Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 17, pp 17176–17193 | Cite as

The heterogeneous effects of urbanization and income inequality on CO2 emissions in BRICS economies: evidence from panel quantile regression

  • Huiming Zhu
  • Hang Xia
  • Yawei Guo
  • Cheng Peng
Research Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

This paper empirically examines the effects of urbanization and income inequality on CO2 emissions in the BRICS economies (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) during the periods 1994–2013. The method we used is the panel quantile regression, which takes into account the unobserved individual heterogeneity and distributional heterogeneity. Our empirical results indicate that urbanization has a significant and negative impact on carbon emissions, except in the 80th, 90th, and 95th quantiles. We also quantitatively investigate the direct and indirect effect of urbanization on carbon emissions, and the results show that we may underestimate urbanization’s effect on carbon emissions if we ignore its indirect effect. In addition, in middle- and high-emission countries, income inequality has a significant and positive impact on carbon emissions. The results of our study indicate that in the BRICS economies, there is an inverted U-shaped environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) between the GDP per capita and carbon emissions. The conclusions of this study have important policy implications for policymakers. Policymakers should try to narrow the income gap between the rich and the poor to improve environmental quality; the BRICS economies can speed up urbanization to reduce carbon emissions, but they must improve energy efficiency and use clean energy to the greatest extent in the process.

Keywords

Carbon emissions Urbanization Income inequality Panel data Quantile regression BRICS economies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our deepest gratitude goes to the Editor, Prof. Philippe Garrigues, and the anonymous referee for their helpful comments and constructive suggestions which ultimately improved the article.

Funding information

This research is partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.71671062, 71521061, and 71431008.

