Table 10 Tetrachoric correlations between minimum wage adjustment channels
From: How do firms adjust to rises in the minimum wage? Survey evidence from Central and Eastern Europe
Latvia | Estonia | ||||||||||||
(obs=474) | (obs=500) | ||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | F | A | B | C | D | E | F | ||
A | 1 | A | 1 | ||||||||||
B | 0.944 | 1 | B | 0.972 | 1 | ||||||||
C | 0.874 | 0.895 | 1 | C | 0.801 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
D | 0.894 | 0.885 | 0.941 | 1 | D | 0.833 | 0.919 | 0.945 | 1 | ||||
E | 0.831 | 0.858 | 0.876 | 0.894 | 1 | E | 0.215 | 0.417 | 0.61 | 0.556 | 1 | ||
F | 0.797 | 0.834 | 0.852 | 0.859 | 0.896 | 1 | F | 0.78 | 0.867 | 0.886 | 0.916 | 0.486 | 1 |
Lithuania | Hungary | ||||||||||||
(obs=489) | (obs=1955) | ||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | F | A | B | C | D | F | |||
A | 1 | A | 1 | ||||||||||
B | 0.795 | 1 | B | 0.762 | 1 | ||||||||
C | 0.49 | 0.71 | 1 | C | 0.518 | 0.719 | 1 | ||||||
D | 0.617 | 0.73 | 0.657 | 1 | D | 0.606 | 0.777 | 0.691 | 1 | ||||
E | 0.203 | 0.095 | 0.341 | 0.34 | 1 | F | 0.572 | 0.707 | 0.782 | 0.754 | 1 | ||
F | 0.68 | 0.7 | 0.626 | 0.794 | 0.448 | 1 | |||||||
Romania | Bulgaria | ||||||||||||
(obs=2030) | (obs=528) | ||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | A | C | D | E | F | ||||
A | 1 | A | 1 | ||||||||||
B | 0.91 | 1 | C | 0.013 | 1 | ||||||||
C | 0.802 | 0.81 | 1 | D | 0.291 | -0.49 | 1 | ||||||
D | 0.795 | 0.85 | 0.912 | 1 | E | -0.2 | 0.638 | -0.56 | 1 | ||||
E | 0.107 | 0.165 | 0.252 | 0.326 | 1 | F | -0.27 | 0.669 | -0.37 | 0.722 | 1 | ||
Slovenia | Poland | ||||||||||||
(obs=493) | (obs=879) | ||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | F | |||
A | 1 | A | 1 | ||||||||||
B | 0.947 | 1 | B | 0.917 | 1 | ||||||||
C | 0.869 | 0.892 | 1 | C | 0.613 | 0.729 | 1 | ||||||
D | 0.869 | 0.871 | 0.946 | 1 | D | 0.797 | 0.845 | 0.874 | 1 | ||||
E | 0.795 | 0.833 | 0.857 | 0.873 | 1 | E | 0.551 | 0.624 | 0.645 | 0.765 | 1 | ||
F | 0.765 | 0.837 | 0.819 | 0.926 | 0.744 | 1 | |||||||