Economic development and environmental sustainability: evidence from Bahrain

  • Fatema AlaaliEmail author
  • Hanan Naser
Original Article


While the concept of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), which links economic growth to environmental degradation, is well demonstrated, there is disagreement on its shape, extent and determinants. This study investigates the EKC hypothesis in Bahrain and assesses the impact of electricity consumption, foreign direct investment and financial development on CO2 emissions using time series data over the period 1980–2014. To accomplish this target, the autoregressive distributed lag bounds testing approach is employed, and the results show that the series are cointegrated. Moreover, there is an inverted U-shaped long-run relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth, confirming the existence of EKC for Bahrain. In other words, economic growth in Bahrain raises the level of environmental emissions until it reaches a specific threshold of per capita income and then starts to decline. In addition, while more electricity consumption continues to contribute to increasing the level of CO2 emissions, having more foreign direct investments improves the quality of air in Bahrain. Based on these findings, Bahrain should reduce emissions through expanding CO2 recovery plants projects and invest more in energy research to achieve efficient electricity generation.


CO2 emissions FDI Electricity consumption Financial development EKC ARDL bound testing 


  1. Al-Mulali U, Tang CF (2013) Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy 60:813–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alshehry AS, Belloumi M (2017) Study of the environmental Kuznets curve for transport carbon dioxide emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 75:1339–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apergis N (2016) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20(4):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekhet HA, Matar A, Yasmin T (2017) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and financial development in GCC countries: dynamic simultaneous equation models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 70:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouznit M, Pablo-Romero MDP (2016) CO2 emission and economic growth in Algeria. Energy Policy 96:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown RL, Durbin J, Evans JM (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 37(2):149–163MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandran VGR, Tang CF (2013) The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang T, Fang W, Wen LF (2001) Energy consumption, employment, output, and temporal causality: evidence from Taiwan based on cointegration and error-correction modelling techniques. Appl Econ 33(8):1045–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charfeddine L, Khediri KB (2016) Financial development and environmental quality in UAE: cointegration with structural breaks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55:1322–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho CH, Chu YP, Yang HY (2014) An environment Kuznets curve for GHG emissions: a panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources B 9(2):120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day KM, Grafton RQ (2003) Growth and the environment in Canada: an empirical analysis. Can J Agric Econ 51(2):197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366a):427–431MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Effiong EL, Iriabije AO (2018) Let the data speak: semiparametric evidence on the environmental Kuznets curve in Africa. Qual Quant 52(2):771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodha M, Zaghdoud O (2010) Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 38(2):1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granger CW (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econom J Econom Soc 37:424–438zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (no. w3914). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  19. IBRD (1992) World development report 1992. Development and the environment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds). IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PC, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J Econom 54(1–3):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lau LS, Choong CK, Eng YK (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy 68:490–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le TH, Chang Y, Park D (2018) Economic development and environmental sustainability: evidence from Asia. Empir Econ 57:1–28Google Scholar
  24. Lorente DB, Álvarez-Herranz A (2016) Economic growth and energy regulation in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(16):16478–16494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Musolesi A, Mazzanti M, Zoboli R (2010) A panel data heterogeneous Bayesian estimation of environmental Kuznets curves for CO2 emissions. Appl Econ 42(18):2275–2287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onafowora OA, Owoye O (2014) Bounds testing approach to analysis of the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Econ 44:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Özokcu S, Özdemir Ö (2017) Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (no. 992927783402676). International Labour OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  29. Park S, Lee Y (2011) Regional model of EKC for air pollution: evidence from the Republic of Korea. Energy Policy 39(10):5840–5849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pesaran MH, Pesaran B (1997) Working with Microfit 4.0: interactive econometric analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesaran HH, Shin Y (1998) Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Econ Lett 58(1):17–29MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pesaran MH, Smith RP (1998) Structural analysis of cointegrating VARs. J Econ Surv 12(5):471–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econom 16(3):289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75(2):335–346MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salahuddin M, Alam K, Ozturk I, Sohag K (2018) The effects of electricity consumption, economic growth, financial development and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Kuwait. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:2002–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shahbaz M, Lean HH (2012) Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy Policy 40:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shahbaz M, Sbia R, Hamdi H, Ozturk I (2014) Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecol Ind 45:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Sickles RC, Horrace WC (eds) Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, New York, pp 281–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SinhaBabu S, Datta SK (2013) The relevance of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) in a framework of broad-based environmental degradation and modified measure of growth—a pooled data analysis. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 20(4):309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Y, Zhang C, Lu A, Li L, He Y, ToJo J, Zhu X (2017) A disaggregated analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for industrial CO2 emissions in China. Appl Energy 190:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Bank (2019) World development indicators. The World Bank, Washington. Accessed 20 Jan 2019
  44. Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Fernandez MA (2017) An environmental Kuznets curve for N2O emissions in Germany: an ARDL approach. Nat Resour Forum 41(2):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Silva-Zambrano CA, Davalos-Penafiel JL, Zambrano-Monserrate A, Ruano MA (2018) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Peru: the role of renewable electricity, petroleum and dry natural gas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:4170–4178CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Joint Center on Global Change and Earth System Science of the University of Maryland and Beijing Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and ManagementAmerican University of BahrainRiffaKingdom of Bahrain

Personalised recommendations