References

  1. Alexander M, Harding M, Lamarche C (2011) Quantile regression for time-series-cross-section data. Int J Stat Manag Syst 6(1-2):47–72Google Scholar
  2. Ali HS, Abdul-Rahim AS, Ribadu MB (2017) Urbanization and carbon dioxide emissions in Singapore: evidence from the ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(2):1967–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltagi B (2008) Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes DF, Krutilla K, Hyde WF (2005) The urban household energy transition: social and environmental impacts in the developing world. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Berthe A, Elie L (2015) Mechanisms explaining the impact of economic inequality on environmental deterioration. Ecol Econ 116:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder M, Coad A (2011) From Average Joe’s happiness to Miserable Jane and Cheerful John: using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution. J Econ Behav Organ 79(3):275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyce JK (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics 11(3):169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canay IA (2011) A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. Econ J 14(3):368–386Google Scholar
  9. Cole MA (2007) Corruption, income and the environment: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 62(3):637–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damette O, Delacote P (2012) On the economic factors of deforestation: what can we learn from quantile analysis? Econ Model 29(6):2427–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan Y, Liu LC, Wu G, Wei YM (2006) Analyzing impact factors of CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26(4):377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flores CA, Flores-Lagunes A, Kapetanakis D (2014) Lessons from quantile panel estimation of the environmental Kuznets curve. Econ Rev 33(8):815–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galvao AF (2011) Quantile regression for dynamic panel data with fixed effects. J Econ 164(1):142–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gangadharan L, Valenzuela MR (2001) Interrelationships between income, health and the environment: extending the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecol Econ 36(3):513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gawande K, Berrens RP, Bohara AK (2001) A consumption-based theory of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 37(1):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gouldson A, Murphy J (1997) Ecological modernization: economic restructuring and the environment. Polit. Q. 68:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grunewald N, Klasen S, Martínez-Zarzoso I, Muris C (2017) The trade-off between income inequality and carbon dioxide emissions. Ecol Econ 142:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hao, L., & Naiman, D. Q. (2007) Quantile regression (No.149). Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  19. Haseeb M, Hassan S, Azam M (2017) Rural–urban transformation, energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions using STRIPAT model for BRICS countries. Environ Progress Sustain Energy 36(2):523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heerink N, Mulatu A, Bulte E (2001) Income inequality and the environment: aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves. Ecol Econ 38(3):359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joan MA (1995) Distributional issues in ecological economics. Rev Soc Econ 53(4):511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jorgenson A, Schor J, Huang X (2017) Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: a state-level analysis, 1997–2012. Ecol Econ 134:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jun Y, Zhong-kui Y, Peng-fei S (2011) Income distribution, human capital and environmental quality: empirical study in China. Energy Procedia 5:1689–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kato K, Galvao AF (2010) Smoothed quantile regression for panel data. Discussion paper, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  25. Koenker R, Bassett G Jr (1978) Regression quantiles. Econ: J Econ Soc 46:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koenker R (2004) Quantile regression for longitudinal data. J Multivar Anal 91(1):74–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamarche C (2010) Robust penalized quantile regression estimation for panel data. J Econ 157(2):396–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamarche C (2011) Measuring the incentives to learn in Colombia using new quantile regression approaches. J Dev Econ 96(2):278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lancaster T (2000) The incidental parameter problem since 1948. J Econ 95(2):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leitao A (2010) Corruption and the environmental Kuznets curve: empirical evidence for sulfur. Ecol Econ 69(11):2191–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim GC, McNelis PD (2016) Income growth and inequality: the threshold effects of trade and financial openness. Econ Model 58:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin F, Fu D (2016) Trade, institution quality and income inequality. World Dev 77:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martínez-Zarzoso I, Maruotti A (2011) The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: evidence from developing countries. Ecol Econ 70(7):1344–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGranahan G, Jacobi P, Songsore J, Surjadi C, Kjellen M (2001) The citizen at risk: from urban sanitation to sustainable cities. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Mol AP, Spaargaren G (2000) Ecological modernization theory in debate: a review. Environ Polit 9(1):17–49Google Scholar
  36. Neyman, J., & Scott, E. L. (1948) Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society: 1–32Google Scholar
  37. Parikh J, Shukla V (1995) Urbanization, energy use and greenhouse effects in economic development: results from a cross-national study of developing countries. Global Environ Chang 5(2):87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poumanyvong P, Kaneko S (2010) Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecol Econ 70(2):434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravallion M, Heil M, Jalan J (2000) Carbon emissions and income inequality. Oxford Econ Papers 52(4):651–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadorsky P (2014) The effect of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economies. Energy Econ 41:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saidi K, Mbarek MB (2017) The impact of income, trade, urbanization, and financial development on CO2 emissions in 19 emerging economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(14):12748–12757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scruggs LA (1998) Political and economic inequality and the environment. Ecol Econ 26(3):259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sojkova L (2014) The impact of FDI on GDP and employment in the Liberec Region. Dissertation, BrnoGoogle Scholar
  44. Solarin SA, Lean HH (2016) Natural gas consumption, income, urbanization, and CO2 emissions in China and India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(18):18753–18765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2017) Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: the role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1578–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2010) The spirit level: why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Books, UKGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolde-Rufael Y, Idowu S (2017) Income distribution and CO2 emission: a comparative analysis for China and India. Renew Sust Energy Rev 74:1336–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wooldridge JM (2001) Applications of generalized method of moments estimation. J Econ Perspect 15(4):87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Y, Liu J, Zhang Y (2017) An analysis of the implications of China’s urbanization policy for economic growth and energy consumption. J Cleaner Prod 161:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46(3):351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. York R (2007) Demographic trends and energy consumption in European Union Nations, 1960–2025. Soc Sci Res 36(3):855–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. You WH, Zhu HM, Yu K, Peng C (2015) Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Dev 66:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zakaria M, Fida BA (2016) Trade openness and income inequality in China and the SAARC Region. Asian-Pacific Econ Lit 30(2):33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang YJ, Jin YL, Chevallier J, Shen B (2016) The effect of corruption on carbon dioxide emissions in APEC countries: a panel quantile regression analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 112:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhu HM, You WH, Zeng ZF (2012) Urbanization and CO2 emissions: a semi-parametric panel data analysis. Econ Lett 117(3):848–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhu H, Duan L, Guo Y, Yu K (2016) The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Econ Model 58:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationHunan UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations