Table 6

Regency-Level Effects of Oil Palm Expansion in Land-Scare and Land-Abundant Settings (2000–2005–2010–2015)

Share Working (1)Share in Nonagricultural Sector (2)Share in Agricultural Family Labor (3)Share in Agricultural Wage Labor (4)Share in Nonagricultural Self-Employment (5)Share in Nonagricultural Wage Labor (6)
Men
 Share of smallholder oil palm area in regency (0–1)−0.2960.589−1.027***0.6740.592**0.018
(0.305)(0.379)(0.291)(0.428)(0.232)(0.261)
 Share of smallholder oil palm area in regency (0–1) × Share of forest cover in 2000 (0–1)0.218−1.713*1.841***−0.005−1.777***−0.020
(0.680)(0.988)(0.706)(1.027)(0.631)(0.673)
R-squared0.1440.4020.1590.2510.1650.567
 Observations827827827827827827
Women
 Share of smallholder oil palm area in regency (0–1)−1.777***0.108−1.516**−0.4520.276−0.061
(0.675)(0.262)(0.683)(0.567)(0.229)(0.182)
 Share of smallholder oil palm area in regency (0–1) × Share of forest cover in 2000 (0–1)3.067*0.6782.649*1.292−0.2640.512
(1.606)(0.599)(1.524)(1.307)(0.495)(0.437)
R-squared0.2410.4090.2200.1190.1850.564
 Observations827827827827827827

Note: The data sources are SAKERNAS, Margono et al. (2014), and Tree Crops Statistics. The dependent variables are shares ranging between 0 and 1. The OLS estimates are reported with spatial HAC standard errors using a 100 km cutoff. We control for national oil palm expansion, regency fixed effects, year dummies, region trends and initial levels of population density, hospital density, and electrification × the time trend. The initial levels are based on data from 2000.

  • * p < 0.10;

  • ** p < 0.05;

  • *** p < 0.01.