Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 34, pp 34360–34379 | Cite as

The trade-environment nexus in light of governance: a global potential

  • Rizwana Yasmeen
  • Yunong Li
  • Muhammad Hafeez
  • Haseeb AhmadEmail author
Research Article


The theme of paper is to explore the trade-environment relationship and the role of institutions for 117 countries from global standpoint and five regions: Sub Saharan, European, Middle East and North Africa, Asia and Pacific, and Latin America and Caribbean, using the panel data span 2002–2014. By considering the endogeneity problem, to validate the nature of trade-environment nexuses, we applied the GMM first difference model in two steps. Likewise, Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality analysis is employed to affirm the causal relationship among the concern variables. The empirical findings of this study validate that the overall trade is significantly good to environment for sample countries (117) of the entire World, Europe, Asia, and Pacific regions. In further assessment, we incorporate interactive terms of institutions with trade, scale effect, and scale-technique effect. The estimated results confirm that institution is the persistent instrument for resolving the environmental problems. Furthermore, we find the evidence of inverted u shape EKC in overall selected sample of the World, Sub-Saharan, Europe, Asia, and Pacific regions. In contrast, there is no confirmation of inverted u shape EKC hypothesis in Middle East and North Africa regions. Similarly, no strong evidence of inverted u-shaped EKC hypothesis is observed in Latin-America and Caribbean region.


CO2 emission Trade Institutions Scale effect Technique effect EKC hypothesis 


  1. Abid M (2016) Impact of economic, financial, and institutional factors on CO2 emissions: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa economies. Util Policy 41:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed K, Shahbaz M, Kyophilavong P (2016) Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: evidence from the newly industrializing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(8):7676–7691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akin CS (2014) The impact of foreign trade, energy consumption and income on CO2 emissions. Int J Energy Econ Policy 4(3):465Google Scholar
  4. Amable B (2000) International specialisation and growth. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 11(4):413–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37(8):3282–3286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aron J (2000) Growth and institutions: a review of the evidence. World Bank Res Obs 15(1):99–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arouri MEH, Youssef AB, M'henni H, Rault C (2012) Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and north African countries. Energy Policy 45:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balogh JM, Jámbor A (2017) Determinants of CO2 emission: a global evidence. Int J Energy Econ Policy 7(5):217–226Google Scholar
  11. Bernard J, Mandal SK (2016). The impact of trade openness on environmental quality: an empirical analysis of emerging and developing economies. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 203:195-208Google Scholar
  12. Bhattarai M, Hammig M (2001) Institutions and the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: a crosscountry analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Dev 29(6):995–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capolupo R, Celi G (2008) Openness and economic growth: a comparative study of alternative trading regimes. Économie internationale 4:5–35Google Scholar
  14. Chang R, Kaltani L, Loayza NV (2009) Openness can be good for growth: the role of policy complementarities. J Dev Econ 90(1):33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chebbi HE, Olarreaga M, Zitouna H (2011) Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Tunisia. MEDJ 3(01):29–53Google Scholar
  16. Cherniwchan J, Copeland BR & Taylor MS (2017) Trade and the environment: new methods, measurements, and resultsGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole MA (2007).Corruption, income and the environment: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 62(3-4):637-647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole MA, Elliott RJ (2003) Determining the trade–environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):363–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dinda S, Coondoo D (2006) Income and emission: a panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecol Econ 57(2):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO 2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dutt K (2009) Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship: a cross-country study. Environ Dev Sustain 11(4):705–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Causal relationship between CO 2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(20):15663–15676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fredriksson PG, Svensson J (2003) Political instability, corruption and policy formation: the case of environmental policy. J Public Econ 87(7–8):1383–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gani A (2012) The relationship between good governance and carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from developing economies. J Econ Dev 37(1):77Google Scholar
  28. Gozgor G (2017) Does trade matter for carbon emissions in OECD countries? Evidence from a new trade openness measure. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(36):27813–27821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grossman GM & Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  30. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hafeez M, Chunhui Y, Strohmaier D, Ahmed M, Jie L (2018) Does finance affect environmental degradation: evidence from one belt and one road initiative region? Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–14Google Scholar
  32. Halkos GE (2003) Environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur: evidence using GMM estimation and random coefficient panel data models. Environ Dev Econ 8(4):581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2013) Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: a nonparametric analysis for the G-20. Energy Econ 40:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hasson A & Masih M (2017) Energy consumption, trade openness, economic growth, carbon dioxide emissions and electricity consumption: evidence from South Africa based on ARDLGoogle Scholar
  35. Hwang J (2002) A note on the relationship between corruption and government revenue. J Econ Dev 27(2):161–176Google Scholar
  36. Ibrahim MH, Law SH (2016) Institutional quality and CO2 emission–trade relations: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. S Afr J Econ 84(2):323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2012) Empirical study on the determinants of CO2 emissions: evidence from OECD countries. Appl Econ 44(27):3513–3519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jalilian H, Kirkpatrick C, Parker D (2007) The impact of regulation on economic growth in developing countries: a cross-country analysis. World Dev 35(1):87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jaunky VC (2011) The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy 39(3):1228–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60:824–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kao C (1999) Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econ 90(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kasman A, Duman YS (2015) CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Econ Model 44:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaufmann D, Kraay A and Mastruzzi M (2010) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 5430Google Scholar
  45. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2011) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. HJRL 3(2):220–246Google Scholar
  46. Kohler M (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: a south African perspective. Energy Policy 63:1042–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ling CH, Ahmed K, Muhamad RB, Shahbaz M (2015) Decomposing the trade-environment nexus for Malaysia: what do the technique, scale, composition, and comparative advantage effect indicate? Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(24):20131–20142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu J, Yuan C, Hafeez M, Yuan Q (2018) The relationship between environment and logistics performance: evidence from Asian countries. J Clean ProdGoogle Scholar
  49. Managi S, Hibiki A & Tsurumi T (2008) Does trade liberalization reduce pollution emissions? Discussion papers, 8013Google Scholar
  50. Maryam J, Mittal A, Sharma V (2017) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRICS: an empirical analysis. IOSR-JHSS 22(2):53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mercan M, Karakaya E (2015) Energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emission: dynamic panel cointegration analysis for selected OECD countries. Econ Financ 23:587–592Google Scholar
  52. Naranpanawa A (2011) Does trade openness promote carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. The EEL 10(10):973–986Google Scholar
  53. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38(1):661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nasir M, Rehman FU (2011) Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy 39(3):1857–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nassani AA, Aldakhil AM, Abro MMQ, Zaman K (2017) Environmental Kuznets curve among BRICS countries: spot lightening finance, transport, energy and growth factors. J Clean Prod 154:474–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Newey WK, Smith RJ (2004) Higher order properties of GMM and generalized empirical likelihood estimators. Econometrica 72(1):219–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Onafowora OA, Owoye O (2014) Bounds testing approach to analysis of the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Econ 44:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic developmentGoogle Scholar
  59. Pao HT, Tsai CM (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy 38(12):7850–7860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(S1):653–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pedroni P (2004) Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory 20(3):597–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panelsGoogle Scholar
  63. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reppelin-Hill V (1999) Trade and environment: an empirical analysis of the technology effect in the steel industry. J Environ Econ Manag 38(3):283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Romero-Ávila D (2008) Questioning the empirical basis of the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: new evidence from a panel stationarity test robust to multiple breaks and cross-dependence. Ecol Econ 64(3):559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Runar B, Amin K, Patrik S (2017) Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions and the role of growth and institutions: a parametric and non-parametric analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud 19(2):359–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rutherford M (2001) Institutional economics: then and now. J Econ Perspect 15(3):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saud S, Baloch MA & Lodhi RN (2018) The nexus between energy consumption and financial development: estimating the role of globalization in Next-11 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–11Google Scholar
  69. Sbia R, Shahbaz M, Hamdi H (2014) A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Econ Model 36:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Manag 27(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sharma SS (2011) Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl Energy 88(1):376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tamazian A, Rao BB (2010) Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Econ 32(1):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tiwari AK, Shahbaz M, Hye QMA (2013) The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69(6):709–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wheeler D & Martin P (1992) Prices, policies, and the international diffusion of clean technology: The case of wood pulp production. World Bank Discussion Papers[WORLD BANK DISCUSSION PAPER.]Google Scholar
  77. World Bank (2016) World development indicator. Available from:
  78. Yang J & Wang Y (2016) FDI and environmental pollution nexus in ChinaGoogle Scholar
  79. Youssef AH, El-Sheikh AA & Abonazel MR (2014) New GMM estimators for dynamic panel data modelsGoogle Scholar
  80. Zerbo E (2017) Income-environment relationship in sub-Saharan African countries: further evidence with trade openness. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(19):16488–16502CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rizwana Yasmeen
    • 1
  • Yunong Li
    • 1
  • Muhammad Hafeez
    • 2
  • Haseeb Ahmad
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of International BusinessSouthwestern University of Finance and EconomicsChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsBeijingChina
  3. 3.National Textile UniversityFaisalabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations