**<mark>Table 7. Regression of the probability of having a wage job with interactions between child care attendance and commune variables</mark>**

|<br>**child care attendance a**<br>Explanatoryvariables|<br>**nd commu**<br>Model 1|<br>**ne variable**<br>Model 2|<br>**s**<br>Model 3|<br>Model 4|<br>Model 5|<br>Model 6|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Child care attendance|2.047***|0.451**|0.423**|0.459**|-0.150|0.178|
||(0.693)|(0.204)|(0.206)|(0.202)|(0.397)|(0.432)|
|Child care attendance *<br>|0.491***<br>||||||
|private center|(0.129)||||||
|Child care attendance *||-0.005***|||||
|distance to nearest town||(0.002)|||||
|Child care attendance *|||-0.061||||
|village accessible by car|||(0.043)||||
|Child care attendance *||||-0.052|||
|kindergarten in village||||(0.035)|||
|Child care attendance * log of|||||0.106**||
|district mean wage|||||(0.048)||
|Child care attendance * log of||||||0.043|
|district per capita income||||||(0.036)|
|Age|‐0.034|-0.004|-0.005|-0.007|-0.010|-0.013|
||(0.054)|(0.015)|(0.015)|(0.015)|(0.016)|(0.016)|
|Age squared|0.356|0.024|0.038|0.071|0.104|0.141|
||(0.802)|(0.227)|(0.226)|(0.226)|(0.230)|(0.230)|
|Ethnic minority|‐0.393***|-0.084***|-0.108***|-0.113***|-0.124***|-0.031|
||(0.090)|(0.024)|(0.022)|(0.022)|(0.022)|(0.028)|
|Number of years of schooling|0.059***|0.014***|0.014***|0.015***|0.021***|0.018***|
||(0.013)|(0.004)|(0.004)|(0.004)|(0.004)|(0.004)|
|Dummy year 2010|_Reference_||||||
|Dummy year 2012|0.128|0.029|0.030|0.031|0.027|-0.012|
||(0.083)|(0.025)|(0.026)|(0.026)|(0.027)|(0.025)|
|Dummy year 2014|0.105|0.038|0.107**|0.044|0.006|-0.056**|
||(0.092)|(0.028)|(0.051)|(0.028)|(0.031)|(0.027)|
|Dummy year 2016|0.112|0.044|0.100*|0.041|0.002|-0.078***|
||(0.089)|(0.031)|(0.052)|(0.031)|(0.036)|(0.030)|
|Generalized residuals|0.059***|-0.183|-0.186|-0.206*|-0.399***|-0.342***|
||(0.428)|(0.118)|(0.118)|(0.118)|(0.113)|(0.112)|
|Distance to the nearest town||-0.001|||||
|(km)||(0.001)|||||
|Village accessible by car|||0.087**<br>(0.043)||||
|Kindergarten in village||||0.073***<br>|||
|||||(0.022)|||
|Log of district mean wage|||||0.019<br>(0.035)||
|Log of district per capita||||||0.177***|
|income||||||(0.027)|
|Observations|3,863|2,853|2,853|2,853|3,821|3,863|
|R-squared|0.105|0.071|0.065|0.067|0.101|0.123|

Note: This table reports the coefficients of child care attendance and interactions between child care attendance and other explanatory variables in probit regressions of the probability of women working in a wage-earning job. We first model child care attendance on the instrument and other explanatory variables using probit, and estimate the generalized residuals (Wooldridge, 2015). Then we estimate a probit model of maternal employment using the child care variable, the generalized residuals, interactions, and other explanatory variables. Standard errors are estimated using bootstrap with 200 replications. Standard errors are corrected for sampling weights and cluster correlation at the commune level. Village variables (kindergarten, distance to the nearest town, accessible by car) are available only for the rural sample. Thus, the number of observations in regressions using the interaction between child care attendance and these village variables is lower than other regressions. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. <mark>Source: Estimation from VHLSS 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.</mark> 39