Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 11191–11211 | Cite as

Idolization and ramification between globalization and ecological footprints: evidence from quantile-on-quantile approach

  • Arshian SharifEmail author
  • Sahar Afshan
  • Muhammad Asif Qureshi
Research Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Globalization persists the tendency to alter numerous aspects of today’s world including religion, transport, language, living styles, and international relations; however, its potential to influence quality of environment is the prime concern for trade and environmental policies guidelines (Audi and Ali 2018). In response to the growing interest for identifying the dynamic relationship between globalization and environmental performance, the present study seeks to investigate the critical link between globalization and ecological footprints in top 15 globalized countries between 1970 and 2016. Applying the novel methods of quantile-on-quantile regression (QQ) and Granger causality in quantiles, the findings examine the manners in which quantiles of globalization affect the quantiles of ecological footprints and vice versa. The empirical results suggest that globalization has a long-term positive effect on ecological footprint and vice versa in case of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Portugal. On the other hand, the estimated results indicate a negative effect between globalization and ecological footprint in the case of France, Germany, the UK, and Hungary. These results extend the recent findings on the globalization–environment nexus implying that the magnitude of relationship among both variables varies with countries demanding individual focus and cautions for postulating environmental and trade policies.

Keywords

Globalization Ecological footprints Quantile-on-quantile approach Granger causality in quantiles 

Notes

References

  1. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Indic 48:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audi, M., and Ali, A. (2018). Determinants of environmental degradation under the perspective of globalization: a panel analysis of selected MENA nations. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/85776/. Accessed 15 Sept 2018
  4. Borghesi S, Vercelli A (2003) Sustainable globalisation. Ecol Econ 44(1):77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng M, Chung L, Tam C-S, Yuen R, Chan S, and Yu I-W (2012) Tracking the Hong Kong economy. Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Occasional Paper 03/2012Google Scholar
  6. Cole MA, Elliott RJ, Shimamoto K (2006) Globalization, firm-level characteristics and environmental management: a study of Japan. Ecol Econ 59(3):312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copeland BR (2005) Policy endogeneity and the effects of trade on the environment. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 34(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 42(1):7–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasgupta S, Hamilton K, Pandey KD, Wheeler D (2006) The environment during growth: accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Dev 34(9):1597–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreher A, Gaston N, and Martens P (2008) Measuring globalisation: gauging its consequences. Springer Science and Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  11. Figge L, Oebels K, Offermans A (2017) The effects of globalization on ecological footprints: an empirical analysis. Environ Dev Sustain 19(3):863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuinhas, J. A., Cardoso Marques, A., and Da Silva Faria, S. (2017). Natural resources, globalization and sustainable economic welfare: a panel ARDL approach. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 35(3), 653–672Google Scholar
  13. Granger C (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman GM, and Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaunky VC (2011) The CO 2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy 39(3):1228–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jena PR, and Grote U (2008) Growth-trade-environment nexus in India. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/39895. Accessed 15 Sept 2018
  17. Jorgenson AK, Givens JE (2014) Economic globalization and environmental concern: a multilevel analysis of individuals within 37 nations. Environ Behav 46(7):848–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katircioglu ST (2009) Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration. Tour Manag 30(1):17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim D, Perron P (2009) Unit root tests allowing for a break in the trend function at an unknown time under both the null and alternative hypotheses. J Econ 148(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le TH, Chang Y, Park D (2016) Trade openness and environmental quality: international evidence. Energy Policy 92:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leit NC (2014) Economic growth, carbon dioxide emissions, renewable energy and globalization. Int J Energy Econ Policy 4(3):391–399Google Scholar
  22. Liddle B (2001) Free trade and the environment-development system. Ecol Econ 39(1):21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rudolph A, Figge L (2017) Determinants of ecological footprints: what is the role of globalization? Ecol Indic 81:348–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 51:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Shahbaz M, Hoang THV, Mahalik MK, Roubaud D (2017a) Energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in India: new evidence from a nonlinear and asymmetric analysis. Energy Econ 63(3):199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shahbaz M, Hye QMA, Tiwari AK, Leitão NC (2013) Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shahbaz M, Khan S, Ali A, Bhattacharya M (2017b) The impact of globalization on CO2 emissions in China. The Singapore Economic Review 62(04):929–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Loganathan N (2015) Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecol Indic 52:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shahbaz M, Zakaria M, Shahzad SJH, Mahalik MK (2018) The energy consumption and economic growth nexus in top ten energy-consuming countries: fresh evidence from using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Energy Econ 71:282–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharif A, Afshan S, Nisha N (2017) Impact of tourism on CO2 emission: evidence from Pakistan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22(4):408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharif A, Raza SA, Ozturk I, Afshan S (2019) The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew Energy 133:685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sim N, Zhou H (2015) Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quantiles. J Bank Financ 55:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Troster V (2018) Testing for Granger-causality in quantiles. Econ Rev 37(8):850–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Twerefou DK, Danso-Mensah K, Bokpin GA (2017) The environmental effects of economic growth and globalization in sub-Saharan Africa: a panel general method of moments approach. Res Int Bus Financ 42:939–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vivanco DF, Sprecher B, Hertwich E (2017) Scarcity-weighted global land and metal footprints. Ecol Indic 83:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. You W, Lv Z (2018) Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: a spatial panel approach. Energy Econ 73:248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang S, Liu X, Bae J (2017) Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries? Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(21):17616–17625CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of BusinessUniversiti Utara MalaysiaSintokMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Economics, Finance & Banking, College of BusinessUniversiti Utara MalaysiaSintokMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Management SciencesEman Institute of Management and SciencesKarachiPakistan
  4. 4.School of Business and Management, College of BusinessUniversiti Utara MalaysiaSintokMalaysia

Personalised recommendations