Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Impact of Using a Smart Thermostat and Smart Meter Data on a Whole-Building Energy Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
New Insight into the Depositional Age of No. 6 Coal in Heidaigou Mine, Late Paleozoic Jungar Coalfield, Inner Mongolia, China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Relationships among Financial Development, Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Carbon Emissions by Co-Integration with Multiple Structural Breaks

by
Umut Burak Geyikci
1,*,
Serkan Çınar
2 and
Fatih Mehmet Sancak
3
1
Faculty of Business, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45140 Manisa, Turkey
2
Faculty of Applied Science, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45140 Manisa, Turkey
3
Dikkan Group Companies, 35170 Kemalpaşa, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6298; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106298
Submission received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 27 April 2022 / Accepted: 18 May 2022 / Published: 21 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability)

Abstract

:
In this study, the effects of financial and economic development on energy consumption and CO2 emissions are analyzed using multiple structural breaks, second-generation panel unit root tests, the Westerlund Cointegration Test, and PMG and MG estimators. Unlike classical studies, financial development is included, in the analysis, as an indicator of the accumulated capital as a result of industrial production that has been realized for many years. We conducted a panel data analysis on 13 developing countries for which we could obtain uninterrupted data in the Morgan Stanley Developing Countries index. We found significant relationships between economic growth, energy usage, and CO2 emissions. Financial development and carbon emissions are cointegrated in the long-term, and financial development is found to accelerate environmental pollution. Therefore, energy economists should consider the effect of financial development on energy use and carbon emissions in future studies. Policy-makers in emerging markets are also advised to take necessary actions to reduce carbon emissions while increasing financial development. It is important that the same results were obtained in medium- and small-scale countries, as well as in large economies (e.g., China) under the scope of this review.

1. Introduction

Since the study of John Kraft and Arthur Kraft [1], studies focused on the relationships among energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth have attained remarkable numbers. A significant part of the economic development of developed countries is based on production. However, an increase in production brings with it the problem of increasing energy consumption and carbon emissions. Especially after the 1980s, the release of greenhouse gases has begun to have a significant impact on human life and the livable environment, triggering global warming and starting irreversible damage.
The United Nations, the largest organization in the world, brought the issue to the attention of the Rio conference in 1992 with the “bilateral amendment environmental contract” and, in 1997, the Kyoto protocol was opened for signing. After the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, until the year 2012, developed countries committed to decrease their carbon emissions to the level before the year of 1990. The fact that developing countries have not been included in the Kyoto protocol, which has been signed by 55 developed countries in total, has become an important problem over the short time since then.
In developing countries, production-associated CO2 emissions have increased continuously. For example, from 1990 to 2014, the total carbon emissions in the U.S. increased by 142%, compared to 439% in India and 1206% in China [2].
Developed countries have a significant global share in terms of the total energy demand and CO2 emissions. However, the efforts of developed countries in promoting clean energy have begun to yield results, although they are more costly. The fact that developing countries prefer fossil fuels, which are cheaper, makes the problem of their CO2 emissions much more important than ever. Similarly, uncertainties should be taken into account in the design of energy markets. A sustainable energy supply is at least as important as a clean energy supply. T Correct energy demand predictions will serve to guarantee that procurement, investment, and policy decisions are made correctly [3].
The relationship between energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the study of economic development and market capitalization has included measurement through panel data analysis. Financial development is the most important indicator of the general economic situation of countries. As financial development is an important source of information on the amount and quality of funds that can be invested, the outcomes achieved in the study will contribute to the policy created, by responding to the levels of energy consumption and CO2 emissions associated with economic and financial development. The impact of financial development in developing countries on their energy use and CO2 emissions has not yet been adequately examined in the literature. For this reason, while analyzing the relationships among energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic development, financial development is added into the equation. We attempt to determine the relationship between financial development, economic growth, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption through conducting panel data analysis considering 13 developing countries.
This study, unlike the existing literature, attempts to analyze the environmental effects of financial development, which is a result of capital accumulation for all developing countries whose data is accessible. Moreover, we aim to contribute to the literature with the motivation of obtaining strong and efficient econometric results through conducting panel data analysis in countries with similar economic structures. To achieve the stated objectives, taking into account the cross-sectional dependence problem, heteroskedasticity, serial correlation, and multi-structural breaks, we employ the second-generation panel unit root test, Westerlund Cointegration Test, and PMG-MG estimators.
This study was carried out considering 13 countries for which uninterrupted data could be obtained from the Morgan Stanley developing countries index in the years between 1993 and 2018. Our main aim was to determine whether the developing countries have created carbon emissions parallel to their increasing financial development and economic growth.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows: In Section 2, we provide an empirical literature review. In Section 3, we present our econometric model and the used data set. Section 4 details our empirical results and findings. Finally, Section 5 provides policy implications and our conclusions.

2. Literature Review

Thus far, numerous studies have examined the relationships between financial development, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions. Each of these studies had different focuses. However, their main focus has been the affiliation of GDP to energy consumption or CO2 emissions as indicators of economic development. In a study considering developed countries, Stern [4] concluded that, in the post-war period in the USA, the GDP and energy use relationship showed linear cointegration between the two variables. In [5], it was found that variables such as long-term energy use and economic development were cointegrated with each other in Canada. In a similar manner, ref. [6] in the G7 countries, Stavros [7] in the U.S., ref. [8] in the U.S., ref. [9] in Europe, ref. [10] in Switzerland, and ref. [11] in Canada, Italy, the U.S., the U.K., and France, have decided that linear relationships exist between economic development and energy consumption. From the studies evaluated (both those concerned with developed and developing countries) [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], linear relationships have been observed among energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic advancement.
As for studies in which only developing countries were evaluated, ref. [20] observed a relationship between energy consumption, urbanization, and growth for the period from 1971 to 2014 in emerging markets. In [21], it was stated that renewable energy use had a beneficial and remarkable effect in 42 developing countries throughout the period covering 2002 to 2011, whereas non-renewable energy use had an adverse effect on the development; ref. [22] found a remarkable beneficial relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions; ref. [23] found a palpable positive effect between energy use and electricity consumption with the CO2 emissions of Algeria in the period 1970–2010; and ref. [24] found significant relationships among the factors of economic development, pollutant emissions, and energy use in South Africa between 1965–2006. On the other hand, ref. [25] observed no relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions. Their study showed that CO2 emissions are not sensitive to the average growth rate. In [26], it was found that, in the early stages of the economic development, CO2 emissions rise while, after the average income of a country reaches a certain economic level, CO2 emissions begin to decrease.
While the studies conducted were generally based on similar relationships, ref. [27] stated that the financial variables used in a study may also have an influence on the energy use and CO2 emissions.
Some studies have investigated CO2 emissions and economic growth, from the point of view of the potential for investment in the energy market (see, e.g., [28,29,30,31,32]); however, in this study, we did not consider this subject, in order not to digress from our main subject and to show the effects of the variables mentioned more clearly.
Monetary growth has an influence on both energy consumption and CO2 emissions, which may be evaluated as a summary of total savings and investments in the country. These effects can be summarized as follows: first, the strength of the financial structure leads to higher resource accumulation within the country. Secondly, more resources can finance investments more easily, leading to new investments. Third, foreigners who see the strong financial system in the country increase their demand to the country, as both financial fund transfer and direct investments. In conclusion, both financial and economic advancement will lead to the growth of various sectors, which may cause an escalation in CO2 emissions in relation to the energy required and the use of energy.
Starting with [27], there have been a few studies in the literature examining the affiliation between energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions, as well as financial development. For instance, ref. [33] discovered a beneficial and significant affiliation between all these concepts in 22 developing countries through panel data analysis in the period of 1990–2006. In [34], a positive affiliation was also discovered, in which the author used banking variables in nine European frontier economies in the period of 1996–2006. Likewise, ref. [35] concluded that monetary growth had a remarkable effect on energy consumption during 1972–2012 in Pakistan. Meanwhile, ref. [36] observed long-term relationships among energy use, financial development, CO2 emissions, and real GDP through an ARDL bound test in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries for 1980–2011. In [37], the relationships between energy use and CO2 emissions with GDP Growth and financial development of Sub Saharan African Countries were investigated through panel data analysis. They found a significant effect of energy consumption on economic growth and financial development between 1980 and 2008. The authors in [38] found long-term co-integration among energy use, economic growth, and financial development; moreover, in contrast to previous studies, financial development reduced energy use by increasing energy efficiency in Malaysia. In [39], the relationships between financial development and energy use in 27 EU countries were investigated, and no significant relationships were found. Furthermore, ref. [40] stated that, between the period of 1992–2004, economic and financial development have had a decreasing effect on CO2 emissions in BRIC countries. In [41], it was stated that economic development and financial development have a mitigating effect on CO2 emissions, based on data from 1954 to 2006 in China. In other words, as economic development and financial development increase, CO2 emissions decrease.

3. Materials and Methods

The aim of this study is to examine the relationships between energy use, CO2 emissions, market capitalization, and economic development by means of a panel data set considering thirteen developing countries.
G D P t = β 1 + β 2 G D P t 1 + β 3 E U t + β 4 C O 2 t + β 5 M C A P t + ε t
In Equation (1):
GDP: Gross domestic product (Constant 2015 US$) is a robust indicator of economic development, widely used as a sign of whether an economy is performing well in the literature; for instance, see [42,43,44].
EU: Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita) is the most-used gauge in the literature; see, for example, [45,46,47].
CO2: CO2 emissions (kg per 2015 US$ of GDP) represent pollution in the environment; see [48,49,50].
MCAP: Market capitalization of listed domestic companies (% of GDP) reflects financial accumulation and development; see [51,52,53].
With the aim of analyzing the relationships between long-run economic growth, energy use, CO2 emissions, and market capitalization, and utilizing yearly data taken from the WDI of World Bank (WB), we investigate these indicators in thirteen developing countries (Chile, Czech Rep., Indonesia, Korea Rep., Mexico, Malaysia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey) over the period 1993–2018.

3.1. Econometric Methodology

The analysis model is based on the dynamic framework and was used to analyze the relationships between long-run financial, economic development, energy usage, and CO2 emissions. First, the LM test statistics of [54,55,56] were calculated to measure the cross-sectional dependence, followed by panel unit root tests, including the LLC test; IPS test; CIPS test; and the HK test [57,58,59,60]. Then, panel cointegration analysis based on [61] was applied, after which we established long-run coefficients through application of the method in [62].

3.2. Testing for Cross-Section Dependence

The importance of cross-section correlations of residuals were scrutinized throughout the study. The related test was executed by means of LM test statistics [55,56,57]. Taking the sum of squared correlation coefficients among the cross-section residuals (ûit), attained by means of ordinary least squares [55], the LM test statistic CDLM1 can be calculated as:
C D L M 1 = i = 1 N 1 j = i + 1 N ρ ^ i j 2
where ρ ^ i j corresponds to the sample estimate of the cross-section correlation among residuals. Under the null hypothesis of no cross-section correlations, fixed N, and T→α, the CDLM1 statistic is presents a χ2 distribution with N(N − 1)/2 degrees of freedom.
The test statistic CDLM2 is calculated as follows:
C D L M 2 = 1 N ( N 1 ) i = 1 N 1 j = i + 1 N ( T ρ ^ i j 2 1 ) .
As can be seen from the above, under the null hypothesis of no cross-section correlations with first T→α and then N→α, the Pesaran (2004) test statistic (CDLM2) is asymptotically distributed as a standard normal distribution.
The consistency of the bias-adjusted LM test (CDLMADJ) of cross-section independence continues even simultaneously with the inconsistency of Pesaran’s (2004) CDLM test. Nevertheless, the legitimate power of the test LM is valid only in small sample panels. If we presume that, under the null hypothesis of no cross-section correlation with first T→α and then N→α, then the test statistic CDLMADJ would be demonstrated as follows:
L M a d j = 2 N ( N 1 )     i = 1 N 1 j = i + 1 N ( T k ) ρ ^ i j 2 μ T i j v T i j   .

3.3. Co-Integration Test

Founded on the null hypothesis of co-integration, which grants the likelihood of multi-structural breaks in not only the level, but also the trend of a co-integrated panel regression, the test in [61] requires the co-integration of variables when they are non-stationary. For this purpose, an empirical specification of our theoretical model is given below:
S i t = i j + τ i j t + β i ( M i t ) + ω i t ,
where βi, are slope variables of country specific that are supposed to be constant in the time period. i j is intercept variables of country specific. τij is trend variables of country specific. Mi is structural breaks. The errors ( ω i t ) is calculated as follows:
ω i t = g i t + ε i t ,
g i t = g i t 1 + ρ i ε i t ,
where εit has zero conditional mean. The errors are determined to stationary distribution with independent across i. The εit is supposed to be stationary distribution that has the possibility of being not only heteroskedastic, but also serially correlated.

3.4. Long-Run Coefficients

With the aim of calculating the long-run equation [63], the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model was applied.
The sample ARDL model is given as:
y i t = α i + φ i y i , t 1 + γ i X i t + δ i z t + u i t ,
for i = 1, 2, …, N, t = 1, 2, …, T, where xit is k × I vector variables of agent-specific forcing and zt is a vector variables of common forcing.
In this model, short- or long-run homogeneity-related variables are not allowed, due to the estimators, such as the Mean Group estimator (MG). In this paper, a panel ARDL model was used with the aim of dealing with the disadvantages of the individual ARDL models, which was calculated using the Pooled Mean Group estimator (PMG). Both of these estimators were proposed in [63]. The first sets no restriction on the long-run parameters of Autoregressive Distributed Lag specifications and derives from the individual Autoregressive Distributed Lag estimates. However, the main disadvantage of ARDL estimator is that no certain parameters are allowed to exist in the same cross-panel members. This disadvantage may be overcome by using PMG, which require to be same of the dynamic parameters. The estimator allows short-run variables, intercepts, error variances to differ separately across panel countries. In this way, short-term heterogeneity is allowed with long-term homogeneity of variables in the panel ARDL model.
In the model, which enables differences between alternative estimator specifications, tests of long-run parameter homogeneity can be executed both on their own and together. Nevertheless, it has been emphasized [61] that, in the case of panel data studies, MG and PMG estimators tend to reject excessively the homogeneity hypothesis. For this reason, the test proposed in [63] was used in this study for long-run homogeneity.

4. Empirical Findings

First, the importance of the cross-section correlations among residuals were scrutinized. In Table 1, the statistics and their corresponding probabilities are provided.
According to the CDLM1, CDLM2, and CDLMADJ tests, the correlations among cross-sectional residuals were of great significance. Therefore, while measuring the stationarity of the series, cross-sectional dependence was allowed and panel root tests were utilized, such as the Levin, Lin, and Chu (LLC); Im, Pesaran, and Shin (IPS); Cross-Sectionally Augmented IPS (CIPS); and Hadri-Kurozumi (HK) tests [57,58,59,60].
In Table 2, upon scrutiny, each of the variables seemed to be stationary, especially the intercept and trend. Our findings, therefore, suggest that non-stationarity cannot be rejected.
With the aim of testing the null hypothesis of co-integration, the co-integration method of [61] is equivalent to testing H0: σi2 = 0 for all i against H1: σi2 > 0 for some i.
In Table 3, it is suggested that the null hypothesis of co-integration is heavily repudiated for the no break-model and asymptotic normal distribution. Nevertheless, as incorrect exclusions of structural breaks may cause this type of test to be biased towards co-integration, the results above need to be approached carefully. The break-model, which can be interpreted to be the null hypothesis of co-integration is, at the same time, incapable of refusing an asymptomatic normal distribution. In fact, allowing both structural shifts and cross-country dependence would result in the fact that the null hypothesis of co-integration cannot be rejected at the 10% level for the bootstrapped distribution. This result implies that the variables were, in fact co-integrated, which can be clearly seen in the model.
In Table 4 below, the implications of the alternative estimates for the relationships between GDP, energy use, CO2 emissions, and market capitalization can be seen, while imposing no restrictions; as well as those with PMG, imposing common long-run effects that constrain all of the slope coefficients and error variances to be same [62].
The presence of co-integration between the variables is indicated in Table 4. The negative and significant error correction coefficient indicates that there is the adjustment towards equilibrium between the variables and economic growth.
These results are from ARDL (2, 2, 2), where the corresponding lags for real income, interest rate, and exchange rate are shown in the brackets, respectively, using the Akaike information criterion as a guide.
The Hausman Test results approve the use of consistent and efficient Pooled Mean Group Estimator at the 1% significance level. Due to this fact, utilizing the Pooled Mean Group estimator seems to be more applicable, when compared to the Mean Group estimator. The results of the diagnostic test indicated the absence of any autocorrelations or heteroscedasticity in the individual equations.

5. Policy Implications and Conclusions

In the literature, econometric analyses of the effects of economic development on CO2 emissions and environmental pollution started to gain popularity in the 1990s. However, econometric studies on the relationships between classical factors, such as economic indicators, technological developments, and political factors, as well as environmental factors such as CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption, need to be further advanced. New factors may help to find new relationships to achieve a more livable and sustainable environment. At this point, the effect of financial development, strengthened by the capital accumulated over decades, on CO2 emissions has been barely studied in the literature. Therefore, as in classical studies, on one hand, the effects of economic development on CO2 emissions were measured while, on the other hand, the effects of financial development on CO2 emissions were also measured.
We attempted to determine the relationships between financial development, economic growth, CO2, emissions and energy consumption in this paper. We conducted panel data analysis considering 13 emerging countries for which we could obtain uninterrupted data in the Morgan Stanley Developing Countries index.
In the course of the study, first, the LM test statistics of [54,55,56] were applied to estimate the cross-sectional dependence. Following these tests, panel unit root tests—LLC, IPS, CIPS, and HK [57,58,59,60]—were applied. Then, panel co-integration analyses were executed based on the method of [61] and, as the last step, long-run coefficients were obtained using the method of [62].
We tried to determine the relationships between financial development, economic growth, energy use, and CO2 emissions. In order to reach our goal, we carried out long-term co-integration analysis. In the related literature, there have been different results on this issue.
1. 
When we measured the effects of economic development on CO2 emissions, contrary to [25,26,41], we observed significant relationships between economic growth, energy usage, and CO2 emissions, similar to [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,34].
2. 
When the analysis results were examined, in terms of the effects of financial development on carbon emissions, contrary to the results obtained by scholars such as [38,40], we found that the variables were co-integrated in the long-term, in agreement with previous studies such as [33,34,35,36,37].
3. 
As a result of the specified findings, we primarily demonstrated that financial growth has a significant effect, along with economic development, on energy use and carbon emissions. Therefore, energy economists should consider the influence of financial development on these factors in the future studies.
4. 
The findings of our analysis demonstrated a positive sign for the coefficient between financial development and economic growth, implying that these concepts are realized with a high risk of environmental pollution. Moreover, the analysis revealed that financial development in particular accelerates the environmental pollution rate. The fact that carbon emissions are determined by financial development and economic growth is also another finding of the analysis. Therefore, policy-makers in emerging markets should take the required steps to reduce carbon emissions while increasing financial development.
We recommend policy makers consider the results of this study in the decision-making. On one hand, the energy consumption that will be caused through development of the financial structure must be met through the use of cleaner energy sources with fewer carbon emissions; on the other hand, measures should be taken to reduce existing carbon emissions.
As a result, similar studies should be conducted, based on long-term data with a higher number of developing countries. We believe that researchers should focus on the issues that arose in this study in future studies, such that the results obtained will have an even stronger effect on policy-makers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, U.B.G. and F.M.S.; methodology, S.Ç.; writing—original draft preparation, U.B.G. and F.M.S. writing—review and editing, U.B.G. and S.Ç. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in OPENICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/E165901V1 (accessed on 20 March 2022), reference number [165901].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. John, K.; Arthur, K. On the relationship between energy and GNP. J. Energy Dev. 1978, 3, 401–403. [Google Scholar]
  2. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.GF.KT?view=chart (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  3. Scheben, H.; Klempp, N.; Hufendiek, K. Impact of Long-Term Water Inflow Uncertainty on Wholesale Electricity Prices in Markets with High Shares of Renewable Energies and Storages. Energies 2020, 13, 2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stern, D.I. A multivare cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy. Energy Econ. 2000, 22, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ghali, K.H.; El-Sakka, M.I. Energy use and output grwoth in Canada: A multivare cointegration analysis. Energy Econ. 2004, 26, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bildirici, M.E.; Gökmenoğlu, S.M. Environmental pollution, hydropower energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from G7 countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 68–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kourtzidis, S.A.; Tzeremes, P.; Tzeremes, N.G. Re-evaluating the energy consumption-ecenomic growth nexus for the United States: An asymmetric threshold cointegration analysis. Energy 2018, 148, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E. Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Econ. 2009, 31, 211.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E. Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 392.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baranzini, A.; Weber, S.; Bareit, M.; Mathys, N.A. The causal relationship between energy use and economic growth in Switzerland. Energy Econ. 2010, 36, 64.e70. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cai, Y.; Sam, C.Y.; Chang, T. Nexus between clean energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 1001–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gozgor, G.; Lau, C.K.M.; Lu, Z. Energy consumption and economic growth: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy 2018, 153, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Amri, F. Carbon Dioxide Emission, Output, and Energy Consumption Categories in Algeria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 14567–14578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sadorsky, P. Financial development and energy consumption in Central and Eastern Europian frontier economies. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 999–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Zhu, B. Comparison of decoupling trends of global economic growth and energy consumption between developed and developing countries. Energy Policy 2018, 116, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhu, B.; Su, B.; Li, Y. Input-output and structural decomposition analysis of India’s carbon emissions and intensity, 2007/08–2013/14. Appl. Energy 2018, 230, 1545–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Inglesi-Lotz, R. The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A panel data application. Energy Econ. 2016, 53, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Wang, S.; Li, G.; Fang, C. Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emission: Emprical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2144–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jalil, A. Energy-growth conundrum in energy exportin and importing countries: Evidence from heterogenous panel methods robust to cross-sectional dependence. Energy Econ. 2014, 44, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bakirtas, T.; Akpolat, A.G. The relationship between energy consumption, urbanization and economic growthin new emerging-market countries. Energy 2018, 147, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ito, K. CO2 emission, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from panel data for developing countries. Int. Econ. 2017, 151, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Asghari, M. Environmental Kuznets Curve and Growth Source in Iran. Panoeconomicus 2012, 59, 609–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bouznit, M.; Pablo-Romero, M.D.P. CO2 emission and economic growth in Algeria. Energy Policy 2016, 96, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Menyah, K.; Wolde-Rufael, Y. Energy consumption, pollutant emission and economic growth in South Africa. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 1374–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Holtz-Eakin, D.; Selden, T.M. Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. J. Public Econ. 1995, 57, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ginevičius, R.; Lapinskienė, G.; Peleckis, K. The Evolution of the Environmental Kuznets Curve Concept: The Review of the Research. Panoeconomicus 2017, 64, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Karanfil, F. How many times again will we examine the energy-income nexus using limited range of traditional econometric tools. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1191–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dobrowolski, Z.; Drozdowski, G. Does the Net Present Value as a Financial Metric Fit Investment in Green Energy Security? Energies 2022, 15, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dziekański, P.; Prus, P. Financial Diversity and the Development Process: Case study of Rural Communes of Eastern Poland in 2009–2018. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ben Jebli, M.; Ben Youssef, S.; Apergis, N. The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Lat. Am. Econ. Rev. 2019, 6446, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Azam, M.; Khan, A.Q.; Ozturk, I. The effects of energy on investment, human health, environment and economic growth: Empirical evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 10816–10825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zahoor, Z.; Khan, I.; Hou, F. Clean energy investment and financial development as determinants of environment and sustainable economic growth: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 16006–16016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sadorsky, P. The impact of financial development on energy consumotion in emerging economies. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2528–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sadorsky, P. Trade and energy consumption in the Middle East. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Komal, R.; Abbas, F. Linking financial development, economic growth and energy consumption in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bekhet, H.A.; Matar, A.; Yasmin, T. CO2 emission, energy consumption, economic growth and financial development in GCC countries: Dynamic simultaneous equation models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al-Mulali, U.; Sab CN, B.C. The impact of energy consumption and CO2 emission on the economic growth and financial development in the Sub Saharan African countries. Energy 2012, 39, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Islam, F.; Shahbaz, M.; Ahmed, A.U.; Alam, M.M. Financial development and energy consumption nexus in Malaysia: A multivare time series analysis. Econ. Model. 2013, 30, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Çoban, S.; Topcu, M. The nexus between financial development and energy consumption in the EU: A dynamic panel data analysis. Energy Econ. 2013, 39, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tamazian, A.; Chousa, J.P.; Vadlamannati, K.C. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from the BRIC countries. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jalil, A.; Feridun, M. The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: A cointegration analysis. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Esso, L.J.; Keho, Y. Energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: Cointegration and causality evidence from selected African countries. Energy 2016, 114, 492–497. Available online: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:energy:v:114:y:2016:i:c:p:492-497 (accessed on 2 February 2022). [CrossRef]
  43. Mikayilov, J.I.; Hasanov, F.J.; Galeotti, M. Decoupling of CO2 emissions and GDP: A time-varying cointegration approach. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. AlKhars, M.; Miah, F.; Qudrat-Ullah, H.; Kayal, A. A Systematic Review of the Relationship Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in GCC Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lozano, S.; Gutierrez, E. Non-parametric frontier approach to modelling the relationships among population, GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 687–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Selvanathan, E.A.; Jayasinghe, M.; Selvanathan, S. Dynamic modelling of inter-relationship between tourism, energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in South Asia. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cheikh, N.B.; Zaied, Y.B.; Chevallier, J. On the nonlinear relationship between energy use and CO2 emissions within an EKC framework: Evidence from panel smooth transition regression in the MENA region. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2021, 55, 101331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Begum, R.A.; Sohag, K.; Abdullah, S.M.S.; Jaafar, M. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Al-mulali, U.; Che Sab CN, B. The impact of coal consumption and CO2 emission on economic growth. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2018, 13, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sadorsky, P. Energy Related CO2 Emissions before and after the Financial Crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Law, S.H. Does Country’s Openness to Trade and Capital Accounts Lead to Financial Development? Evidence from Malaysia. Asian Econ. J. 2008, 22, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Paramati, S.R.; Mo, D.; Gupta, R. The effects of stock market growth and renewable energy use on CO2 emissions: Evidence from G20 countries. Energy Econ. 2017, 66, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, F. The impact of financial development on economic growth in middle-income countries. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2019, 59, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Breusch, T.S.; Pagan, A.R. The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1980, 47, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pesaran, M.H. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels; The CESifo Group & Institute for the Study of Labor: Munich, Germany, 2004; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5135424_General_Diagnostic_Tests_for_Cross_Section_Dependence_in_Panels (accessed on 20 March 2022). [CrossRef]
  56. Pesaran, M.H.; Ullah, A.; Yamagata, T. A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Indepencende. Econom. J. 2008, 11, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Levin, A.; Lin, C.F.; Chu, C.S.J. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. J. Econom. 2002, 108, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Im, K.S.; Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y. Hashem Pesaran, and Yongcheol Shin. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. J. Econom. 2003, 115, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pesaran, M.H. A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 265–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Hadri, K.; Kurozumi, E. A Simple Panel Stationarity Test in The Presence of Serial Correlation and A Common Factor. Econ. Lett. 2012, 115, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Westerlund, J. New Simple Tests for Panel Cointegration. Econ. Rev. 2005, 24, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.P. Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999, 94, 621–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hausman, J.A. Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 1978, 46, 1251–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Cross-section dependence test results.
Table 1. Cross-section dependence test results.
GDPEUCO2MCAP
Test StatisticValueProbValueProbValueProbValueProb
CDLM1224.773 *0.000223.761 *0.000184.329 *0.003296.398 *0.000
CDLM25.381 *0.0005.343 *0.0003.041 *0.0029.562 *0.001
CDLMADJ45.263 *0.00024.023 *0.00117.632 *0.00841.636 *0.005
Note: * indicates cross-section dependence.
Table 2. Panel unit root test results.
Table 2. Panel unit root test results.
LLCt-statIPSW-statCIPSstatHK
InterceptIntercept + TrendInterceptIntercept + TrendInterceptIntercept + Trend Z A S P C
Intercept + Trend
Z A L A
Intercept + Trend
GDP−7.01 *−9.98 ***−7.73 **−10.89 ***−4.02 *−4.59 **11.94 *14.81 *
EU−4.63 **−8.29 ***−4.72 **−12.80 ***−2.98 *−2.80 **7.17 **8.42 **
CO2−7.84 *−9.55 **−2.84 *−5.74 *−9.95 **−10.66 ***21.87 **24.85 ***
MCAP−1.04 *−2.74 *−1.24−2.66 *−2.32 *−3.92 **−1.01 *11.97 **
Note: ***, **, and * imply rejection of the null hypothesis at 1%, 5%, 10% level of importance, respectively. The lag lengths were chosen using the Akaike Information Criterion. Newey–West bandwidth selection with Bartlett kernel was used for both LLC tests. The critical values for the CIPS test were obtained from [59], Table II(c) (Case III: Intercept-trend). The null distribution of the Z A S P C   and Z A L A statistics was asymptotically standard normal. The Z A S P C   and Z A L A null hypothesis is stationarity.
Table 3. Co-integration test results.
Table 3. Co-integration test results.
TestCointegration Test
No breaksValue9.003
p-value a0.056
p-value b0.898 *
BreaksValue9.889
p-value a0.000
p-value b0.995 *
Note: The p-value a is based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The p-value b is based on the bootstrapped distribution. We used 1000 bootstrap replications. * indicates cointegration.
Table 4. Results for PMG and MG.
Table 4. Results for PMG and MG.
PMGMGHausman Test
Long-run coefficient
GDP0.04 *0.02 **7.56 *
EU0.23 ***0.17 **6.55 ***
CO20.77 **0.91 *8.78 **
MCAP0.96 **1.04 **3.21 **
Error correction coefficient
Ø−0.995 *−0.990 *
Short-run coefficient
GDP0.05 ***0.03 **
EU−0.02 *0.07 *
CO20.04 **0.75 **
MCAP0.17 *0.21 **
Diagnostics
Log-likelihood253.92302.03
χ2SC7.279.23
χ2HE0.780.71
Note: ***, **, and * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively. The maximum lags number for each variable was set at two, and optimal lag lengths were selected using the AIC. χ2SC and χ2HE denote the chi-squared statistics to test for a lack of residual serial correlation and homoscedasticity, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Geyikci, U.B.; Çınar, S.; Sancak, F.M. Analysis of the Relationships among Financial Development, Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Carbon Emissions by Co-Integration with Multiple Structural Breaks. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106298

AMA Style

Geyikci UB, Çınar S, Sancak FM. Analysis of the Relationships among Financial Development, Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Carbon Emissions by Co-Integration with Multiple Structural Breaks. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Geyikci, Umut Burak, Serkan Çınar, and Fatih Mehmet Sancak. 2022. "Analysis of the Relationships among Financial Development, Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Carbon Emissions by Co-Integration with Multiple Structural Breaks" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop