Regarding the result table of Dasgupta, 2019, table 3, p.2601, where they examine the impact of anticollusion on asset growth

enter image description here

However, they describe that

The dependent variable is the annual asset growth. In Column 1, we only consider the effect of a leniency law without any additional controls, and, in Column 2, we add firm-specific variables and several other variables to capture macroeconomic conditions and import competition. We see that leniency law passage is associated with higher asset growth. We choose the latter specification to be our baseline, and we find that the asset growth increases by as much as 7% in our specification, which corresponds to one-third of the unconditional mean in the sample.

I have two main questions here:

(1) I do not understand they say the asset growth increases by as much as 7% in our specification

(2) Why they choose the specification (2) as the baseline specification while it does not account for industry fixed effect or any industry covariate?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "as much as" means look at the max ... how many firms change industry? So if you already have firm fixed effects what is purpose of industry fixed effect? $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2021 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ thank you, @JesperHybel, a very clear suggestion, a small curiosity: In column (3). the author used the same independent variable set with column (2), but adding some more industry-level variables, can I ask what is it for? $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2021 at 10:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry don't know. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2021 at 12:09


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.