Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp 19843–19858 | Cite as

Air pollution, output, FDI, trade openness, and urbanization: evidence using DOLS and PDOLS cointegration techniques and causality

  • Pablo PonceEmail author
  • Rafael Alvarado
Research Article
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

Globalization has led countries to a strong interdependence among them, which is reflected in trade and capital flows. Simultaneously, in recent decades, the world is rapidly urbanizing. This dynamic has generated a process of economic growth with serious consequences for the environment, particularly in air quality. In this context, the objective of this research is to examine the causal link among carbon dioxide emissions per capita as a measure of air pollution, real per capita output, FDI, trade openness, and urbanization in 100 countries during 1980–2017. First, we used the cointegration test of Pedroni (JAMA 61:653–670, 1999) and Westerlund (JAMA 69:709–748, 2007) to find the equilibrium long and short term, respectively, and the Dumitrescu and Hurlin (JAMA 29:1450–1460, 2012) test to verify the direction of causality among the series. Second, we estimate the strength of the cointegration vector for individual countries through a dynamic ordinary least squares model (DOLS), and for country groups using a dynamic panel model with ordinary least squares (PDOLS). The results found indicate the existence of short- and long-term equilibrium among the variables globally and by groups of countries. The strength of the cointegration vector is strong in high and middle-high-income countries. At a global level, the results of the causality test suggest the existence of a unidirectional causal relationship that goes from output, urbanization, and FDI to air pollution, and a bidirectional relationship among trade and air pollution. These results are sensitive to the inclusion of the level of development of the countries. Our results suggest that the mechanisms to increase output, along with commercial and FDI flows, and urbanization are factors that play a relevant role in the determination of air pollution. Consequently, public policies should take these aspects into account in efforts to mitigate air pollution.

