Achieving a cleaner environment via the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: determinants of electricity access and pollution in India

  • Samuel Asumadu-SarkodieEmail author
  • Prabhakar Yadav
Original Paper


According to the IPCC report, energy remains the major contributor to global anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, due to its role in economic development. Hence, developing a conceptual tool that examines the determinants of environmental pollution for India is valuable given its population, current, and forecast energy demands. Using a national-level time series data from 1990 to 2017, Prais–Winsten and Cochrane–Orcutt regression models were used to examine the nexus between pollution and economic development in the transition from dirty to clean energy. The study confirmed the existence of a U-shaped relationship at a turning point of US$ 1802. Thus, India’s industrialised economy is energy and carbon-intensive which promotes environmental pollution. At the household level, the use of multiple fuels, especially dirty fuels, are likely to remain a key part of the sociocultural energy tradition among rural communities that will impact low carbon and cleaner energy transition. We argue that decoupling energy from economic growth can encourage clean energy transition.

Graphic abstract


EKC hypothesis India Electricity access Environmental pollution 



  1. Brown RL, Durbin J, Evans JM (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J R Stat Soc Ser B 37(2):149–192. Google Scholar
  2. Chakraborty D, Mondal NK (2018) Hypertensive and toxicological health risk among women exposed to biomass smoke: a rural Indian scenario. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 161:706–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cochrane D, Orcutt GH (1949) Application of least squares regression to relationships containing auto-correlated error terms. J Am Stat Assoc 44:32–61Google Scholar
  4. Deepthi Y, Shiva Nagendra SM, Gummadi SN (2019) Characteristics of indoor air pollution and estimation of respiratory dosage under varied fuel-type and kitchen-type in the rural areas of Telangana state in India. Sci Total Environ 650:616–625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DiSano J (2002) Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Edenhofer O et al (2011) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enerdata (2017) Global energy statistical yearbook 2017. Accessed 6 Oct 2017
  8. Heltberg R (2005) Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environ Dev Econ 10:337–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IEA (2017) World energy outlook 2017—from poverty to prosperity. IEA. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  10. Khandker SR, Barnes DF, Samad HA (2012) Are the energy poor also income poor? Evid India Energy Policy 47:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kripfganz S, Schneider DC (2018) Response surface regressions for critical value bounds and approximate p-values in equilibrium correction modelsGoogle Scholar
  12. Lau L-S, Choong C-K, Eng Y-K (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy 68:490–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li T, Wang Y, Zhao D (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy 91:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lind JT, Mehlum H (2010) With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 72:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Long X, Naminse EY, Du J, Zhuang J (2015) Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Materials Flow (2017) Materials flow data analysis portal. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
  17. Narasimha Rao M, Reddy BS (2007) Variations in energy use by Indian households: an analysis of micro level data. Energy 32:143–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Owusu P, Asumadu SS (2016) A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Eng 3:1167990. Google Scholar
  19. Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:3220–3225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. International Labour Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. Pao HT, Tsai CM (2011) Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy 36:685–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16:289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prais SJ, Winsten CB (1954) Trend estimators and serial correlation. Cowles Commission discussion paper, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohra H, Taneja A (2016) Indoor air quality scenario in India—an outline of household fuel combustion. Atmos Environ 129:243–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenthal J, Quinn A, Grieshop AP, Pillarisetti A, Glass RI (2018) Clean cooking and the SDGs: integrated analytical approaches to guide energy interventions for health and environment goals. Energy Sustain Dev 42:152–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarkodie AS (2018) The invisible hand and EKC hypothesis: what are the drivers of environmental degradation and pollution in Africa? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:21993–22022. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019a) Economic, social and governance adaptation readiness for mitigation of climate change vulnerability: evidence from 192 countries. Sci Total Environ 656:150–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019b) Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ 646:862–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V, Jiang Y, Evans T (2019) Proximate determinants of particulate matter (PM2.5) emission, mortality and life expectancy in Europe, Central Asia, Australia, Canada and the US. Sci Total Environ 683:489–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma D, Jain S (2019) Impact of intervention of biomass cookstove technologies and kitchen characteristics on indoor air quality and human exposure in rural settings of India. Environ Int 123:240–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Solt F (2016) The standardized world income inequality database. Soc Sci Q 97:1267–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The World Bank (2019) Countries and economies. Accessed 12 Mar 2019
  33. United Nations (2015) Sustainable development goals. Accessed 24 Oct 2015
  34. Wang SS, Zhou DQ, Zhou P, Wang QW (2011) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 39:4870–4875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. World Bank (2018) World development indicators. Accessed 24 Oct 2017
  36. Yang H, He J, Chen S (2015) The fragility of the environmental Kuznets curve: revisiting the hypothesis with Chinese data via an “Extreme Bound Analysis”. Ecol Econ 109:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nord University Business School (HHN)BodøNorway
  2. 2.Department of Environmental SciencesMacquarie UniversityMacquarie ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations