Re-Examining the Empirical Evidence for Stochastic Convergence of Two Air Pollutants with a Pair-Wise Approach

  • Myriam Nourry


This paper examines the hypothesis of stochastic convergence for two air pollutants emissions (carbon dioxide [CO2] and sulfur dioxide [SO2]). The value-added of this paper lies in the use of a recent, alternative econometric method, a pair-wise approach that considers all the possible pairs of log per-capita pollutant emission gaps across all the countries in the sample. In this method, all emissions differences must be stationary around a constant mean. Empirical results support different conclusions on stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 and SO2 emissions depending on the choice of the unit root test. The use of specific critical values from the ADF-KPSS joint test overcomes these initial conflicting results and leads to small percentages of stationary pairs around a constant mean; which invalidate the hypothesis of stochastic convergence for per capita emissions of CO2 and SO2, even over the OECD sub-dataset.


Air pollution Carbon dioxide Joint confirmation Hypothesis Stochastic convergence Sulfur dioxide Unit roots 

JEL Classification

C32 C33 Q53 Q54 


  1. Aldy J (2006) Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence?. Environ Resour Econ 33: 533–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldy J (2007) Divergence in state-level per capita carbon dioxide emissions. Land Econ 83(3): 353–369Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni K., Levinson A. (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80(2): 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASL and Associates (1997) Sulfur emissions by country and year. US Department of energy, Report no. DE96014790, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Barassi MR, Cole MA, Elliot RJR (2008) Stochastic divergence or convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: re-examinig the evidence. Environ Resour Econ 40(1): 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard AB, Durlauf S (1995) Convergence in international output. J Appl Econom 10: 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard AB, Durlauf S (1996) Interpreting tests of the convergence hypothesis. J Econom 71: 161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bulte E, List JA, Strazicich M (2007) Regulatory federalism and the distribution of air pollutant emissions. J Reg Sci 47(1): 155–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlino GA, Mills LO (1993) Are U.S regional economies converging? A time series analysis. J Monet Econ 32(2): 335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlino GA, Mills LO (1996) Testing neoclassical convergence in regional incomes and earnings. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26: 565–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, Sanso-i-Rossello A, Ortuño MA (2001) Unit root and stationarity tests’ wedding. Econ Lett 70: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot G, Rothenbeg TJ, Stock JH (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64(4): 813–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ezcurra R (2007) Is there cross-country convergence in carbon dioxide emissions?. Energy Policy 35(2): 1363–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2): 353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2006) Penn World Table Version 6.2. Center for International Comparisons of production, income and prices University of Pennsylvania (CICUP), USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate?. J Econ Surv 17(3): 309–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keblowski P, Welfe A (2004) The ADF-KPSS test of the joint confirmation hypothesis of unit autoregressive root. Econ Lett 85: 257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kwiatowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P et al (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. J Econom 54: 158–178Google Scholar
  19. Lefohn AS, Husar JD, Husar RB (1999) Estimating historical anthropogenic global sulfur emission patterns for the period 1850–1990. Atmos Environ 33: 3435–3444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. List JA (1999) Have air pollutant emissions converged among U.S regions? Evidence from unit root tests. South Econ J 66(1): 144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2007) 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. Departement of Energy, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Nguyen Van P (2005) Distribution dynamics of CO2 emissions. Environ Resour Econ 32: 495–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Park HJ, Fuller WA (1995) Alternative estimators and unit root tests for the autoregressive process. J Time Ser Anal 16: 415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pesaran MH (2007) A pair-wise approach to testing for output and growth convergence. J Econom 138: 312–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pesaran MH, Smith R, Yamagata T et al (2007) Pairwise tests of purchasing power parity. Econometric Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Romero-Avila D (2008) Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions among industrialised countries revisited. Energy Econ 30(5): 2265–2282. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stegman A, Kibbin WJ (2005) Convergence and per capita emissions. Brookings discussion papers in International Economic no. 167Google Scholar
  28. Stephton PS (1995) Response surface estimates of the KPSS stationarity test. Econ Lett 47: 255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strazicich M, List JA (2003) Are CO2 emissions levels converging among industrial countries?. Environ Resour Econ 24: 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Westerlund J, Basher SA (2008) Testing for convergence in carbon dioxide emissions using a century of panel data. Environ Resour Econ 40(1): 109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEMNA, Université de Nantes, Institut d’Economie et de Management de Nantes, IAE, Site Erdre, Chemin de la Censive du TertreNantes Cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations