| Literature DB >> 34724932 |
Mohammad Mafizur Rahman1, Khosrul Alam2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of the status of female health should have research priority due to the unique medical needs of women. Hence this paper attempts to explore the nexus of access to electricity, female education, and public health expenditure with female health outcomes in the SAARC-ASEAN countries.Entities:
Keywords: Access to electricity; Female adult mortality; Female education; Female life expectancy; Public health expenditure
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34724932 PMCID: PMC8559404 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01520-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Descriptive statistics
| LNFLE | LNFAM | LNAEL | LNFEDS | LNPUH | LNGDP | LNIMM | LNURB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 4.267461 | 4.881569 | 4.309613 | 4.168679 | 3.008149 | 24.80490 | 4.455024 | 3.491938 |
| Median | 4.258905 | 4.962336 | 4.364889 | 4.250048 | 2.729451 | 25.07671 | 4.499810 | 3.505795 |
| Maximum | 4.390788 | 5.630968 | 4.605170 | 4.817100 | 6.691405 | 28.62914 | 4.595120 | 4.351941 |
| Minimum | 4.142976 | 4.026512 | 3.563369 | 3.201299 | − 0.614827 | 20.07097 | 4.025352 | 2.656055 |
| Std. Dev | 0.067726 | 0.377061 | 0.266735 | 0.400890 | 1.726997 | 1.948057 | 0.148979 | 0.418792 |
| Skewness | 0.109554 | − 0.471402 | − 0.822261 | − 0.611920 | 0.410460 | − 0.341245 | − 1.301273 | 0.130810 |
| Kurtosis | 1.805678 | 2.458394 | 2.802249 | 2.383728 | 2.608485 | 2.665012 | 3.954477 | 2.754632 |
| Jarque–Bera | 10.44376 | 8.374040 | 19.43354 | 13.29951 | 5.859286 | 4.094235 | 54.43028 | 0.911275 |
| Probability | 0.005397 | 0.015191 | 0.000060 | 0.001294 | 0.053416 | 0.129107 | 0.000000 | 0.634044 |
| Sum | 725.4684 | 829.8666 | 732.6342 | 708.6754 | 511.3853 | 4216.834 | 757.3542 | 593.6295 |
| Sum Sq. Dev | 0.775178 | 24.02752 | 12.02395 | 27.16040 | 504.0455 | 641.3423 | 3.750913 | 29.64029 |
| Observations | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 | 170 |
All the variables are converted into the natural logarithm form
Cross-sectional dependence test results
| Variables | Breusch–Pagan LM | Pesaran scaled LM | Bias-corrected scaled LM | Pesaran CD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNFLE | 748.844*** (0.000) | 74.192*** (0.000) | 73.879*** (0.000) | 27.362*** (0.000) |
| LNFAM | 592.784*** (0.000) | 57.741*** (0.000) | 57.429*** (0.000) | 22.898*** (0.000) |
| LNAEL | 433.194*** (0.000) | 40.919*** (0.000) | 40.607*** (0.000) | 18.470*** (0.000) |
| LNFED | 510.302*** (0.000) | 49.047*** (0.000) | 48.735*** (0.000) | 21.893*** (0.000) |
| LNPUH | 630.025*** (0.000) | 61.667*** (0.000) | 61.355*** (0.000) | 24.956*** (0.000) |
| LNGDP | 680.909*** (0.000) | 67.031*** (0.000) | 66.718*** (0.000) | 25.981*** (0.000) |
| LNIMM | 209.667*** (0.000) | 17.357*** (0.000) | 17.045*** (0.000) | 5.621*** (0.000) |
| LNURB | 530.505*** (0.000) | 51.177*** (0.000) | 50.864*** (0.000) | 20.728*** (0.000) |
***Denotes significance at 1% level. Figures in the parentheses are probabilities
The results of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation Test
| Model | LNFLE | LNFAM | Existence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Test statistic | Test statistic | |||
| Modified Wald test for group wise heteroskedasticity | χ2 = 72.22 | 0.000 | χ2 = 2128.93 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data | F-statistic = 351.239 | 0.000 | F-statistic = 14.621 | 0.004 | Yes |
Panel corrected standard error (PCSE) model results
| Variables | PCSE regression (LNFLE case) | PCSE regression (LNFAM case) |
|---|---|---|
| LNAEL | 0.017*** (3.65) | − 0.097** (− 2.04) |
| LNFED | 0.041*** (6.96) | − 0.211*** (− 4.01) |
| LNPUH | 0.007*** (4.92) | − 0.054*** (− 3.63) |
| LNGDP | 0.009*** (5.04) | − 0.039** (− 2.42) |
| LNIMM | 0.028*** (4.85) | − 0.117** (− 2.01) |
| LNURB | 0.041*** (3.02) | 0.108 (0.98) |
| _Constant | 3.519*** (65.84) | 7.478*** (17.75) |
| R-squared | 0.9996 | 0.9843 |
| Wald chi2 | 446.94 | 105.66 |
| Probability | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| N | 170 | 170 |
*** and ** denote significance at 1% and 5% levels respectively. Figures in the parentheses are z-statistics
Feasible generalized least square (FGLS) model results
| Variables | FGLS regression (LNFLE case) | FGLS regression (LNFAM case) |
|---|---|---|
| LNAEL | 0.010*** (2.82) | − 0.089** (− 2.41) |
| LNFED | 0.024*** (5.14) | − 0.138*** (− 3.79) |
| LNPUH | 0.004*** (3.31) | − 0.023** (− 2.34) |
| LNGDP | 0.010*** (6.68) | − 0.060*** (− 5.04) |
| LNIMM | 0.014*** (3.07) | − 0.090** (− 2.15) |
| LNURB | 0.126*** (9.06) | 0.093 (1.27) |
| _Constant | 3.334*** (70.12) | 7.570*** (22.96) |
| Wald chi2 | 634.86 | 124.60 |
| Probability | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| N | 170 | 170 |
*** and ** denote significance at 1% and 5% levels respectively. Figures in the parentheses are z-statistics
Causality test results
| Null Hypothesis: | F-Stat | Prob | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| LNFLE case | |||
| LNAEL does not cause LNFLE | 0.010 | 0.991 | LNFLE → LNAEL (one-way causality) |
| LNFLE does not cause LNAEL | 7.788*** | 0.001 | |
| LNFED does not cause LNFLE | 0.162 | 0.850 | LNFLE → LNFED (one-way causality) |
| LNFLE does not cause LNFED | 4.654** | 0.011 | |
| LNPUH does not cause LNFLE | 0.775 | 0.463 | No causality |
| LNFLE does not cause LNPUH | 0.199 | 0.819 | |
| LNGDP does not cause LNFLE | 2.512* | 0.085 | LNGDP → LNFLE (one-way causality) |
| LNFLE does not cause LNGDP | 1.529 | 0.220 | |
| LNIMM does not cause LNFLE | 0.610 | 0.545 | LNFLE → LNIMM (one-way causality) |
| LNFLE does not cause LNIMM | 2.948* | 0.056 | |
| LNURB does not cause LNFLE | 22.828*** | 0.000 | LNURB → LNFLE (one-way causality) |
| LNFLE does not cause LNURB | 1.769 | 0.174 | |
| LNFAM case | |||
| LNAEL does not cause LNFAM | 0.189 | 0.828 | LNFAM → LNAEL (one-way causality) |
| LNFAM does not cause LNAEL | 5.038*** | 0.008 | |
| LNFED does not cause LNFAM | 0.162 | 0.851 | LNFAM → LNFED (one-way causality) |
| LNFAM does not cause LNFED | 2.356* | 0.098 | |
| LNPUH does not cause LNFAM | 0.258 | 0.773 | No causality |
| LNFAM does not cause LNPUH | 0.683 | 0.507 | |
| LNGDP does not cause LNFAM | 0.275 | 0.759 | No causality |
| LNFAM does not cause LNGDP | 1.601 | 0.205 | |
| LNIMM does not cause LNFAM | 0.162 | 0.851 | LNFAM → LNIMM (one-way causality) |
| LNFAM does not cause LNIMM | 3.826** | 0.024 | |
| LNURB does not cause LNFAM | 1.925 | 0.150 | No causality |
| LNFAM does not cause LNURB | 0.330 | 0.719 | |
***, ** and * denote significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively