Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development in OECD Countries: A Panel Data Analysis
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
The study investigated the hypothesis of the Environmental Kuznets’ Curve (EKC) in the selected 24 OECD countries using annual panel data from 1971 to 1916. The cointegration analysis of the variables found a cointegration among GDP, square of GDP, energy use, each in per capita terms and CO2 emissions. The Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square model results support the EKC hypothesis. Furthermore, the study also found a positive association between CO2 emissions and energy use per capita in the samples of 24 OECD countries. Therefore, for sustainable development, OECD countries need to aim for higher economic growth and development, improve the efficiency of energy production, usage, and consumption, and replace non-renewable energy with renewable energy sources. Alongside this, OECD nations should also have effective environmental regulations and efficient incentive systems and deploy sustainable and green technologies to lower CO2 emissions.
Introduction
Globally, pollution in its many forms—primarily from human economic activity—is becoming a greater danger to sustainable development. The rising emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2, are considered to be the principal cause of global warming and climate change. This is a major contributor to GHG emissions and is likely to cause significant disruptions to the climate, which will harm food production and, consequently, food security, particularly in less developed nations where agriculture is primarily dependent on rainfall due to an increase in the frequency of sparse and irregular rainfall.
The EKC hypothesis postulates that environmental degradation gradually improves at a certain point of economic growth but initially worsens as economic development happens. It bears the name Kuznets (1955) after the economist postulated such a connection between economic growth and income disparity. The EKC hypothesis states that there is a non-linear linkage between environmental quality and economic growth, which is commonly presented as an inverted U-shaped curve. Factors such as urbanisation, industrialisation, and increased use of natural resources are thought to lead to environmental degradation, which first increases as a country’s economy grows. After a threshold level of economic growth, it takes a downturn, resulting in an inverted U-shaped curve.
In this stage, resource depletion and increased pollution may result from prioritizing economic development over environmental concerns.
However, the theory predicts that environmental deterioration will start to decline as a nation reaches a particular level of prosperity or development. Numerous variables, including increased environmental awareness and regulation, technological innovation, and structural changes, might be blamed for this reduction.
The Environmental Kuznet’s Curve (EKC) theory attempts to explain why environmental quality will initially deteriorate with a rise in income and then improve beyond a certain income level. It has drawn the attention of researchers worldwide and suggests that the quality of a nation’s environment and economic growth have an inverse U-shaped relationship.
This change in the relationship between income and environmental degradation in the latter phases of economic development is explained by the theory that higher economic growth will raise environmental awareness and regulation. It will also promote increased spending on environmental preservation and increase the accessibility and adoption of clean technologies. According to Arrowet al. (1995), economies also shift from dirty rural to polluting industrial to, ultimately, reasonably clean service economies. Because of all of this, the ecosystem will not deteriorate as much.
Thus, there is a solid theoretical foundation for the inverted U-shaped relationships that exist between economic progress and the environment. Behavioral and structural factors promote this relationship. One behavioural aspect driving the demand for environmental services is income elasticity, which raises people’s willingness to pay for improved environmental services (Lekakis & Kousis, 2001; McConnell, 1997; Roca, 2003). The degree of economic activity, the output’s sectoral structure, and technological innovation are a few examples of structural pressures (Grossman & Krueger, 1995; Kaufmannet al., 1998). Factors supporting this association include patterns of international trade, industrial operations flow, family wealth distribution, and demographic concerns (Heenrinket al., 2001; Heil & Selden, 2001; Magnani, 2000; Shi, 2003).
The EKC hypothesis raises the possibility that, following a slow increase and peak in environmental degradation, economic growth and prosperity will continue sustainably. In other words, it makes the implausible prediction that increased income alone will create forces that will address environmental degradation, given the mounting evidence of global warming, consequent climate change, and the growing effects these changes are having on the global community. Raising income on its own, however, might not be enough; to stop environmental damage and advance sustainable development, it must be combined with other measures.
Many attempts have been made in the past to test the EKC hypothesis with panel data as well as time-series data, but the majority of these have methodological flaws. This is particularly true when using panel data for investigation, which frequently has cross-sectional dependence and is disregarded by researchers. Because they use CO2 emissions per capita rather than CO2 emissions as the dependent variable, several of these studies also fall short of conventional inquiry and, as a result, lose some of their credibility. Since environmental pollution is a stock rather than a flow variable, substantial environmental degradation is not always present in a nation or region with high CO2 emissions per person.
Therefore, this research investigates the environmental Kuznet’s curve hypothesis and its implications for sustainable development in OECD nations. It will use suitable econometric models to resolve the problem of cross-sectional dependence present in the panel data for reliably estimating the parameters of the econometric model.
Materials and Methods
In this study, the four variables used in log forms were the log of CO2 emissions (co2), the log of per capita real GDP (gdp), the square of the log of per capita real GDP (gdp2), and the log of per capita energy use (eu). The panel data for 24 OECD countries was balanced and collected from the World Bank Development Indicators between 1971 and 2016.
The econometric model to be estimated is specified below:
α0, α1, α2, α3 are four parameters and uit is the error term in the above equation.
The following is our expectation for the signs of the three parameters, β1, β2, and β3: α1 0, α2 0 and α3 0.
The EKC hypothesis will be validated if we find values of coefficients as, α1 0 and α2 0 while α3 0. This will also lead us to conclude that energy use per capita is positively related to CO2 emissions.
The data for each variable was gathered from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, which are available on their website ( www.worldbank.org). Below are the variables included, along with an explanation of each (Table I).
Variables | Description | Variable | Description |
---|---|---|---|
CO2 | CO2 emissions in Kt. | co2 | Natural log of CO2 |
GDPPC | GDP per capita (at a constant price of year 2010 USD) | gdp | Natural log of GDP |
(GDPPC)2 | Square of GDPPC | (gdp)2 | Square of gdp |
EUPC | Energy use Per Capita (kg of oil equivalent per capita) | eu | Energy use per capita |
Literature Review
There is much empirical literature on studying the environmental Kuznet’s curve (EKC). Plenty of empirical literature has attempted to test the EKC hypothesis by analysing time series and panel data covering different countries and regions.
Stern (1998) examined the advances in our understanding of the EKC, criticizing some of the scientific findings and the arguments put up by the policy literature to support them. He discovered that the accuracy of the econometric techniques used to analyse the correlations had increased. He came to the conclusion that there has not been any systematic testing of the numerous related hypotheses, and the empirical breakdowns of the EKC into direct or underlying causes are non-systematic and have a limited scope.
Between 1990 and 2011, Apergis and Ozturk (2015) looked into the EKC theory using the data on 14 Asian nations. They applied the GMM technique to analyse panel data. They found evidence in favour of an inverted U-shaped relationship between emissions and per capita income, supporting the EKC theory. Using panel data from 25 OECD countries, Mehdiet al. (2016) analysed the relationships between GDP and CO2 emissions per capita as well as non-renewable and renewable energy use between 1980 and 2010. Using both FMOLS and DOLS estimators, they found evidence supporting the EKC theory in the OECD countries.
Alam (2019) investigated how economic development affected India’s environmental quality. According to his research, CO2 emissions fall when per capita income rises as long as industrial value-added growth is stagnant. Sisay and Balázs (2020) examined the EKC theory for 12 East African countries from 1990 to 2013 using the Pooled Mean Group (PMG) technique. They confirmed the EKC theory by discovering a bell-shaped link between CO2 emissions and per capita income.
In their research, Onganet al. (2021) retested the environmental Kuznet’s curve theory for the United States. Two distinct time series showing increases and decreases were created from the per-capita income series, and only one series with income gains was used. In their cointegration technique, they applied the ARDL between 1990M1 and 2019M7. They argued that the empirical results of the undecomposed model are inconsistent with those of the decomposed model. They concluded that whereas the decomposed model substantially supported the EKC hypothesis in the US, the undecomposed model did not.
Holtz-Eakin and Selden (1995) looked at 130 nations between 1951 and 1986. They discovered proof that the EKC theory is correct. Coleet al. (1997) looked at seven different world regions between 1960 and 1991 and discovered evidence favouring the EKC. Schmalenseeet al. (1998) looked into 47 different countries between 1950 and 1990. Their research validated the EKC theory. Schmalenseeet al. (1998) examined data spanning 47 nations between 1950 and 1990. They discovered proof in favour of the EKC theory.
Agras and Chapman (1999) analysed the data of 34 Countries from 1971 to 1989. They discovered evidence in favour of the EKC. From 1971 to 1996, Galeotti and Lanza (1999) examined data from 110 different countries and discovered that the EKC theory was correct. Wanget al. (2011) analysed the data on Chinese provinces and found evidence in support of the EKC. Data from 148 countries were examined by Neumayer (2002) between 1960 and 1988. The evidence supported the EKC. Yanget al. (2015) examined information spanning 67 countries between 1971 and 2010. Their study also backed up the EKC. Other investigations by Halkos and Tsionas (2001), Richmond and Kaufmann (2006), Azomahouet al. (2006), Aslanidis and Iranzo (2009), Akbostanciet al. (2009), Villanthenkodathet al. (2021), Aruga (2019), and Ganda (2023) do not support the EKC theory.
Most prior empirical studies found evidence supporting the inverted U-shaped association between GDP per capita and CO2 emissions, which are used to measure a nation’s environmental state. However, the review of the empirical literature above shows that researchers continue to differ on the nature of the relationships between income growth and CO2 emissions as a measure of environmental degradation.
Results
Unit Root Test
We used four types of unit root tests (Breitung, 2000; Imet al., 2003; Levinet al., 2002); Fisher tests using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Peron tests (Choi, 2001; Maddala & Wu, 1999) for analysing the properties of the included variables. The results of these unit root tests are presented in the table below. The results show that variables co2, gdp, gdp2, and eu are I(0) in the first difference form, but I(0) in the level. Hence, we find that none of these variables in the level form is integrated of an order higher than 1 (Table II).
Level | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Method | co2 | gdp | (gdp)2 | eu |
LLC | −5.3506* (0.0000) | −5.2738* (0.0000) | −4.6567* (0.0000) | −5.0567* (0.0000) |
IPS | −0.9796 (0.1636) | 1.6635 (0.9519) | 2.2235 (0.9869) | −1.2209 (0.1111) |
ADF-FS | 65.3286** (0.0487) | 44.8391 (0.6031) | 38.8406 (0.8245) | 60.4684 (0.1069) |
PP-FS | 86.0468* (0.0006) | 84.2362* (0.0010) | 72.9686 ** (0.0116) | 83.3598* (0.0012) |
First Difference | ||||
Method | D(co2) | D(gdp) | D(gdp2 ) | D(eu) |
LLC | −15.9959* (0.0000) | −13.7614* (0.0000) | −13.7849* (0.0000) | −11.8563* (0.0000) |
IPS | −17.4289* (0.0000) | −14.5552* (0.0000) | −14.4756* (0.0000) | −16.9424* (0.0000) |
ADF-FS | 374.6220* (0.0000) | 301.8750* (0.0000) | 299.9950* (0.0000) | 362.2020* (0.0000) |
PP-FS | 644.2030* (0.0000) | 358.7820* (0.0000) | 359.2170* (0.0000) | 618.4920* (0.0000) |
The first-generation unit root tests are no longer viable in the presence of cross-sectional dependence. Previous empirical investigations that have analysed panel data have ignored this issue and simply employed Pedroni (2001)’s panel co-integration test. The cross-sectional dependence test must be employed in addition to the second-generation unit root and cointegration tests to confirm the findings of the first-generation unit root tests. At the 1% significance level, the four cross-sectional dependence tests reject the null hypothesis that no cross-sectional dependency exists in any of the four variables. The table below illustrates that each of the four-panel variables is cross-sectionally dependent, necessitating the application of the second-generation unit root and co-integration tests (see Table III).
Test | co2 | gdp | gdp2 | eu |
---|---|---|---|---|
Breusch-Pagan LM | 5677.9110* (0.0000) | 11249.5000* (0.0000) | 11237.4600* (0.0000) | 6142.0790* (0.0000) |
Pesaran scaled LM | 229.9206* (0.0000) | 467.0632* (0.0000) | 466.5506* (0.0000) | 249.6769* (0.0000) |
Bias-corrected scaled LM | 229.6479* (0.0000) | 466.7904* (0.0000) | 466.2778* (0.0000) | 249.4042* (0.0000) |
Pesaran CD | 26.4678* (0.0000) | 105.9595* (0.0000) | 105.8990* (0.0000) | 51.5280* (0.0000) |
We used the Pesaran (2007) CIPS stationary test to account for the cross-sectional dependence in a heterogeneous panel. The CIPS test does not reject the alternative hypothesis of heterogeneity and stationarity as it rejects the null that each variable is homogeneous and non-stationary.
We then used Pesaran (2007)’s CADF test, a t-test for the panel unit root with cross-sectional dependence in heterogeneous panels. Under the null hypothesis for the CADF test, all series are assumed to be non-stationary.
The Pesaran (2007) CIPS test allows an unobserved common factor with variable factor loadings in the data, and the autoregressive coefficient of the Dickey-Fuller (DF) regression may be heterogeneous. The test statistic is obtained using DF or ADF regressions that are particular to each panel member. These regressions employ the CADF regression model and the cross-sectional averages of both independent and dependent variables. The test protocols described by Imet al. (2003) are used to average the data particular to each group. There is a non-standard distribution in the test statistic under the null.
The second-generation unit root test results of each variable are shown in the following table. The CIPS and CADF test results show that co2, gdp, gdp2, and eu are all I(1) series (see Table IV).
Variable | CIPS-Test | t-bar value of CADF-Test |
---|---|---|
co2 | −1.881 | −1.604 |
gdp | −2.036 | −1.866 |
gdp2 | −2.025 | −1.887 |
eu | −2.282 | −1.626 |
D(co2) | –5.983* | –3.470* |
D(gdp) | –4.465* | –3.089* |
D(gdp2) | –4.539* | –3.093* |
D(eu) | –5.914* | –3.548* |
Cointegration Test
Pedroni (1999, 2001)’s test of cointegration uses four different panel statistics (v-Statistic, PP-Statistic, rho-Statistic, and ADF-Statistic) and three different group statistics (PP-Statistic, rho-Statistic, and ADF-Statistic). Each panel statistic rejects the null hypothesis of no cointegration in the variables. Additionally, at a 1% significance, one of the three group statistics rejects the null hypothesis (Table V).
Panel statistic | Value | Group statistic | Value |
---|---|---|---|
v-Statistic | 1.887232** (0.0296) | ||
rho-Statistic | −2.345281* (0.0095) | rho-Statistic | −0.643501 (0.2599) |
ADF-Statistic | −1.966208** (0.0246) | ADF-Statistic | −0.728868 (0.2330) |
PP-Statistic | −3.649726* (0.0001) | PP-Statistic | −2.845690* (0.0022) |
However, we further employ the second cointegration test (Westerlund, 2007) due to the problem of cross-sectional dependence. Westerlund suggests the second-generation cointegration test to account for cross-sectional dependence in the variables when the panel data demonstrate such dependence.
This cointegration test aims to ascertain if each panel variable is error-correcting. Four different types of statistics, Gt, Ga, Pt, and Pa are used under the null of no cointegration. While the Pt and Pa test statistics provide evidence for cointegration throughout the panel, the Gt and Ga test statistics reject H0, showing cointegration in at least one cross-sectional unit.
The statistical significance of the Z-values for the statistic Gt, Ga, Pt, and Pa is 5%, 1%, 10%, and 1%, respectively. Thus, these test statistics reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration (Table VI).
Statistic | Value | Z-value | P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Gt | −2.558 | −1.685 | 0.046** |
Ga | −17.764 | −4.734 | 0.000* |
Pt | −10.801 | −1.317 | 0.094*** |
Pa | −16.537 | −6.781 | 0.000* |
Westerlund’s cointegration test suggests that the four variables co2, gdp, gdp2 and eu are cointegrated.
Cointegrating Regression
Since the four variables are found to be cointegrated, we estimate the cointegrating regression as specified in (1) with the panel Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares model taking co2 as the dependent variable and gdp, gdp2, and eu as explanatory variables. The table below reports the results of the panel FMOLS. As anticipated, the model parameters with estimated values of α1 = 0.8156, α2 = −0.0933, and α3 = 1.6271 are all statistically significant at 1% and α1 > 0, α2 < 0, and α3 > 0 (Table VII).
Variables | Coefficients | t-Statistic | Prob. |
---|---|---|---|
gdp | 0.8156 | 93.7606* | 0.0000 |
gdp2 | −0.0933 | −230.1115* | 0.0000 |
eu | 1.6271 | 165.1307* | 0.0000 |
R-squared | 0.1832 | ||
Adjusted R-squared | 0.1816 | ||
Jarque-Bera | 3.1224 (0.2098) |
Discussion
The results of the OECD countries that were sampled corroborate the EKC hypothesis. The findings also show a positive correlation between energy usage and CO2 emissions in the sampled OECD countries. Thus, the study finds evidence supporting energy consumption-led environmental degradation in the OECD countries.
Consistent with several prior empirical investigations (Galeottiet al., 2006; Mehdiet al., 2016; Moomaw & Unruh, 1997; Pauli, 2003), our panel data analysis of OECD countries furnishes evidence that supports the EKC hypothesis among the OECD nations. However, the inverted U-shaped or bell-shaped relationship between income per capita and CO2 emissions is conditional upon keeping the per capita energy consumption level constant. Therefore, to reduce CO2 emissions and improve environmental quality, relying solely on economic expansion and raising per capita income will likely be fruitless in the fight against environmental deterioration.
Thus, to achieve sustainable development, OECD nations should prioritize efficient energy production, usage, and consumption and implement economic policies that raise income and spur economic growth. Additionally, to combat environmental degradation, the OECD countries must either directly reduce CO2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency, reducing the amount of non-renewable energy, particularly fossil fuels, and increasing the amount of clean energy used overall, or indirectly through the implementation of appropriate environmental regulations, efficient incentive programs, and the adoption of sustainable or green technology to realize an inverted U-shaped environmental Kuznet’s curve and, consequently, sustainable development.
Conclusion
We analysed the balanced panel data of 24 OECD countries between 1971 and 2016. The four variables included in the study and expressed in logarithms, were CO2 emissions, GDP per capita, GDP per capita squared, and energy use per capita. For every panel variable, we conducted a cross-sectional dependence test. Panel variables were determined to be cross-sectionally dependent by the cross-sectional dependence test. As a result, we used both the first-generation unit root test, which ignored the variables’ cross-sectional dependence, and the second-generation unit root test, which took it into consideration. The panel unit root test indicates that the variables are either integrated of order 0 or 1.
The first-generation cointegration test ignores cross-sectional dependency among the variables, while the second-generation cointegration test takes cross-sectional dependence in the panel data into consideration. These tests’ outcomes support the reliability of the regression model we employed to examine the connections between the four cointegrated variables.
Ceteris paribus, the EKC theory predicts a bell-shaped or an inverted U-shaped correlation between income per capita and CO2 emissions, which is supported by the panel Fully Modified OLS model cointegrating regression results. Furthermore, energy use per capita and CO2 emissions have a strong positive correlation. Thus, the OECD countries should implement economic policies to raise per capita income and economic growth and enhance energy consumption efficiency to reduce environmental degradation and achieve sustainable development. To lower CO2 emissions and slow down environmental deterioration, OECD nations should also concentrate on improving energy production, use, and consumption efficiency. This can be achieved by replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. OECD nations should also implement environmental regulations, strong incentive programs, and other measures to minimize CO2 emissions to follow the path of sustainable growth and development.
References
-
Agras, J., & Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00040-8.
Google Scholar
1
-
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(3), 861–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.088.
Google Scholar
2
-
Alam, F. (2019). Economic development and CO2 emissions in India. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 8(9), 558–573. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v8n9-04.pdf .
Google Scholar
3
-
Apergis, N., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Testing environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026.
Google Scholar
4
-
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C. S., Jansson, B. -O., Levin, S., Mäler, K. -G., Perrings, C., Pimentel, D. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics, 15(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00059-3.
Google Scholar
5
-
Aruga, K. (2019). Investigating the energy-environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for the Asia-Pacific region. Sustainability, 11(8), 2395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082395.
Google Scholar
6
-
Aslanidis, N., & Iranzo, S. (2009). Environment and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions? Applied Economics, 41(6), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840601018994.
Google Scholar
7
-
Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., & Van, P. N. (2006). Economic development and CO2 emissions: A non-parametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6–7), 1347–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.005.
Google Scholar
8
-
Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Advances in econometrics, volume 15: Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 161–178). JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0731-9053(00)15006-6.
Google Scholar
9
-
Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6.
Google Scholar
10
-
Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J., & Bates, J. M. (1997). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: An empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X97000211.
Google Scholar
11
-
Galeotti, M., & Lanza, A. (1999). Richer and cleaner? A study on carbon dioxide emissions by developing countries. Energy Policy, 27(10), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00047-6.
Google Scholar
12
-
Galeotti, M., Lanza, A., & Pauli, F. (2006). Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A robustness exercise. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.031.
Google Scholar
13
-
Ganda, F. (2023). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in South Africa using the ARDL approach. Natural Resourses Forum (Early View), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12377.
Google Scholar
14
-
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–378. http://pinguet.free.fr/grossmankrueger95.pdf .
Google Scholar
15
-
Halkos, G. E., & Tsionas, E. G. (2001). Environmental Kuznets curves: Bayesian evidence from switching regime models. Energy Economics, 23(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00063-3.
Google Scholar
16
-
Heenrink, N., Mulatu, A., & Bulte, E. (2001). Income inequality and the environment: Aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00171-9.
Google Scholar
17
-
Heil, M., & Selden, T. M. (2001). International trade intensity and carbon emissions: A cross-country econometric analysis. Journal of Environment and Development, 10(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/107049650101000103.
Google Scholar
18
-
Holtz-Eakin, D., & Selden, T. M. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(94)01449-X.
Google Scholar
19
-
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7.
Google Scholar
20
-
Kaufmann, R. K., Davidsdottir, B., Garnham, S., & Pauly, P. (1998). The determinants of atmospheric SO2 concentra- tions: Reconsidering the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0921-8009(97)00181-X.
Google Scholar
21
-
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28. http://piketty.pse. ens.fr/files/Kuznets1955.pdf .
Google Scholar
22
-
Lekakis, J. N., & Kousis, M. (2001). Demand for and supply of environmental quality in the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, 8(3), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850150504531.
Google Scholar
23
-
Levin, A., Lin, C. -F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
Google Scholar
24
-
Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and cointegration tests. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631.
Google Scholar
25
-
Magnani, E. (2000). The environmental Kuznets curve, environmental protection policy, environmental policy, and income distribution. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00115-9.
Google Scholar
26
-
McConnell, K. (1997). Income and the demand for environmental quality. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 383– 399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X9700020X.
Google Scholar
27
-
Mehdi, B. J., Slim, B. Y., & Ilhan, O. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non- renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2015.08.031.
Google Scholar
28
-
Moomaw, W. R., & Unruh, G. C. (1997). Are environmental Kuznets curves misleading us? The case of CO2 emissions. Environment & Development Economics, 2(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X97000247.
Google Scholar
29
-
Neumayer, E. (2002). Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy, 30(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00045-3.
Google Scholar
30
-
Ongan, S., Isik, S., & Ozdemir, D. (2021). Economic growth and environmental degradation: Evidence from the US case environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis with application of decomposition. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1756419.
Google Scholar
31
-
Pauli, F. (2003). Environmental Kuznets curve investigation using a varying coefficient AR model. In EEE working papers series no. 12. University of Trieste. Available at: http://users.ictp.it/~eee/files/WP12_Pauli.pdf .
Google Scholar
32
-
Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(s1), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653.
Google Scholar
33
-
Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803.
Google Scholar
34
-
Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
Google Scholar
35
-
Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.011.
Google Scholar
36
-
Roca, J. (2003). Do individual preferences explain the environmental Kuznets curve? Ecological Economics, 45(1), 3–10. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00263-X.
Google Scholar
37
-
Schmalensee, R., Stoker, T. M., & Judson, R. A. (1998). World carbon dioxide emissions: 1950-2050. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557294.
Google Scholar
38
-
Shi, A. (2003). The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: Evidence from pooled cross- country data. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00223-9.
Google Scholar
39
-
Sisay, D., & Balázs, K. (2020). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: An empirical study for East African countries. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 77(4), 636–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1695445.
Google Scholar
40
-
Stern, D. (1998). Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economics, 3(2), 173–196. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X98000102.
Google Scholar
41
-
Villanthenkodath, M. A., Gupta, M., & Saini, S. (2021). Impact of economic structure on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis in India. Economic Structures, 10(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-021-00259-z.
Google Scholar
42
-
Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P., & Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4870–4875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.032.
Google Scholar
43
-
Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x.
Google Scholar
44
-
Yang, G., Sun, T., Wang, J., & Li, X. (2015). Modelling the nexus between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 86, 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.031.
Google Scholar
45