# <Table 6.3 around here>

The simple univariate regressions in Table 6.1 show that both individual characteristics and governance variables are statistically significant. We observe in particular an interesting pattern for the level of education and of income of the household. The coefficient of education goes from negative in Primary education to positive for University education (and no significantly different from zero for Secondary education). This seems to suggest that reported discouragement is an increasing function of education. Income, instead, seems to follow an inverse-U shape behavior: the coefficient is negative for low income, positive for middle income and zero for high income. Age has a non significant coefficient, but when we include both age and age squared we obtain a positive and negative significant coefficients respectively. This suggests that the effect of age on the probability of discouragement is non-linear. The dummy variable “Female” has a negative coefficient showing that females tend to be less discouraged.

The governance variables we constructed are all significant (except trust in government), indicating that the quality of governance and institutions affects access to service. The larger the number of institutions the households believes to be dishonest the greater the probability that the household will chose not to use a public service when needed. Similarly, lower trust in judicial system is associated to a greater probability that an individual would be discouraged. Information and knowledge about institutions and process also play a role: if the individual user knows where to report a corrupt act or she/he is member of an association, then the probability of be discouraged is higher.

Table 6.2 describes the simple univariate regressions when the dependent variable measures the probability that a household is discouraged in at least two institutions. Interestingly, we obtain very similar results in term of signs of the coefficients and significance levels as in the case of ‘DIS1’ described above. In addition, income and education appear even more significant than in the previous case. Age is no longer significant in the linear or in the quadratic specification. The governance variables are still significant and ‘trust on the government’ is now significant with positive sign. However, one of the variables measuring the knowledge to report a corrupt act is now not significant.

In order to understand these relationships taking into account all variables together, we turn to the multivariate analysis for both DIS1 and DIS2 described in Table 6.3. In general, the relationships we observed at the univariate stage are maintained in the multivariate analysis. Among the individual characteristics, education, age and gender are significant. Higher education increases the probability to be discouraged, in all specifications and with both dependent variables. Female has a negative coefficient, which is only significant in the regressions with DIS1 as dependent variable. The income variable, instead, while displaying still its inverted-U shape, is not significant anymore.

When we turn to the governance variables, the results confirm our hypothesis: bad governance increases the probability that an individual would be discouraged and would chose not to seek a public service when needed. In particular, the greater the level of dishonesty of public institutions perceived by citizens the greater the probability the individual will be discouraged. Moreover, to know where to report a corrupt act increases the probability to be discouraged. The lack of trust in the government and the judicial system display the correct sign but are not statistically significant. Finally, to be member of at least one association increases the probability that the respondent will be discouraged. The interpretation of this last result needs to be done with care. This may suggest that individuals 13