Investigating the environmental Kuznets’s curve for Sweden: evidence from multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)

  • Muhammad Shahbaz
  • Naceur KhraiefEmail author
  • Mantu Kumar Mahalik


This paper aims to examine the long-run nonlinear relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions for the Sweden economy by using a long span of annual time-series data over the period of 1850–2008. We applied novel multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model suggested by Friedman (Ann Stat 19(1):1–67, 1991) and also employed threshold cointegration approach suggested by Sephton (Comput Econ 7(1):23–35, 1994) and Sephton and Mann (Energy Econ 36:177–181, 2013a, J Econ Econom 56(2):54–77, 2013b) to investigate the presence of both nonlinear cointegration and asymmetric dynamic adjusting processes between economic growth and CO2 emissions. The results provide the presence of nonlinear cointegration between economic growth and CO2 emissions. The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is verified with the estimated turning point in 1970. This rough estimate mainly explained by the implementation of Naturvårdsverket in 1967, the increasing use of nuclear power and the Swedish Environmental Protection Act (Miljöskyddslagen) in 1969. The findings also suggest a three-regime threshold cointegration model for economic growth–CO2 emissions nexus. Thus, the speed of adjustment in emissions function around the long-run equilibrium depends on the threshold behaviour. The adjustment back to attractor is asymmetric: it differs if the disequilibrium is above or below the critical threshold point. The asymmetric adjustment in CO2 emissions is much faster than GDP per capita with 75% response to disequilibrium.


Emissions Growth KEC Asymmetric 

JEL Classification

Q5 F43 F64 C22 



We thank Professor Peter Sephton for providing his MATLAB code and for his useful comments on an early version of this paper.


  1. Alam MJ, Begum IA, Buyssed J, Rahman S, Van-Huylenbroeckd G (2010) Dynamic modelling of causal relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:3243–3251Google Scholar
  2. Balke NS, Fomby TB (1997) Threshold cointegration. Int Econ Rev 38(3):627–645Google Scholar
  3. Baum CF, Karasulu M (1997) Modelling federal reserve discount policy. Comput Econ 11(1–2):53–70Google Scholar
  4. Baum CF, Barkoulas JT, Caglayan M (2001) Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity in the post-Bretton woods era. J Int Money Finance 20:379–399Google Scholar
  5. Bolt J, van Zanden JL (2014) The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. Econ Hist Rev 67(3):627–651Google Scholar
  6. Breitung J (2001) Rank tests for nonlinear cointegration. J Bus Econ Stat 19(3):331–340Google Scholar
  7. Brock WA, Taylor MS (2010) The Green Solow model. J Econ Growth 15(2):127–153Google Scholar
  8. Chontanawat J, Hunt LC, Pierse R (2008) Does energy consumption cause economic growth? Evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries. J Policy Model 30:209–220Google Scholar
  9. Davies J (1987) Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika 74:33–43Google Scholar
  10. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49:431–455Google Scholar
  11. Enders W, Falk B (1998) Threshold-autoregressive, median-unbiased and cointegration tests of purchasing power parity. Int J Forecast 14:171–186Google Scholar
  12. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251–276Google Scholar
  13. Escanciano JC, Escribano A (2009) Econometrics: non-linear cointegration. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:2278–2294Google Scholar
  14. Escribano A, Mira S (2002) Nonlinear error-correction models. J Time Ser Anal 23(5):509–522Google Scholar
  15. Esteve V, Tamarit C (2012a) Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment between CO2 emissions and income: the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain, 1857–2008. Energy Econ 34:2148–2156Google Scholar
  16. Esteve V, Tamarit C (2012b) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for Spain? Fresh evidence from old data. Econ Model 29:2696–2703Google Scholar
  17. Fare R, Grosskopf S (2004) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: comment. Eur J Oper Res 157:242–245Google Scholar
  18. Fosten J, Morley B, Taylor T (2012) Dynamic misspecification in the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ 76:25–33Google Scholar
  19. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19(1):1–67Google Scholar
  20. Gales B, Kander A, Malanima P, Rubio M (2007) North versus South: energy transition and energy intensity in Europe over 200 years. Eur Rev Econ Hist 11(2):219–253Google Scholar
  21. Gonzalo J, Pitarakis J (2002) Estimation and model selection based inference in single and multiple threshold models. J Econom 110:319–352Google Scholar
  22. Granger CWJ, Hallman JJ (1991a) Nonlinear transformations of integrated time series. J Time Ser Anal 12(3):207–224Google Scholar
  23. Granger CWJ, Hallman J (1991b) Long memory series with attractors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 53(1):11–26Google Scholar
  24. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377Google Scholar
  25. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37:699–702Google Scholar
  26. Hansen BE (2011) Threshold autoregression in economics. Stat Interface 4(2):123–127Google Scholar
  27. Holtz-Eakin D, Selden TM (1995) Stoking the fires: CO2 emissions and economic growth. J Public Econ 57:85–101Google Scholar
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006).
  29. Jaunky VC (2011) The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy 39:1228–1240Google Scholar
  30. Kander A (2002) Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Sweden 1800–2000, Lund Studies in Economic History, 19. University of Lund, LundGoogle Scholar
  31. Kander A, Lindmark M (2004) Energy consumption, pollutants emissions and growth in the long run: Sweden through 200 years. Eur Rev Econ Hist 8:297–335Google Scholar
  32. Kander A, Lindmark M (2006) Foreign trade and declining pollution in Sweden: a decomposition analysis of long-term structural and technological effects. Energy Policy 34(13):1590–1599Google Scholar
  33. Keogh G (2010) Univariate time series modelling and forecasting using TSMARS. Theory of probability, stochastics, mathematical statistics. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, RigaGoogle Scholar
  34. Kijima M, Nishide K, Ohyama A (2010) Economic models for the environment Kuznets curve: a survey. J Econ Dyn Control 34:1187–1201Google Scholar
  35. Komen MH, Gerking S, Folmer H (1997) Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from OECD countries. Environ Dev Econ 2(4):505–515Google Scholar
  36. Kristrom B (2000) Growth, employment and the environment. Swed Econ Policy Rev 7:155–184Google Scholar
  37. Kristrom B, Wibe S (2005) Swedish CO2 emissions 1900–2010: an exploratory note. Energy Policy 33(9):1223–1230Google Scholar
  38. Kuznets S (1955) Economic Growth and Income Inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  39. Lee C-C (2005) Energy consumption and GDP in developing countries: a cointegrated panel analysis. Energy Econ 27:415–427Google Scholar
  40. Lewis PA, Stevens JG (1991) Nonlinear modeling of time series using multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS). J Am Stat Assoc 86(416):864–877Google Scholar
  41. Lindmark M (2002) An EKC-pattern in historical perspective: carbon dioxide emissions, technology, fuel prices and growth in Sweden 1870–1997. Ecol Econ 42(1–2):333–347Google Scholar
  42. Lindmark M, Acar S (2013) Sustainability in the making? A historical estimate of Swedish sustainable and unsustainable development 1850–2000. Ecol Econ 86:176–187Google Scholar
  43. Lindmark M, Acar S (2014) The environmental Kuznets curve and the Pasteur effect: environmental costs in Sweden 1850–2000. Eur Rev Econ Hist 18(3):306–323Google Scholar
  44. Lindmark M, Bergquist A-K, Anderson LF (2011) Energy transition, carbon dioxide reduction and output growth in Swedish pulp and paper industry: 1973–2006. Energy Policy 39:5449–5456Google Scholar
  45. Lise W (2006) Decomposition of CO2 emissions over 1980–2003 in Turkey. Energy Policy 34:1841–1852Google Scholar
  46. Lo MC, Zivot E (2001) Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment to the law of one price. Macroecon Dyn 5:533–576Google Scholar
  47. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2008) Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In: Trends: a compendium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38:661–666Google Scholar
  49. OECD (2001) OECD Environmental Strategy for the first decade of the 21st century adopted by OECD environment ministers, 16 May 2001. OECD, Paris.
  50. Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) The causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania: evidence from ARDL bound testing approach. Appl Energy 87:1938–1943Google Scholar
  51. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Working paper WP238, Technology and Employment Programme, International Labor Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  52. Panayotou T (1997) Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ Dev Econ 2:465–484Google Scholar
  53. Panayotou T (2000) Globalization and environment. [Online] Available: (January 20, 2016)
  54. Pearson PJ (1994) Energy, externalities and environmental quality: will development cure the ills it creates? Energy Stud Rev 6(3):199–216Google Scholar
  55. Robalino-López A, Garcia-Ramos J-E, Golpe AA, Mena-Nieto A (2014) System dynamic modelling and the environmental Kuznets curve in Ecuador (1980–2025). Energy Policy 67:923–931Google Scholar
  56. Robalino-Lopez A, Mena-Nieto A, Garcia-Ramos J-E (2015) Studying the relationship between economic growth, CO2 emissions and the environmental Kuznets curve in Venezuela (1980–2025). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:602–614Google Scholar
  57. Seo M (2008) Unit root test in a threshold autoregression: asymptotic theory and residual-based block bootstrap. Econom Theory 24:1699–1716Google Scholar
  58. Sephton P (1994) Cointegration tests on MARS. Comput Econ 7(1):23–35Google Scholar
  59. Sephton P, Mann J (2013a) Further evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain. Energy Econ 36:177–181Google Scholar
  60. Sephton P, Mann J (2013b) Threshold cointegration: model selection and an application. J Econ Econom 56(2):54–77Google Scholar
  61. Shafik N, Bandhopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross country evidence. Background paper for the World Development Report 1992, The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Shahbaz M, Lean HH, Shahbaz SM (2012) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Pakistan: cointegration and Granger causality. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:2947–2953Google Scholar
  63. Shahbaz M, Mutascu M, Azim P (2013) Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and the role of energy consumption. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 18:165–173Google Scholar
  64. Shahbaz M, Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Do coal consumption and industrial development increase environmental degradation in China and India? Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:3895–3907Google Scholar
  65. Soytas U, Sari R (2003) Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Econ 25:33–37Google Scholar
  66. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32:1419–1439Google Scholar
  67. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Energy Agency (2007) Economic instruments in environmental policy. A Report by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  68. Tong H (1990) Non-linear time series: a dynamical system approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Unruh GC, Moomaw WR (1998) An alternative analysis of apparent EKC-type transitions. Ecol Econ 25:221–229Google Scholar
  70. World Development Indicators (2011) World BankGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montpellier Business SchoolMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.COMSATS University IslamabadIslamabadPakistan
  3. 3.Tunis Business SchoolUniversité de TunisTunisTunisia
  4. 4.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations