Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 283–291 | Cite as

Convergence in Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions Among G7 Countries: A TAR Panel Unit Root Approach

  • Nilgun Cil Yavuz
  • Veli Yilanci
Article

Abstract

The subject of this paper is the examination the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the G7 countries during the 1960–2005 period in a nonlinear panel analysis framework. In this approach, first the linearity of the series was tested, and when the linearity was rejected, the threshold autoregressive (TAR) panel unit root test, which splits the data into two regimes, was employed to examine the stationarity properties of the series. Because the null of linearity was rejected in the first step, we tested the stationarity of the series using the TAR panel unit root test. In the TAR panel unit root test, we found that the United Kingdom was the transition country whose per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions determined the switch from one regime to the other. The results showed that convergence existed in the first regime and divergence, in the second. When we tested whether absolute or conditional convergence existed, we found that the per capita CO2 emissions were conditionally converging in the first regime.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide emissions Convergence G7 countries Nonlinearity Threshold autoregressive panel unit root test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldy J (2006) Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence?. Environ Resour Econ 33(4): 533–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barassi M, Cole M, Elliott R (2008) Stochastic divergence or convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: re-examining the evidence. Environ Resour Econ 40(1): 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyaert A (2006) Convergence des revenus au sein de l’Union Européenne: une evaluation économétrique. In: Capron H (ed) Convergence et Dynamique d’Innovation au sein de l’Espace Européen, 2006. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyaert A, Camacho M (2008) TAR panel unit root tests and real convergence. Rev Dev Econ 12(3): 668–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyaert A, Garcia-Solanesit J (2009) Real convergence and business cycles: a TAR panel unit root approach, XI conference on international economics. http://www.ub.edu/jei/papers/BEYAERT-GARCIASOLANES.pdf
  6. Breuer JB, McNown R, Wallace MS (2001) Misleading inferences from panel unit root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Rev Int Econ 9: 482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breuer JB, McNown R, Wallace MS (2002) Series-Specific unit root tests with panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 64: 527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camarero M, Mendoza Y, Ordoñez J (2011) Re-examining emissions. Is assessing convergence meaningless?. Department of Applied Economics II Universidad de Valencia Working Papers 1104: 1–38Google Scholar
  9. Caner M, Hansen B (2001) Threshold autoregression with a unit root. Econometrica 69(6): 1555–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, Del Barrio-Castro T, López-Bazo E (2005) Breaking the panels: an application to the GDP per capita. Econ J 8: 159–175Google Scholar
  11. Chang CP, Lee CC (2008) Are per capita carbon dioxide emissions converging among industrialized countries? New time series evidence with structural breaks. Environ Dev Econ 13(4): 497–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans P, Karras G (1996) Convergence revisited. J Monet Econ 37: 249–265Google Scholar
  13. Ezcurra R (2007) Is there cross-country convergence in carbon dioxide emissions?. Energy Policy 35(2): 1363–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferreira RT, Vieira GC (2009) Clubes de Convergência de Renda na América: uma Abordagem através de Painel Dinâmico Não-linear. XXXVII Encontro Nacional De Economia, 2009. http://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2009/inscricao.on/arquivos/000-e287725689cd2c9d74658422ab604271.pdf
  15. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115: 53–74Google Scholar
  16. Jobert T, Karanfil F, Tykhonenko A (2010) Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the EU: legend or reality?. Energy Econ 32(6): 1364–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kapetanios G, Shin Y (2006) Unit root tests in three-regime SETAR models. Econ J 9: 252–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1368-423X.2006.00184.x Google Scholar
  18. Kapetianos G, Shin Y, Snell A (2003) Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. J Econ 112: 359–379Google Scholar
  19. Lee CC, Chang CP (2008) New evidence on the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions from panel seemingly unrelated regressions augmented Dickey–Fuller tests. Energy 33(9): 1468–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee CC, Chang CP (2009) Stochastic convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions and multiple structural breaks in OECD countries. Econ Model 26(6): 1375–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee CC, Chang CP, Chen PF (2008) Do CO2 emission levels converge among 21 OECD countries? New evidence from unit root structural break tests. Appl Econ Lett 15(7): 551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levin A, Lin CF, Chu J (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. J Econ 98: 1–24Google Scholar
  23. Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61: 631–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Panopoulou E, Pantelidis T (2009) Club convergence in carbon dioxide emissions. Environ Resour Econ 44(1): 47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romero-Ávila D (2008) Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions among industrialised countries revisited. Energy Econ 30(5): 2265–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen A (2003) On unit-root tests when the alternative is a trend-break stationary process. J Bus Econ Stat 21(1): 174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soz S (1997) India rejects incorporation of new environmental commitments for developing countries. Presented at the 3rd session of the conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  28. Stegman A (2005) Convergence in per capita carbon emissions. Brookings discussion papers in international economics 167Google Scholar
  29. Strazicich M, List J (2003) Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries?. Environ Resour Econ 24(3): 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Westerlund J, Basher S (2008) Testing for convergence in carbon dioxide emissions using a century of panel data. Environ Resour Econ 40(1): 109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu JL, Lee HY (2009) A revisit to the non-linear mean reversion of real exchange rates: evidence from a series-specific non-linear panel unit-root test. J Macroecon 31: 591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Econometrics, Faculty of EconomicsIstanbul UniversityBeyazit, Fatih, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations