Taming the SO2 and NOx emissions: evidence from a SUR model for the US

Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

We construct a Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) model to investigate the link between local environmental pollution (sulfur dioxide-SO2 and nitrogen oxides-NOx emissions) and economic growth on a panel data set framework for the US over the period 1990–2012. The presence of different polynomials of GDP for each equation of SO2 and NOx respectively allows us to utilize a SUR model to estimate jointly the two equations in order to examine the total effect of environmental degradation. While we find evidence of a quartic relationship between SO2 emissions and economic development in a single equation framework this outcome does not seem to hold when we utilize a SUR model controlling for cross section dependence.

Keywords

Environmental Kuznets curve SUR Cross section dependence Local pollutants 

JEL Classification

C33 Q56 Q43 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief Henrik Folmer for giving them the opportunity to revise their work. Special thanks also go to the fruitful comments and suggestions made by two anonymous reviewers of this journal that enhanced the merit of the paper. The authors also wish to express their gratitude to the Organizational Committee of the 4th Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Conference organised by the University of Thessaly, in Volos, Greece (November 4–5, 2016). Special acknowledgements should be given to Professor George Halkos and the participants of the conference for their fruitful comments and suggestions that enhance the merit of the paper. All remaining errors belong to the authors. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Breitung, J., Das, S.: Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence. Stat. Neerl. 59, 414–433 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R.: The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47(1), 239–253 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dean, J.M.: Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Can. J. Econ. 35(4), 819–842 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Desbordes, R., Verardi, V.: Refitting the Kuznets curve. Econ. Lett. 116, 258–261 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dinda, S.: Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 49, 431–455 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halkos, G.: Environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur: evidence using GMM estimation and random coefficient panel data models. Environ. Dev. Econ. 8(04), 581–601 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halkos, G.: Economic development and environmental degradation: testing the existence of an environmental Kuznets curve at regional level. In: ERSA Conference papers ersa06p527, European Regional Science Association (2006)Google Scholar
  8. Halkos, G., Tsionas, E.G.: Environmental Kuznets curves: Bayesian evidence from switching regime models. Energy Econ. 23(2), 191–210 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halkos, G., Tzeremes, N.: Growth and environmental pollution: empirical evidence from China. J. Chin.Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 4(3), 144–157 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hong, S.H., Wagner, M.: Nonlinear cointegration analysis and the Environmental Kuznets curve. Economics Series 224, Institute for Advanced Studies (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Jayanthakumaran, K., Liu, Y.: Openness and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from China. Econ. Model. 29, 566–576 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keene, A., Deller, S.C.: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets’ curve among US counties and the impact of social capital. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 38(4), 358–387 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A.: Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: a survey. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 34, 1187–1201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millimet, D., List, J., Stengos, T.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve: real progress or misspecified models? Rev. Econ. Stat. 85(4), 1038–1047 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Persyn, D., Westerlund, J.: Error-correction based cointegration tests for panel data. STATA J. 8(2), 232–241 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. Pesaran, M.: A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econ. 22, 265–312 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pesaran, M.H.: General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. In: Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0435, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Polemis, M.: Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve: a semi-parametric analysis on the role of market structure on environmental pollution. Lett. Spatial Resour. Sci. 11(1), 27–35 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S.J., Debertin, D.L., Pagoulatos, A.: The environmental Kuznets curve for US counties: a spatial econometric analysis with extensions. Papers Reg. Sci. 83(2), 407–424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sephton, P., Mann, J.: Compelling evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve in the United Kingdom. Environ. Resour. Econ. 64(2), 301–315 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tzeremes, P.: Time-varying causality between energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: evidence from US states. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25(6), 6044–6060 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wagner, W., Hong S.H.: Cointegrating polynomial regressions: Fully modified OLS estimation and inference. Econom. Theory 32(5), 1289–1315 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. Westerlund, J.: Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bull. Econ. Stat. 69, 709–748 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zarzoso, I.M., Morancho, A.B.: Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Econ. Lett. 82, 121–126 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PiraeusPiraeusGreece
  2. 2.University of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations