14 Each of these six control variables is likely to account for some of the differences among individuals in perceptions of economic insecurity.However,it must be acknowledged that other unmeasured or unobservable differences among individuals may also matter.For example, individuals almost surely vary in their degree of risk aversion.In addition,individuals probably vary in their interpretation of the BHPS question.One individual may think about job security in compensated terms conditional on wages and any perceived compensating wage differential. But another observationally similar individual may think without conditioning in this way. Unmeasured or unobservable individual heterogeneity is,of course,a problem that faces all survey research.But it seems particularly acute here because our key variable to be explained measures perceptions of risk.So to address this heterogeneity,we use the fact that the BHPS records repeated observations for the same individual over many years.We exploit this panel structure by including an individual-specific effect for each respondent.These individual- specific effects capture any time-constant factors across people that drive variation in perceptions of employment risks. For each year of our panel,Table 1 reports summary statistics of our key variables.The summary statistics and our subsequent analyses are based on the BHPS sub-sample of private sector,full-time workers who are not self-employed.It is for this group of workers that our theoretical framework most directly applies.Insecurity averages just below 3 in most years, suggesting that the average respondent was fairly satisfied with his or her job security FDI Presence,our main measure of exposure to the globalization of production,averages slightly over half in most years-i.e.,in most years just over half of respondents worked in FDI- exposed industries.Industries with positive values for FDI Presence include metal manufacturing,mechanical engineering,and banking and finance.Among these industries in14 Each of these six control variables is likely to account for some of the differences among individuals in perceptions of economic insecurity. However, it must be acknowledged that other unmeasured or unobservable differences among individuals may also matter. For example, individuals almost surely vary in their degree of risk aversion. In addition, individuals probably vary in their interpretation of the BHPS question. One individual may think about job security in compensated terms conditional on wages and any perceived compensating wage differential. But another observationally similar individual may think without conditioning in this way. Unmeasured or unobservable individual heterogeneity is, of course, a problem that faces all survey research. But it seems particularly acute here because our key variable to be explained measures perceptions of risk. So to address this heterogeneity, we use the fact that the BHPS records repeated observations for the same individual over many years. We exploit this panel structure by including an individual-specific effect for each respondent. These individual￾specific effects capture any time-constant factors across people that drive variation in perceptions of employment risks. For each year of our panel, Table 1 reports summary statistics of our key variables. The summary statistics and our subsequent analyses are based on the BHPS sub-sample of private sector, full-time workers who are not self-employed. It is for this group of workers that our theoretical framework most directly applies. Insecurity averages just below 3 in most years, suggesting that the average respondent was fairly satisfied with his or her job security. FDI Presence, our main measure of exposure to the globalization of production, averages slightly over half in most years—i.e., in most years just over half of respondents worked in FDI￾exposed industries. Industries with positive values for FDI Presence include metal manufacturing, mechanical engineering, and banking and finance. Among these industries in