Study Luechinger et al. (2013): study US 1994
- Public
- Working people, USA 1992-94
- Survey name
- US-NSFH II
- Sample
- Respondents
- N = 7444
- Non Response
- Assessment
-
Interview: face-to-face
Telephone interviews are also used in NSFH II
Correlate
- Authors's Label
- Employed in public administration
- Our Classification
-
-
- Related specification variables
-
-
- Operationalization
- working in
1 public administration
0 private sector
Observed Relation with Happiness
I individual characteristics:
- sex
- age
- race
- marital status
- religion
- education ((log)
II State characteristics (Including interactions with Public Administration):
- real per capita income
- log(population)
- ADA (political prefernces)
- unemployment rate
III Fiscal transparancy:
index of
a: budget reported to GAAP standards
b: multi-year expenditure forecasts
c; frequency of the budget cycle
d: binding revenue forecasts
e: ligislative branch shares responsibility for revenue forecasts
f: appropriation bills written by non-partisan staff
g: passing ope-ended appropriations forbidden
h: punlishing or performance measures required
The negative effect of public administration on happiness becomes more pronounced (
and significant) when taking into account Fiscal Transparancy as seen in the effect of the interaction.
The mentioned effects remain true when additional time-invariant state-specific control variable are added to the model.
I individual characteristics
II State characteristics (Including interactions with Public Administration)
III State auditing institutions:
- elected auditor
- performance audits
The negative effect of public administration on happiness becomes more pronounced (
and significant) when taking State Auditing Institutions into account as seen in the effect of the interaction.
The mentioned effects remain true when additional time-invariant state-specific control variable are added to the model.
I individual characteristics:
II State characteristics (Including interactions with public)
III Balanced-budget provisions:
- carry over rules ( restrictions to carryover deficits to the next budgetary period)
The negative effect of public administration on happiness becomes more pronounced (
and significant) when taking Balanced-budget provisions into account as seen in the effect of the interaction.
The mentioned effects remain true when additional time-invariant state-specific control variable are added to the model.
I individual characteristics:
II State characteristics (Including interactions with public)
III Regulatory review:
- influence of potential formal power actors
The negative effect of public administration on happiness becomes more pronounced (
and significant) when taking Regulatory Review into account as seen in the effect of the interaction.
The mentioned effects remain true when additional time-invariant state-specific control variable are added to the model.
I individual characteristics
II State characteristics (Including interactions with Public Administartion)
III Fiscal transparancy
IV Balanced-budget provisions
IV State auditing institutions
V Regulatory review
The negative effect of public administration on happiness becomes more pronounced when taking all interactions into account.
The mentioned effects remain true when additional time-invariant state-specific control variable are added to the model.