Table 3: DiD with Industry*Year Dummies

||(1)<br>Log<br>total workers|(2)<br>Log<br>regular workers|(3)<br>Log<br>contract workers|(4)<br>Share of<br>contract workers|(5)<br>Likelihood of<br>usinganycontract work|(6)<br>Implicit cost<br>of Labor|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|RJ * Treatment L * Post|0.001|-0.202**|0.726***|0.093***|0.126**|-0.127*|
||(0.065)|(0.100)|(0.239)|(0.027)|(0.049)|(0.076)|
|Observations|66,909|66,909|66,909|66,909|66,909|66,909|
|R-squared|0.037|0.033|0.019|0.017|0.013|0.094|
|Number of fact<br>~~n~~um|10,470|10,470|10,470|10,470|10,470|10,470|
|Firm FEs|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Year Dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Industry- Year Dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|

Note: Sample restricted to firms with more than 100 workers. Treatment refers to firms with 100-300 workers. All dependant outcome variables represented in log forms here have been assigned an underlying value of 1 when they take a value of zero. Share of contract workers is defined as the share of contract worker in total worker hours used by the firm for that year. Implicit cost is defined using the expenditure on all raw materials as a base. Standard errors in parentheses, clustered at the firm level. *** p _<_ 0.01, ** p _<_ 0.05, * p _<_ 0.1.) Table 4: DiD using 2013-2015 average employment to define treatment group

||(1)<br>Log<br>total workers|(2)<br>Log<br>regular workers|(3)<br>Log<br>contract workers|(4)<br>Share of<br>contract workers|(5)<br>Likelihood of<br>usinganycontract work|(6)<br>Implicit cost<br>of Labor|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|RJ * Treatment Post2013 * Post|0.014<br>(0.065)|-0.166<br>(0.104)|0.649***<br>(0.237)|0.084***<br>(0.027)|0.122**<br>(0.049)|-0.152**<br>(0.071)|
|Observations|66,099|66,099|66,099|66,099|66,099|66,099|
|R-squared|0.018|0.017|0.009|0.010|0.006|0.076|
|Number of fact<br>~~n~~um|9,236|9,236|9,236|9,236|9,236|9,236|
|Firm FEs|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Year Dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|

Note: Sample restricted to firms with more than 100 workers. Treatment refers to firms with 100-300 workers. All dependant outcome variables represented in log forms here have been assigned an underlying value of 1 when they take a value of zero. Share of contract workers is defined as the share of contract worker in total worker hours used by the firm for that year. Implicit cost is defined using the expenditure on all raw materials as a base. Standard errors in parentheses, clustered at the firm level. *** p _<_ 0.01, ** p _<_ 0.05, * p _<_ 0.1.

Table 5: DiD with alternate counterfactual: Nei hbor States <u>g</u>

||(1)<br>Log<br>total workers|(2)<br>Log<br>regular workers|(3)<br>Log<br>contract workers|(4)<br>Share of<br>contract workers|(5)<br>Likelihood of<br>usinganycontract work|(6)<br>Implicit cost<br>of Labor|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|RJ * Treatment L * Post|0.025|-0.156|0.727***|0.094***|0.127**|-0.136*|
||(0.067)|(0.103)|(0.248)|(0.029)|(0.051)|(0.077)|
|Observations|23,174|23,174|23,174|23,174|23,174|23,174|
|R-squared|0.023|0.022|0.009|0.010|0.005|0.109|
|Number of fact<br>~~n~~um|3,329|3,329|3,329|3,329|3,329|3,329|
|Firm FEs|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Year Dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|

Note: Sample restricted to firms with more than 100 workers. Treatment refers to firms with 100-300 workers. The states that neighbour Rajasthan include Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. All dependant outcome variables represented in log forms here have been assigned an underlying value of 1 when they take a value of zero. Share of contract workers is defined as the share of contract worker in total worker hours used by the firm for that year. Implicit cost is defined using the expenditure on all raw materials as a base. Standard errors in parentheses, clustered at the firm level. *** p _<_ 0.01, ** p _<_ 0.05, * p _<_ 0.1.

24