Skip to main content

Table 2 CLM marginal effects in regressions of individual probability of being in couple

From: Common law marriage and couple formation

  Basic model State characteristics added State-specific time trends added, 3 years after each repeal removed
  Women Men Women Men Women Men
A. Full sample
CLM -0.011 -0.028 -0.012 -0.025 -0.038 -0.065
  [0.011] [0.012]** [0.012] [0.013]* [0.018]** [0.017]***
Observations 321917 292376 321917 292376 202309 183543
B. Only three transition states: Idaho (1996), Georgia (1997), Pennsylvania (2005)
CLM -0.03 -0.035 0.016 -0.002 -0.035 -0.061
  [0.012]** [0.014]** [0.013] [0.017] [0.018]* [0.023]***
Observations 22176 19786 22176 19786 13708 12275
Other controls in the model
Individual characteristics Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
State characteristics    Yes yes yes Yes
Year dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes   
State dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
State-specific time trends      Yes Yes
  1. Notes: This table shows estimates of the probit marginal effects from equation (1) estimated at the mean. Each entry comes from a separate regression. All regressions include individual demographic characteristics and state fixed effects. Basic model and model with state characteristics include year fixed effects. The last model does not include year fixed effects; instead it includes state-specific time trends, and it excludes 3 years after the repeal of the law in each transition state (1996-99, 2005-07 are excluded).
  2. Here and in all tables: *significant at 10%; **significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%. Robust standard errors are clustered by state and year, shown in brackets; individuals’ survey weights are used.