Trade, Growth, and Logistics Performance: Dynamic and Distributional Insights into the Drivers of CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Basin
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Economic Growth and Emissions: EKC Evidence and Limitations
2.2. Trade Openness and Emissions: Scale, Composition, Technique and Nonlinearities
2.3. Logistics Performance and Environmental Outcomes
2.4. Interactions Between Logistics, Trade and Income; Distributional Heterogeneity
2.5. Research Gaps
3. Methodology
3.1. Empirical Model and Hypotheses
+ μi + λt + εit
3.2. Baseline Panel Estimators
3.3. Dynamic Panel Strategy: Difference and System GMM
3.4. Distributional Heterogeneity: Quantile Regressions
4. Data and Empirical Results
4.1. Data
4.2. Empirical Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Al-Majali, A., Alsarayreh, A., & Alqaralleh, H. (2026). Beyond average effects: Performance-dependent logistics challenges in emerging Asian transportation trade. Logistics, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91, 877–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athanasenas, A. (1997). Traffic simulation models for rural road network management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33(3), 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J. R., Okubo, T., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Importing, outsourcing and pollution offshoring. Journal of Public Economics, 201, 104478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 7–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata Journal, 6, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, E., Bektaş, T., & Laporte, G. (2014). A review of recent research on green road freight transportation. European Journal of Operational Research, 237, 775–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaduman, H. A., Karaman-Akgül, A., Çağlar, M., & Akbaş, H. E. (2020). The relationship between logistics performance and carbon emissions: An empirical investigation on Balkan countries. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 12, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kulagin, V., Kuklina, A., & Grushevenko, D. (2025). The impact of logistics and political decisions on greenhouse gas emissions in market transformation. Carbon Research, 4, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magazzino, C., Mele, M., & Schneider, N. (2021). The trilemma of innovation, logistics performance, and environmental quality in 25 topmost logistics countries: A quantile regression evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322, 129050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmood, H., Maalel, N., & Zarrad, O. (2019). Trade openness and CO2 emissions: Evidence from Tunisia. Sustainability, 11(12), 3295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özçelik, S. E., & Töngür, Ü. (2024). Logistics performance and environmental degradation: The case of MENA countries. Ekonomi-tek, 13, 198–229. [Google Scholar]
- Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rastegardehbidi, P., & Su, Z. (2025). Key drivers of green logistics: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework. Sustainability, 17(21), 9604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, 9, 86–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarafidis, V., & Robertson, D. (2009). On the impact of cross-sectional dependence in short dynamic panel estimation. Econometrics Journal, 12, 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2019). A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 649, 128–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starostka-Patyk, M., Bajdor, P., & Białas, J. (2024). Green logistics performance Index as a benchmarking tool for EU countries environmental sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 158, 111396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tetteh, F. K., Kwateng, K. O., Tukue, T., Mensah, J., & Atiase, D. D. (2025). Effect of logistics performance on transport environmental quality: Comparative insight from Sub-Saharan Africa and OECD markets. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 41(4), 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, B., Wan, W., Hanif, N., & Ahmed, Z. (2022). Logistics performance and environmental sustainability: Do green innovation, renewable energy, and economic globalization matter? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 996341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. (2018). Connecting to compete 2018: Trade logistics in the global economy—The logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. (2024a). Logistics Performance Index (LPI) database. World Bank. Available online: https://lpi.worldbank.org (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- World Bank. (2024b). World Development Indicators (WDI) database. World Bank. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M., Hou, F., & Sinha, A. (2019). From nonrenewable to renewable energy and its impact on economic growth: The role of research and development expenditures in Asia-Pacific economic cooperation countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 1166–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, K., & Shamsuddin, S. (2017). Green logistics and national-scale economic indicators: Evidence from a panel of selected European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, R., Guan, S., & He, B. (2025). The impact of trade openness on carbon emissions: Empirical evidence from emerging countries. Energies, 18(3), 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

| Authors (Year) | Region/Sample | Methodology | Main Findings | Relation to Present Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grossman and Krueger (1995) | Multi-country pollution panel | Reduced-form tests of the EKC | Introduces the EKC hypothesis, showing that the income–pollution link may follow an inverted-U pattern with a turning point. | Provides baseline theoretical motivation for income-conditioned emissions effects. |
| Antweiler et al. (2001) | Cross-country trade–pollution data | Empirical trade–environment decomposition | Shows that trade affects emissions through scale, composition and technique effects; the net impact of openness depends on which channel dominates. | Justifies modeling trade effects as conditional and potentially nonlinear. |
| Copeland and Taylor (2004) | Global theoretical and empirical synthesis | Unified trade–growth–environment framework | Formalizes the scale/composition/technique decomposition and pollution-haven logic in a coherent framework. | Serves as the core conceptual link between trade openness and emissions in this study. |
| Sarkodie and Strezov (2019) | Global EKC literature (over 1000 studies) | Bibliometric and meta-analysis | Documents substantial heterogeneity in EKC evidence across regions, pollutants and methods; no universal EKC pattern. | Supports the need for region-specific EKC analysis and heterogeneous modeling for the Mediterranean. |
| Shahbaz et al. (2017) | Multi-country panel | Nonlinear and threshold panel estimators | Finds that trade–emissions relationships are often nonlinear; trade may reduce emissions only beyond certain income or institutional thresholds. | Motivates testing for interaction effects between trade openness, income and logistics performance. |
| Cole et al. (2021) | Japan (industry-level data) | Offshoring and pollution-haven tests | Provides evidence of pollution offshoring consistent with relocation of emission-intensive activity abroad. | Illustrates the risk that trade-driven scale and relocation can increase emissions. |
| Zaman and Shamsuddin (2017) | 27 European countries | Dynamic panel GMM with LPI components | Shows that logistics dimensions have mixed effects on emissions; infrastructure and timeliness can reduce CO2, while other components may increase it. | Demonstrates that the LPI is environmentally relevant and that component-specific effects matter. |
| Karaduman et al. (2020) | Balkan countries | Fixed-effects panel estimations | Finds that higher overall LPI significantly reduces CO2 emissions, suggesting that efficiency gains dominate in constrained transport systems. | Provides geographically proximate evidence supporting a negative logistics–CO2 link. |
| Magazzino et al. (2021) | Top-LPI countries | FMOLS, GMM and quantile regression | Shows that logistics expansion can raise CO2 emissions due to rebound and scale effects, with substantial heterogeneity across the emissions distribution. | Confirms the need for both quantile and interaction approaches in studying logistics and emissions. |
| Wan et al. (2022) | Emerging economies | Method of Moments Quantile Regression/dynamic panel | Reports that logistics improvements may increase CO2 in some emerging contexts where freight demand outpaces decarbonization. | Highlights the context dependence of logistics–emissions links and distributional heterogeneity. |
| Özçelik and Töngür (2024) | MENA countries | Panel econometrics with LPI indicators | Finds that the effects of logistics performance on environmental degradation vary by LPI dimension and development level. | Strengthens the rationale for a Mediterranean-specific, moderating and heterogeneous analysis. |
| Specification | Estimator | Purpose/Key Feature |
|---|---|---|
| GMM1 | Difference GMM (Arellano–Bond) | Baseline dynamic model; removes fixed effects by differencing; uses lagged levels as instruments. |
| GMM2 | System GMM (Blundell–Bond) | Improves efficiency and addresses weak instruments under persistence by adding the levels equation. |
| GMM3 | Restricted system GMM | Limits instrument proliferation (e.g., collapsed instruments/shorter lag depth) to strengthen diagnostic tests. |
| GMM4 | Extended system GMM (robustness) | Checks sensitivity to alternative lag/instrument sets; supports stability of core coefficients. |
| Variable | LCO2PC | LLPIN | LGDPRPC | LOPEN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 1.465 | 1.086 | 9.240 | 4.346 |
| Median | 1.591 | 1.103 | 9.416 | 4.290 |
| Maximum | 2.317 | 1.361 | 10.662 | 5.548 |
| Minimum | 0.214 | 0.468 | 6.568 | 3.396 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.532 | 0.171 | 1.007 | 0.408 |
| Skewness | −0.661 | −0.443 | −0.544 | 0.655 |
| Kurtosis | 2.479 | 2.755 | 2.426 | 3.316 |
| Observations | 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 |
| LCO2PC | LLPIN | LGDPRPC | LOPEN | LPI × GDP | LPI × OPEN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCO2PC | 1.000 | 0.448 | 0.758 | 0.203 | 0.594 | 0.483 |
| LLPIN | 0.448 | 1.000 | 0.766 | −0.036 | 0.961 | 0.846 |
| LGDPRPC | 0.758 | 0.766 | 1.000 | 0.283 | 0.908 | 0.802 |
| LOPEN | 0.203 | −0.036 | 0.283 | 1.000 | 0.081 | 0.498 |
| LPI × GDP | 0.594 | 0.961 | 0.908 | 0.081 | 1.000 | 0.871 |
| LPI × OPEN | 0.483 | 0.846 | 0.802 | 0.498 | 0.871 | 1.000 |
| Cross-Sectional Dependence Tests Null Hypothesis: No Cross-Sectional Dependence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Breusch–Pagan LM | Pesaran Scaled LM | Bias-Corrected Scaled LM | Pesaran CD |
| LCO2PC | 1370.70 (0.000) | 60.568 (0.000) | 59.90 (0.000) | 4.66 (0.000) |
| LGDPPC | 1241.19 (0.000) | 53.92 (0.000) | 53.25 (0.000) | 13.89 (0.000) |
| LLPIN | 793.94 (0.000) | 30.98 (0.000) | 30.31 (0.000) | 12.51 (0.000) |
| LOPEN | 1171.42 (0.000) | 50.34 (0.000) | 49.67 (0.000) | 14.80 (0.000) |
| Variable | FE (coef) (p-Value) | RE (coef) (p-Value) |
|---|---|---|
| LLPIN | −0.382 (0.007) *** | −0.426 (0.002) *** |
| LGDPRPC | 0.437 (0.000) *** | 0.441 (0.000) *** |
| LOPEN | −0.213 (0.000) *** | −0.203 (0.000) *** |
| LLPIN × LGDPRPC | −0.310 (0.000) *** | −0.330 (0.000) *** |
| LLPIN × LOPEN | −0.871 (0.000) *** | −0.828 (0.000) *** |
| Constant | 0.038 (0.004) ** | 0.040 (0.592) |
| R2 | 0.946 | 0.614 |
| Hausman test | χ2 = 15.070 (p = 0.035) → FE preferred | |
| GMM1 | GMM2 | GMM3 | GMM4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCO2PC(-1) | −0.286 (0.000) | 0.736 (0.000) | 0.398 (0.000) | 0.769 (0.000) |
| LGDPRPC | 0.711 (0.000) | 0.128 (0.003) | 0.317 (0.000) | 0.191 (0.020) |
| LLPIN | −0.260 (0.011) | −0.338 (0.000) | −0.167 (0.010) | −0.745 (0.003) |
| LOPEN | −0.180 (0.000) | −0.054 (0.000) | −0.077 (0.059) | −0.129 (0.052) |
| LLPIN × LGDPRPC | −0.345 (0.000) | −0.113 (0.000) | −0.105 (0.023) | −0.206 (0.029) |
| LLPIN × LOPEN | −0.515 (0.000) | −0.538 (0.000) | −0.640 (0.000) | −0.515 (0.026) |
| CONSTANT | −0.360 (0.000) | −0.338 (0.000) | −0.013 (0.807) | 0.032 (0.086) |
| Arellano-Bond Serial Cor. tests H0: no serial correlation | AR(1): Z = −7.281 (0.000) AR(2): Z = 1.326 (0.184) | AR(1): Z = −2.678 (0.0007) AR(2): Z = 0.772 (0.441) | AR(1): Z = −2.900 (0.000) AR(2): Z = 0.881 (0.378) | AR(1): Z = −2.99 (0.003) AR(2): Z = 0.59 (0.555) |
| Sargan-Hansen Overidentifying Restrictions tests H0: Overidentifying restrictions are valid | J = 192.716 (0.278) | X2(28) = 19.157 (0.893) | X2(13) = 17.887 (0.161) | X2(2) = 0.40 (0.819) |
| Variable | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LGDPRPC | 0.409 (0.000) | 0.418 (0.000) | 0.423 (0.000) | 0.430 (0.000) | 0.436 (0.000) | 0.443 (0.000) | 0.449 (0.000) | 0.455 (0.000 | 0.464 (0.000) |
| LLPIN | −0.395 (0.041) | −0.391 (0.020) | −0.389 (0.014) | −0.385 (0.010) | −0.383 (0.010) | −0.379 (0.013) | −0.376 (0.021) | −0.373 (0.034 | −0.369 (0.067) |
| LOPEN | −0.192 (0.002) | −0.199 (0.000) | −0.203 (0.000) | −0.208 (0.000) | −0.212 (0.000) | −0.217 (0.000) | −0.222 (0.000) | −0.226 (0.000 | −0.232 (0.000) |
| LLPIN × LGDPRPC | −0.346 (0.006) | −0.334 (0.002) | −0.327 (0.002) | −0.318 (0.001) | −0.310 (0.001) | −0.302 (0.002) | −0.293 (0.006 | −0.286 (0.013 | −0.274 (0.037) |
| LLPIN × LOPEN | −0.604 (0.065) | −0.694 (0.015) | −0.694 (0.006) | −0.694 (0.001) | −0.694 (0.001) | −0.694 (0.000) | −0.694 (0.000) | −0.694 (0.000) | −0.694 (0.001) |
| CONSTANT | −0.721 (0.000) | −0.675 (0.000) | −0.651 (0.000) | −0.615 (0.000) | −0.587 (0.000) | −0.553 (0.000) | −0.522 (0.000) | −0.493 (0.000) | −0.450 (0.000) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Katrakylidis, I.; Athanasenas, A.; Madas, M.; Katrakilidis, C. Trade, Growth, and Logistics Performance: Dynamic and Distributional Insights into the Drivers of CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Basin. Economies 2026, 14, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies14010024
Katrakylidis I, Athanasenas A, Madas M, Katrakilidis C. Trade, Growth, and Logistics Performance: Dynamic and Distributional Insights into the Drivers of CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Basin. Economies. 2026; 14(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies14010024
Chicago/Turabian StyleKatrakylidis, Ioannis, Athanasios Athanasenas, Michael Madas, and Constantinos Katrakilidis. 2026. "Trade, Growth, and Logistics Performance: Dynamic and Distributional Insights into the Drivers of CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Basin" Economies 14, no. 1: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies14010024
APA StyleKatrakylidis, I., Athanasenas, A., Madas, M., & Katrakilidis, C. (2026). Trade, Growth, and Logistics Performance: Dynamic and Distributional Insights into the Drivers of CO2 Emissions in the Mediterranean Basin. Economies, 14(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies14010024

