Advertisement

The Relationship Between Efficiency Measures and Environmental Pollution: An Empirical Study

  • Panagiotis Fotis
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to empirically explore Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis within EU28 countries by utilizing dynamic panel data approach. The results show that economic growth positively affects environmental pollutants. Therefore, Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis does not exist within EU28 countries. The results also reveal that the use of energy efficiency measures negatively affects pollution, while energy intensity contributes to more air pollution.

Keywords

Dynamic panel data Environmental Kuznets Curve Environmental pollutants Energy efficiency measures 

References

  1. Acaravci, A., & Ozturk, I. (2010). On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy, 35, 5412–5420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, S. C., & Schmidt, P. (1995). Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajmi, A. N., Hammoudeh, S., Nguyen, K. N., & Sato, J. R. (2015). A new look at the relationships between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and income in G7 countries: The importance of time variations. Energy Economics, 49, 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akbostanci, E., Turut-Asik, S., & Tunc, G. I. (2009). The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy, 37, 861–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez, F., Marrero, G. A., & Puch L. A. (2005). Air pollution and the macroeconomy across European countries (Working papers 10 (FEDEA)).Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, T. W., & Hsiao, H. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apergis, N. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curves: New evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Economics, 54, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arellano, M. (1989). A note on the Anderson-Hsiao estimator for panel data. Economic Letters, 31, 337–341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(89)90025-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error component models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., & Van Phu, N. (2006). Economic development and CO2 emissions: A nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1347–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baltagi, H. B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Banerjee, A. (1999). Panel unit root tests and cointegration: An overview. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baycan, O. I. (2013). Air pollution, economic growth, and the European union enlargement. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 5(12), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernard, J.-T., Gavin, M., Khalaf, L., & Voia, M. (2014). Environmental Kuznets curve: Tipping points, uncertainty and weak identification. Environmental and Resource Economics, 60(2), 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial restrictions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brannlund, R., & Ghalwash, T. (2008). The income–pollution relationship and the role of income distribution: An analysis of Swedish household data. Resource and Energy Economics, 30, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. Baltagi (Ed.), Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (Advances in econometrics) (Vol. 15, pp. 161–178). Amsterdam: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christopoulos, D. K., & Tsionas, E. G. (2003). A reassessment of balance of payments constrained growth: Results from panel unit root and panel cointegration tests. International Economic Journal, 17, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cole, M. (1999). Limits to growth, sustainable development and environmental Kuznets curves: An examination of environmental impact of economic development. Sustainable Development, 7, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coondoo, D., & Dinda, S. (2008). Carbon dioxide emissions and income: A temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecological Economics, 65, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Danaeifar, I. (2014). The estimation parameters of Kuznets spatial environmental curve in European countries (A case study of CO2 and PM10 and incidence of tuberculosis and life expectancy at birth). European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3(3), 439–448.Google Scholar
  24. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49, 431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donfouet, H. P. P., Jeanty, P. W., & Malin, M. (2013). A spatial dynamic panel analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve in European countries (pp. 1–16). Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), Economics working paper archive, 2013–18.Google Scholar
  26. Esteve, V., & Tamarit, C. (2012). Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment between CO2 and income: The environmental Kuznets curve in Spain, 1857–2007. Energy Economics, 34(6), 2148–2156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fosten, J., Morley, B., & Taylor, T. (2012). Dynamic misspecification in the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics, 76, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fotis, P., & Pekka, V. (2017). The effect of renewable energy use and economic growth on pollution in the EUROZONE. Economic and Business Letters, 6(4), 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fotis, P., & Polemis, M. (2018). Sustainable development, environmental policy and renewable energy use: A dynamic panel data approach. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 726–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fotis, P., Karkalakos, S., & Asteriou, D. (2017). The relationship between energy demand and real GDP growth rate: The role of price asymmetries and spatial externalities within 34 countries across the globe. Energy Economics, 66, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedl, B., & Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecological Economics, 45, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Galeotti, M., Manera, M., & Lanza, A. (2009). On the robustness of robustness checks of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen, B., & Seo, B. (2002). Testing for two-regime threshold cointegration in vector error correction models. Journal of Econometrics, 110, 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holtz-Eakin, D., & Selten, T. M. (1995). Stoking the fires: CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Im, K., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iwata, H., Okada, K., & Samreth, S. (2011). A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: A pooled mean group approach. Applied Energy, 88, 1986–1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaunky, C. V. (2011). The CO2 emissions-income nexus: Evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1228–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johansen, S. (1992). Determination of co-integration rank in the presence of a linear trend. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, C.-C., Chiu, Y.-B., & Sun, C.-H. (2009). Does one size fit all? A reexamination of the environmental Kuznets curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(4), 751–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. López-Menéndez, A., Pérez, R., & Moreno, B. (2014). Environmental costs and renewable energy: Re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Environmental Management, 145, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markandya, A., Golub, A., & Pedroso-Galinato, S. (2006). Empirical analysis of national income and SO2 emissions in selected European countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 35, 221–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marrero, A. G. (2010). Greenhouse gases emissions, growth and the energy mix in Europe. Energy Economics, 32, 1356–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., Bengochea-Morancho, A., & Morales-Lage, R. (2007). The impact of population on CO2 emissions: Evidence from European countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38, 597–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazur, A., Phutkaradze, Z., & Phutkaradze, J. (2015). Economic growth and environmental quality in the European union countries – Is there evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve? International Journal of Management and Economics, 45, 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Panayotou, T. (1995). Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. In A. Iftikhar & A. J. Doeleman (Eds.), Beyond Rio: The environmental crisis and sustainable livelihoods in the third world, ILO study series (pp. 13–36). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Panayotou, T. (2000). Economic growth and the environment (CID Working Paper no. 56). Cambridge, MA: Center for International Development at Harvard University.Google Scholar
  49. Polemis, L. M., & Dagoumas, S. A. (2013). The electricity consumption and economic growth nexus: Evidence from Greece. Energy Policy, 62, 798–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Polemis, L. M., & Fotis, P. (2013). Do gasoline prices respond asymmetrically in the euro zone area? Evidence from cointegrated panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 56, 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richmond, A., & Kaufmann, R. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56, 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rodriguez, M., Pena-Boguete, Y., & Pardo-Fernardez, J. C. (2016). Revisiting environmental Kuznets curves through the energy price lens. Energy Policy, 95, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sephton, P., & Mann, J. (2013a). Threshold cointegration: Model selection with an application. Journal of Economics and Econometrics, 56(2), 54–77.Google Scholar
  54. Sephton, P., & Mann, J. (2013b). Further evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain. Energy Economics, 36, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sephton, P., & Mann, J. (2016). Compelling evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve in the United Kingdom. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(2), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shafik, N., Bandyopadhyay, S., 1992. Economic growth and environmental quality: Time series and cross section evidence (Working Papers for World Development Report 1992). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  57. Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T., & Ali, A. (2013). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soytas, U., & Sari, R. (2009). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions: Challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecological Economics, 68, 1667–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stern, D. I. (2004). The environmental Kuznets curve: A primer (Centre for Climate Economic & Policy Working Paper, 1404). Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  60. Wang, Y.-C. (2013). Functional sensitivity of testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Resource and Energy Economics, 35, 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang, Y., Zhang, C., Lu, A., Li, L., He, Y., Tojo, J., et al. (2017). A disaggregated Analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for industrial CO2 emissions in China. Applied Energy, 190, 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang, X., Lou, F., Sun, M., Wang, R., & Wang, Y. (2017). Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the environmental Kuznets curve. Applied Energy, 193, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaim, O., & Taskinm, F. (2000). A Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency: An application on OECD countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 17, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panagiotis Fotis
    • 1
  1. 1.Hellenic Competition CommissionPeristeriGreece

Personalised recommendations