the 1% level. See text for further details. Source: 17th, 18th, and 19th Social Survey of the DZHW, own calculations