# **Table 10 Impact of employee‟s satisfaction with the government on the likelihood to work without a contract, by country group. 2004-2009 (Mixed-effects logistic regression: Marginal effects)**

||||||||_%points_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Country group**<br>(% employees<br>without a contract)|**_East -1_**<br>(5.14)|**_East -2_**<br>(5.07)|**_North_**<br>(3.16)|**_West -1_**<br>(13.80)|**_West -2_**<br>(2.53)|**_South -1_**<br>(13.14)|**_South -2_**<br>(33.15)|
|**How satisfied with**<br>**thegovt.**(0-10 scale)|-0.20 ***|-0.14|-0.04|-0.36 **|-0.02|-0.19|0.06|
|(standard errors)|(0.07)<br>|(0.15)|(0.05)|(0.15)|(0.07)|(0.18)|(0.38)|
|**Other controls**||||As in Tabl|e 9|||
|LogL|-3085.52|-|-|-3051.91|-1154.61|-1749.02|-1471.27|
|# obs.[# countries]|17724[9]|4342[3]|11399[4]|9601[4]|10745[4]|6079[3]|2815[3]|
|# regions|118|27|24|64|34|19|37|
|Random effects s. d.|0.2494***|-|-|0.1100**|0.3468***|0.3840***|0.5263***|
|LR test vs.logistic reg.|P=0.0030|-|-|P = 0.0900|P = 0.0086|P = 0.0000|P = 0.0000|
||Exogeneity|tests<sup>a</sup>of_Sat_|_isfaction wit_<br>|_h the Govt_.(IV<br>|probit: robus<br>|t,region-clust|ered statistics)<br>|
|Instr. used(0-10scale)|||Mostpeop|le can be truste|d||Rightwing|
|Wald test_p-_value|0.9591|0.3572|0.5841|0.2110|0.9326|0.5589|0.7198|
|F-test,first stage|F = 110.8|F = 42.02|F =17.11|F = 138.96|F = 438.93|F = 65.97|F = 948.0|
|F-test of excluded<br>instrument|P(F>211.3)<br>= 0.0000|P(F> 88.4)=<br>0.0000|P(F>58.4)<br>= 0.0000|P(F> 272.3)=<br>0.0000|P(F>262.6)=<br>0.0000|P(F> 140.2)=<br>0.0000|<br>P(F> 6.25)=<br>0.0171|

_Notes:_ East-1: CZ, PL, SK, EE, LV, LT, BG, RU, UA; East-2: HU, RO, SI; North: DK, FI, NO, SE; West-1: UK, IE, NL, and AT; West-2: DE, FR, BE, and CH; South-1: ES, PT, and IL; South-2: IT, GR, CY. The models include region-level random effects. For East-2 and North, these effects are integrated over the sample, i.e. population-averaged models estimated by the GEE method are presented. ―Regions‖ are NUTS level 1 for DE, ES, FR and UK; NUTS level 2 for the Nordic countries, IE, CH, CZ, HU, PL, SK, RO, PT, GR, and IL; NUTS level 3 for the Baltic countries, NL, BG and SI; 10 regions for Russia, and 26 _oblast_ for Ukraine.<sup>a</sup> Exogeneity tests are performed on samples with non-missing instrument and satisfaction variables, which are by 2-3% smaller. In the main equations country average satisfaction is imputed when missing. Marginal effects are based on fixed parts of the models and conditional on working as employee (i.e. not corrected for selection into paid employment). *, **, * -** marginal e **f** fects significantly different from zero at 12%, 10%, 5%, 1% level, respectively. _Source:_ Calculation with ESS data.

**Table 11 Satisfaction with the government and working without a contract in Eastern and Western Europe, 2004-2009 (Mixed-effects logistic regression: Marginal effects)**

_<u>% points</u>_

|**Country group**|**_East_**|**_West_**|
|---|---|---|
|(% employees without a contract)|5.12|8.36|
||Marginal effect(stan|dard error),%points|
|**How satisfied with thegovt.**(0-10 scale)|-0.20***_(0.07)_|-0.24***_(0.08)_|
|**Other controls**|As in|Table 9|
|LogL|-3867.11|-4590.40|
|# obs.[# countries: # regions]|22094[12:145]|20976[8: 98]|
|Region level random effects: s. d.(s.e.)|0.224*** _(0.058)_|0.173***_(0.052)_|
|LR test vs.logistic regression(conservative)|P = 0.0058|P = 0.0011|
|Exogeneitytests of_Satisfaction w_|_ith the Govt_.(robust,region-c|lustered statistics)|
|Instrument(0-10 scale)|Mostpeople|can be trusted|
|F-test,first stage|113.0|122.36|
|F-test of excluded instrument|P(F>284.9)= 0.0000|P(F>527.6)= 0.0000|
|Underidentification test:<br>Kleibergen-Paaprk LM test|P(Chi-sq (1) > 59.77)<br>= 0.0000|P(Chi-sq (1) > 42.31)<br>= 0.0000|
|_IVprobit_: Wald test_p-_value|P(Chi-sq (1)> 0.03)= 0.8691|P(Chi-sq (1)> 1.04)= 0.3069|
|_Linearprobability model_|||
|Exogeneitytests of_Satisf with the Govt_|P(Chi-sq (1)> 0.122)= 0.727|P(Chi-sq (1)> 0.444)= 0.505|
|Instrument validity:<br>Anderson-Rubin Wald<br>test|P(F> 0.08)= 0.7795|P(F> 0.91)= 0.3416|
|Stock-Wright LM S statistic|P(Chi-sq> 0.08)= 0.7774|P(Chi-sq> 0.86)= 0.3541|

_Notes:_ See Table 10. _Source:_ Calculation with ESS data.

57