Keywords

Environmental pollution Output Panel data Cointegration Causality 

JEL classifications

E23 Q53 C23 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude with the Club de Investigación de Economía-CIE, Loja Ecuador.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akalpler E, Shingil ME (2017) Statistical reasoning the link between energy demand, CO2 emissions and growth: evidence from China. Procedia Comput Sci 120:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarado R, Toledo E (2017) Environmental degradation and economic growth: evidence for a developing country. Environ Dev Sustain 19(4):1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarado R, Ponce P, Criollo A, Córdova K, Khan MK (2018) Environmental degradation and real per capita output: new evidence at the global level grouping countries by income levels. J Clean Prod 189:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apergis N (2016a) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apergis N (2016b) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apergis N, Payne JE, Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ 69(11):2255–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo VG, Sartori S, Campos LMS (2018) CO2emissions: a quantitative analysis among the BRICS nations. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81(July 2016):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baek J (2015) A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries. Appl Energy 145:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baek J, Kim HS (2013) Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Econ 36:744–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bekhet HA, Othman NS (2018) The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energy Econ 72:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bella G, Massidda C, y Mattana P (2014) La relación entre las emisiones de CO2, el consumo de energía eléctrica y el PIB en los países de la OCDE. J Policy Model 36(6):970–985Google Scholar
  13. Bertinelli L, Strobl E, Zou B (2012) Sustainable economic development and the environment: theory and evidence. Energy Econ 34(4):1105–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhattacharyya R, Ghoshal T (2009) Economic growth and CO2 emissions. Environ Dev Sustain 12(2):159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breitung J (2002) Nonparametric tests for unit roots and cointegration. J Econ 108(2):343–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cai Y, Sam CY, Chang T (2018) Nexus between clean energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions. J Clean Prod 182:1001–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaabouni S, Saidi K (2017) The dynamic links between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, health spending and GDP growth: A case study for 51 countries. Environ Res 158:137–144Google Scholar
  18. Cohen G, Jalles JT, Loungani P, Marto R (2018) The long-run decoupling of emissions and output: evidence from the largest emitters. Energy Policy 118:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickey D, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49:1057–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dogan E, Aslan A (2017) Exploring the relationship among CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption and tourism in the EU and candidate countries: evidence from panel models robust to heterogeneity and cross-sectional dependence. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G (2017a) Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy 141:1466–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G, Zeng X, Li H, Jiang H (2017b) Impact of natural gas consumption on CO2 emissions: panel data evidence from China’s provinces. J Clean Prod 162:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghosh S (2010) Examining carbon emissions economic growth nexus for India: a multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Policy 38(6):3008–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Nro, p. 3914Google Scholar
  26. Hajilary N, Shahi A, Rezakazemi M (2018) Evaluation of socio-economic factors on CO 2 emissions in Iran: factorial design and multivariable methods. J Clean Prod 189:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37(3):1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Han J, Du T, Zhang C, Qian X (2018) Correlation analysis of CO2 emissions, material stocks and economic growth nexus: evidence from Chinese provinces. J Clean Prod 180:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: J Econometric Soc 46:1251–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. He Z, Xu S, Shen W, Long R, Chen H (2017) Impact of urbanization on energy related CO2 emission at different development levels: regional difference in China based on panel estimation. J Clean Prod 140:1719–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115(1):53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ito K (2017a) CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: evidence from panel data for developing countries. Int Econ 151:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ito K (2017b) CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: evidence from panel data for developing countries. Int Econ 151:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2010) Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: the role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 38(8):4057–4063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Kahouli B (2018) The causality link between energy electricity consumption, CO2 emissions, R&D stocks and economic growth in Mediterranean countries (MCs). Energy 145:388–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kao C, Chiang MH (2001) On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In: Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Le TH, Quah E (2018) Income level and the emissions, energy, and growth nexus: evidence from Asia and the Pacific. Int Econ In press. March 2018Google Scholar
  40. Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CSJ (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li J, Huang X, Kwan M-P, Yang H, Chuai X (2018) The effect of urbanization on carbon dioxide emissions efficiency in the Yangtze River Delta, China. J Clean Prod 188:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu X, Bae J (2018) Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. J Clean Prod 172:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(S1):631–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marjanović V, Milovančević M, Mladenović I (2016) Prediction of GDP growth rate based on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. J CO2 Util 16:212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neal T, (2018) Panel Cointegration Analysis with Xtpedroni. The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata 14(3):684–692Google Scholar
  46. Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(9):3220–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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(1):685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pata UK (2018) Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Clean Prod 187:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(S1):653–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pedroni P (2001) Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Rev Econ Stat 83(4):727–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No. 435 and CESifo Working Paper, No. 1229Google Scholar
  52. Phillips PC, Moon HR (1999) Linear regression limit theory for nonstationary panel data. Econometrica 67(5):1057–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phillips P, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrica 75:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy policy 51:184–191Google Scholar
  55. Salahuddin M, Alam K, Ozturk I (2016a) The effects of Internet usage and economic growth on CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a panel investigation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 62:1226–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salahuddin M, Alam K, Ozturk I (2016b) The effects of Internet usage and economic growth on CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a panel investigation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 62:1226–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Santos AS, Gilio L, Halmenschlager V, Diniz TB, Almeida AN (2018) Flexible-fuel automobiles and CO2 emissions in Brazil: Parametric and semiparametric analysis using panel data. Habitat Int 71:147–155Google Scholar
  58. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) A review on Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 649:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence, vol 904. World Bank Publications, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 25:109–121Google Scholar
  61. Shahbaz M, Nasreen S, Ahmed K, Hammoudeh S (2017) Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Econ 61:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Global greenhouse gas emissions data. An official website of the United States government. Disponible en: https://www.epa.gov/
  64. Wang KM (2012) Modelling the nonlinear relationship between CO2 emissions from oil and economic growth. Econ Model 29(5):1537–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang S, Li G, Fang C (2018a) Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:2144–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang S, Li G, Fang C (2018b) Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:2144–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69(6):709–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  69. World Bank (2018) World development indicators. Washington D.C. Available on. https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
  70. Yang L, Xia H, Zhang X, Yuan S (2018) What matters for carbon emissions in regional sectors? A China study of extended STIRPAT model. J Clean Prod 180:595–602Google Scholar
  71. Zakarya GY, Mostefa B, Abbes SM, Seghir GM (2015) Factors affecting CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries: a panel data analysis. Procedia Econ Financ 26:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang N, Yu K, Chen Z (2017) How does urbanization affect carbon dioxide emissions? A cross-country panel data analysis. Energy Policy 107:678–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhou C, Wang S (2018) Examining the determinants and the spatial nexus of city-level CO2emissions in China: a dynamic spatial panel analysis of China’s cities. J Clean Prod 171:917–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zoundi Z (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:1067–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversidad Nacional de LojaLojaEcuador

Personalised recommendations