Table 1 – Mean Economic Performance Across Regional Areas
Table 1 – Mean Economic Performance Across Regional Areas
| Real Annual Labour Income | Real Hourly Wage – Wage/Salary Workers | Real Hourly Wage – All Workers | Employment Rate | Weekly Hours Worked by the Employed | Benefit Receipt Rate | Real Annual Labour Income | Real Hourly Wage – Wage/Salary Workers | Real Hourly Wage – All Workers | Employment Rate | Weekly Hours Worked by the Employed | Benefit Receipt Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v. Auckland | Unadjusted 1997-2004 | Unadjusted Growth Between 1997 and 2004 | ||||||||||
| Wellington | 3,336** | 0.84 | 0.61 | 0.048** | -0.22 | -0.016 | -4,303 | -2.40 | -1.91 | -0.023 | -0.46 | 0.030 |
| (1096) | (0.43) | (0.51) | (0.009) | (0.24) | (0.011) | (3956) | (1.61) | (1.90) | (0.037) | (1.01) | (0.043) | |
| Christchurch | -3,954** | -2.53** | -2.74** | 0.029** | -1.47** | 0.012 | 1,772 | -1.46 | -0.77 | 0.049 | 1.10 | -0.009 |
| (833) | (0.38) | (0.46) | (0.008) | (0.28) | (0.010) | (2865) | (1.49) | (1.64) | (0.028) | (0.90) | (0.040) | |
| Other Urban | -5,638** | -3.22** | -3.41** | 0.004 | -1.56** | 0.050** | 658 | -1.54 | -1.49 | 0.044 | 0.38 | 0.011 |
| (663) | (0.30) | (0.34) | (0.007) | (0.19) | (0.008) | (2513) | (1.24) | (1.42) | (0.027) | (0.78) | (0.033) | |
| Rural | -5,920** | -3.74** | -2.95** | 0.020** | -0.42 | 0.024** | 785 | -2.13 | -0.39 | 0.027 | -0.30 | 0.025 |
| (687) | (0.30) | (0.35) | (0.007) | (0.23) | (0.008) | (2420) | (1.29) | (1.42) | (0.027) | (0.89) | (0.032) | |
| Observations | 123,731 | 74,395 | 84,875 | 123,942 | 93,590 | 123,942 | 123,731 | 74,395 | 84,875 | 123,942 | 93,590 | 123,942 |
| R-Squared | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| v. Auckland | Adjusted For All Covariates 1997-2004 | Adjusted Growth Between 1997 and 2004 | ||||||||||
| Wellington | -510 | -0.42 | -0.38 | 0.014* | -0.26 | 0.006 | -2,504 | -1.36 | -1.17 | -0.016 | -0.44 | 0.005 |
| (426) | (0.23) | (0.28) | (0.006) | (0.24) | (0.005) | (1394) | (0.73) | (1.03) | (0.022) | (0.88) | (0.018) | |
| Christchurch | -5,065** | -2.58** | -2.50** | -0.007 | -2.05** | 0.029** | -615 | -1.67* | -1.17 | 0.049* | 0.89 | 0.008 |
| (327) | (0.21) | (0.27) | (0.005) | (0.16) | (0.005) | (1325) | (0.77) | (0.99) | (0.020) | (0.78) | (0.021) | |
| Other Urban | -4,710** | -2.60** | -2.60** | -0.016** | -2.14** | 0.042** | -739 | -1.46* | -1.36 | 0.040* | 0.67 | 0.029 |
| (284) | (0.16) | (0.19) | (0.004) | (0.12) | (0.004) | (1015) | (0.66) | (0.85) | (0.017) | (0.75) | (0.016) | |
| Rural | -4,718** | -2.58** | -2.39** | -0.002 | -2.15** | 0.027** | 470 | -1.48* | 0.28 | 0.027 | 0.45 | 0.028 |
| (311) | (0.16) | (0.22) | (0.005) | (0.13) | (0.004) | (1165) | (0.72) | (0.85) | (0.018) | (0.91) | (0.016) | |
| Observations | 123,731 | 74,395 | 84,875 | 123,942 | 74,395 | 123,942 | 123,731 | 74,395 | 84,875 | 123,942 | 93,590 | 123,942 |
| R-Squared | 0.46 | 0.26 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.28 |
Notes: All amounts are in June 2004 Dollars. Standard errors which account for clustering at the PSU level are in parentheses. Coefficients with * are significant at the 5% level and those with ** at the 1% level.
4.1.2 Regression Analysis
Table 1 presents the ‘regional’ regression coefficients from the mean (OLS) regression for each of the six measures of economic performance. In the left panels, the coefficients indicate the average relative difference in the mean level of economic performance over the entire sample period in each comparison area relative to Auckland. In the right panels, the coefficients indicate the change in the relative difference in mean economic performance between 1997 and 2004 in each comparison area relative to Auckland. The top panels present the “unadjusted” regression coefficients. These are identical to the differences graphed in the previous figures averaged over entire sample period. These coefficients allow us to examine whether the observed graphical differences are statistically significant. The bottom panels present the “adjusted” regression coefficients controlling for all covariates discussed in the prior section. These coefficients allow us to examine whether controlling for differences in the attributes of individuals living in different areas ‘explains’ any of the differences between these areas.
The difference in labour income between Wellington and Auckland is entirely explained by differences in characteristics, but Auckland (and Wellington) has significantly higher labour income than all other areas even after controlling for all characteristics. Auckland (and Wellington) also have significantly higher wages than other areas even after controlling for all characteristics; the results are almost the same whether examining just wage/salary workers or all workers. Once accounting for differences in attributes, Auckland had similar growth in labour income as all comparison areas besides Wellington (where it grew much faster than) and significantly faster wage growth for wage/salary workers than all areas besides Wellington. Auckland has also experienced faster overall wage growth than all other areas, but this is less so than for wage and salary wages alone and is not significantly different.
Adjusting for characteristics, Auckland has slightly lower employment rates than Wellington, higher than Other Urban, and the same as Christchurch and Rural, but the unadjusted differences are mostly explained by differences in characteristics. Aucklanders (and Wellingtonians) work significantly more hours than workers in Rural, Christchurch, and Other Urban areas once controlling for differences in characteristics. Auckland and Wellington have significantly lower rates of benefits receipt than Other Urban and Rural. Once adjusting for attributes, these rates are also significantly lower than Christchurch’s. Auckland has significantly slower employment growth than Christchurch and Other Urban once controlling for differences in characteristics and insignificantly slower growth than Rural. Adjusted differences in growth in hours worked and benefit receipt rates are similar to the unadjusted results and none of the differences are statistically significant.
