The Impact of Direct Democracy on Society - Universität St.Gallen

– 102 –Table 3b: Personal Subjective Well-Being in Switzerland, 2001SHP Data, Cross Section, 5004 ObservationsBasic Model (1)<strong>Direct</strong> democracy 0.055***(3.37)Subsistence IncomeRelative IncomeIncome above poverty linesquared0.029(0.29)0.036**(3.06)-0.000*(2.07)Model includingcantonalculture (2)-0.002(0.09)-0.007(0.08)0.035**(2.94)-0.000(*)(1.92)Model includinghouseholdculture (3)-0.005(0.21)0.007(0.09)0.035**(2.87)-0.000(*)(1.86)French-speaking canton -0.195***(5.16)Italian-speaking canton -0.165**(3.08)French-speaking family -0.226***(5.10)Italian-speaking family -0.207*(2.15)Model includingcantonal andhouseholdculture (4)-0.007(0.34)0.007(0.08)0.035**(2.87)-0.000(*)(1.86)-0.053(0.91)0.018(0.12)-0.181***(3.24)-0.224(1.33)Log <strong>of</strong> likelihood -7'973.7579 -7'965.9563 -7'960.9757 -7'960.7507Subsistence Income =Relative IncomeJoint significance <strong>of</strong>cantonal languagevariablesJoint significance <strong>of</strong>family language variablesJoint significance <strong>of</strong>democracy and cantonallanguage variablesJoint significance <strong>of</strong>democracy and familylanguage variablesJoint significance <strong>of</strong>democracy and alllanguage variablesWald Tests0.01 0.27 0.12 0.1127.33*** 0.8934.01*** 10.68**43.24*** 1.0939.97*** 12.43**46.11***<strong>The</strong> number in parentheses are the absolute values <strong>of</strong> the z-statistics <strong>of</strong> the estimated parameters. ‘***’, ‘**’, ‘*’or ‘(*)’ show that the corresponding null hypothesis can be rejected at the 0.1, 1, 5, or 10 % level, respectively.<strong>The</strong> Wald tests are χ 2 with 1, 2, 3, or 5 degrees <strong>of</strong> freedom, respectively. Estimation with transversal individualweights keeping sample size and robust standard errors by clustering <strong>of</strong> cantons.