<p>Regarding the result table of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/7/2587/5079300" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dasgupta, 2019, table 3, p.2601</a>, where they examine the impact of anticollusion on asset growth</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/16I4W.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/16I4W.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>However, they describe that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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 <strong>latter specification to be our
baseline</strong>, and we find that the asset growth <strong>increases by as much as 7%
in our specification</strong>, which corresponds to one-third of the
unconditional mean in the sample.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have two main questions here:</p>
<p>(1) I do not understand they say the asset growth <strong>increases by as much as 7% in our specification</strong></p>
<p>(2) Why they choose the specification (2) as the baseline specification while it does not account for industry fixed effect or any industry covariate?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T10:18:34.990Z
"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?
Jesper Hybel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T10:46:00.463Z
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?
Phil Nguyen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T12:09:07.810Z
Sorry don't know.
Jesper Hybel
<applied-econometrics>
An ambiguous description in Dasgupta, 2019 regarding the coefficients and choosing baseline specification
Phil Nguyen
# An ambiguous description in Dasgupta, 2019 regarding the coefficients and choosing baseline specification

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-22)

Regarding the result table of [Dasgupta, 2019, table 3, p.2601](https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/7/2587/5079300), where they examine the impact of anticollusion on asset growth

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/16I4W.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/16I4W.png)

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?

**Tags:** applied-econometrics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "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?  
> **username_0**: 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?  
> **username_1**: Sorry don't know.  

---

## 0 answers

