Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of lunchtime and after-school care on vote outcomes on healthcare-related topics

From: How the provision of childcare affects attitudes towards maternal employment

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Provision

− 0.43

0.49

0.12

0.26

0.06

 

(0.413)

(0.396)

(0.404)

(0.401)

(0.408)

Regulation

− 1.53***

− 1.32*

− 0.26

  
 

(0.372)

(0.759)

(0.732)

  

Municipality FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ballot FE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inc. tax

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Covariates

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Canton x ballot FE

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Number of mun.

915

915

915

915

915

Number of obs.

5486

5486

5486

5486

5486

  1. This table presents the DiD estimate, \(\hat {\gamma _{1}}\) and \(\hat {\gamma _{2}}\), of Eq. 1 at the municipal level. Instead of using family policy related ballots, totally independent ballots taking place on the same day are used for the post treatment period. The regulation coefficient shows the differential change in vote outcomes of municipalities in cantons with regulation compared to municipalities in cantons without regulation regarding lunchtime and after-school care in public schools. The provision coefficient estimates the differential change in vote outcomes in municipalities which introduce lunchtime and after-school care as a consequence of the new regulation compared to those that do not. For the three baseline specifications, only municipalities with no childcare in 2004 are included. For the subsample specifications only municipalities where a majority of voters voted against maternity leave and that did not have lunchtime or after-school care prior to the introduction of the new regulation are included, i.e., municipalities which did not display positive attitudes towards an expansion of public investment encouraging maternal employment before the new regulation regarding lunchtime and after-school care was introduced. The numbers in parentheses show the standard errors, clustered at the municipal level. In all specifications, population weights are applied to account for the fact, that municipalities differ in their size. *p <0.10, **p <0.05, ***p <0.01