Dep. var. | Turnout | Births | Immig. | Emig. |
|---|
| | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|
Provision | -2.02*** | -0.26 | 6.32*** | 1.22 |
| | (0.54) | (0.21) | (2.00) | (1.97) |
Regulation | 2.64*** | 0.49 | 3.04 | 7.60*** |
| | (0.41) | (0.30) | (2.33) | (2.17) |
Municipality FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Ballot FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Number of Mun. | 915 | 922 | 922 | 922 |
Number of Obs. | 3658 | 3688 | 3688 | 3688 |
- Notes: This table presents the DiD estimates, \(\hat {\gamma _{1}}\) and \(\hat {\gamma _{2}}\), of Equation (1), but with variables other than vote outcomes as the dependent variable. The regulation coefficient shows the differential change in these covariates of municipalities in cantons with regulation compared to municipalities in cantons without regulation regarding lunchtime and after-school care in public schools, controlling for the differences in provision within the treated cantons. The provision coefficient estimates the differential change in the covariates in municipalities which introduce lunchtime and after-school care as a consequence of the new regulation compared to those which do not. 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
