Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • Table contains regression equations OLS and quantile

    2018-11-13

    Table 6 contains regression equations 9–11. OLS and quantile regressions were run on the average values for the entire antioxidants of the study, and FE was ran using a panel from 2000 to 2009, where the Hausman test was used to define the panel method. The regressions were performed for the three forms of debt leverage. All estimates were statistically significant at 1%. The power of explanation of the models, the R2s, generally decreased, similar to literature. In the OLS case, the R2s varied between 20 and 25% for the three types of debt. In the FE regression (similar in concept to R2s) ranged between 15 and 25%. And in the QR it varied between 5 and 35%. We present the graphic results of the QR estimation (Figs. 2–4 in the Annex) in quantiles q=(0, 02;0, 04;…;1) for the independent variables, in addition to the OLS estimates and their respective confidence intervals (CI). These graps are a useful way of reading and interpreting the QR results, illustrating clearly the difference to the OLS results. QR is statistically different from OLS for all variables, in at least one quantile. This is reflected in the magnitude of the effects, which changes between quantiles, and reveals different interpretations for capital structure models. This result was also found for other countries by Fattouh et al. (2005) and Qiu and Smith (2007).
    Concluding remarks
    Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to financial support from CNPQ and CAPES (9207-11-2) foundation. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Banco Central do Brasil or its members. The authors would also like to thank David Haxton Jr for suggestions made to this paper.
    Introduction Adam Smith, as David Ricardo, did not understand culture as an economic industry, in other words, be able to generate income and profit. Alfred Marshall, in 1819, in his Principles of Economics affirmed that it was impossible to evaluate objects as painting from the great masters or rare coins; they are unique objects in their kind, so there are no equal or rival goods (Benhamou, 2007). The economics neglected for almost two centuries the so-called cultural economics. It started to be studied and spread in the 1960s with the seminal work of Baumol and Bowen (1966). Blaug (2001) makes a comprehensive literature review regarding the cultural economics field and concludes that the studies are more empirical than conceptual. The Journal of Cultural Economics can be seen as an incentive to research in this field, as the journal can spread chlorophyll a into the Economics, however, this discussion is still too limited to the Anglo-Saxon countries. The analysis of this industry is still very limited in Brazil. Until the 1960s the cultural industry was not considered to be able to generate flows of income and employment. Then, as the studies of culture as an economic phenomenon were formalized, it was able to see it as a strategic industry with 7% of World GDP in 2006 as estimated by the World Bank. Furthermore, according to Soares (2008) the cultural industry grows in higher rates than the economy as a whole. In Brazil, in 1998 the Ministry of Culture hired the Fundação João Pinheiro (FJP) to do the first survey of cultural economics in Brazil (FJP, 1998). From this report, we can see that workers in the cultural industry are 30% better paid than other workers; moreover, the industry grows in higher rates than the Brazilian economy. Bertini (2008) highlights that not only the cultural industry pays better, but also it has generated more employment in general than other industries, according to the Ministry\'s research. These results are corroborated by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) research called “Sistema de Informação e Indicadores Culturais 2003-2005” (IBGE, 2007). According to Gomes (2008), the cultural industry is growing and, besides, there has been an increase in productivity. This process tends to be maintained for the next few decades, hence, more productive individuals with more free time and higher income, will have more access to leisure and entertainment.