Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 24, pp 20131–20142 | Cite as

Decomposing the trade-environment nexus for Malaysia: what do the technique, scale, composition, and comparative advantage effect indicate?

  • Chong Hui Ling
  • Khalid AhmedEmail author
  • Rusnah Binti Muhamad
  • Muhammad Shahbaz
Research Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of trade openness on CO2 emissions using time series data over the period of 1970QI-2011QIV for Malaysia. We disintegrate the trade effect into scale, technique, composition, and comparative advantage effects to check the environmental consequence of trade at four different transition points. To achieve the purpose, we have employed augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) unit root tests in order to examine the stationary properties of the variables. Later, the long-run association among the variables is examined by applying autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach to cointegration. Our results confirm the presence of cointegration. Further, we find that scale effect has positive and technique effect has negative impact on CO2 emissions after threshold income level and form inverted U-shaped relationship—hence validates the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy consumption adds in CO2 emissions. Trade openness and composite effect improve environmental quality by lowering CO2 emissions. The comparative advantage effect increases CO2 emissions and impairs environmental quality. The results provide the innovative approach to see the impact of trade openness in four sub-dimensions of trade liberalization. Hence, this study attributes more comprehensive policy tool for trade economists to better design environmentally sustainable trade rules and agreements.

Keywords

CO2 emissions Trade openness Economic growth Environmental Kuznets curve Scale effect Technique effect Composition effect 

References

  1. Agus F, Gunarso P, Sahardjo BH, Harris N, van Noordwijk M, Killeen TJ (2013) Historical CO2 emissions from land use and land use change from the oil palm industry in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed K, Long W (2013) An empirical analysis of CO2 emission in Pakistan using EKC hypothesis. J Int Trade Law Policy 12(2):188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed K, Shahbaz M, Qasim A, Long W (2015) The linkages between deforestation, energy and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecol Indic 49:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang JB (2008) A survey of recent developments in the literature of finance and growth. J Econ Surv 22(3):536–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91:877–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arouri M, Shahbaz M, Onchang R, Islam F, Teulon F (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in Thailand: cointegration and causality analysis. J Energy Dev 39:149–170Google Scholar
  7. Baek J, Koo WW (2008) Identifying macroeconomic linkages to US agricultural trade balance. Can J of Agric Econ/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 56(1):63–77Google Scholar
  8. Baek J, Cho Y, Koo WW (2009) The environmental consequences of globalization: a country-specific time-series analysis. Ecol Econ 68:2255–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baylis J, Smith S (2005) The globalization of world politics. Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  10. Begum RA, Sohag K, Abdullah SMS, Jaafar M (2015) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bekhet HA, Yasmin T (2013) Disclosing the relationship among CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and bilateral trade between Singapore and Malaysia: an econometric analysis. Int J Soc Hum Sci Eng 7(9):50–55Google Scholar
  12. Bhattacharyya R, Ghoshal T (2010) Economic growth and CO2 emissions. Environ Dev Sustain 12(2):159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busse M (2004) Transnational corporations and repression of political rights and civil liberties: an empirical analysis. Kyklos 57(1):45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang C (2010) A multivariate causality test of carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China. Appl Energy 87:3533–3537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chebbi HE, Olarreaga M, Zitouna H (2010) Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Tunisia. Working Paper 518, Economic Research ForumGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole G (2004) Personnel and human resource management. Pers Rev 33(3):373–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole MA (2006) Does trade liberalization increase national energy use? Econ Lett 92:108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole MA, Elliott RJ (2003) Determining the trade–environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):363–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Copeland BR (2005) Policy endogeneity and the effects of trade on the environment. Agric Resour Econ Rev 34(1):1–15Google Scholar
  20. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1994) North-South trade and the environment. Q J Econ 755–787Google Scholar
  21. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth and the environment (No. 9823). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  22. Dean JM (2002) Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Can J Econ 35(4):819–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dietzenbacher E, Mukhopadhyay K (2007) An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: towards a green Leontief paradox? Environ Resour Econ 36(4):427–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dinda S, Coondoo D (2006) Income and emission: a panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecol Econ 57(2):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engle RF, Granger CW (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 251–276Google Scholar
  26. Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–14Google Scholar
  27. Forslid R, Okubo T, Ultveit-Moe KH (2011) Does international trade contribute to global CO2 emissions? Third Conference of GIST, International Trade, Firm Location and ServicesGoogle Scholar
  28. Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gale LR, Mendez JA (1998) The empirical relationship between trade, growth and the environment. Int Rev Econ Financ 7(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ghosh S (2010) Examining carbon emissions economic growth nexus for India: a multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Policy 38(6):3008–3014Google Scholar
  31. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  32. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1994) Economic growth and the environment (No. 4634). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  33. Gu Z, Gao Y, Li C (2013) An empirical research on trade liberalization and CO2 emissions in China. International Conference on Education Technology and Information System (ICETIS 2013), p 243–246Google Scholar
  34. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energ Policy 37(3):1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris R, Sollis R (2003) Applied time series modeling and forecasting. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoa TV (2012) Trade, growth and CO2 emissions in China: evidence from an economic integration model. Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  37. Ibrahim MH, Law SH (2015) Institutional quality and CO2 emission–trade relations: evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. S Afr J Econ. doi: 10.1111/saje.12095 Google Scholar
  38. Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2012) Empirical study on the determinants of CO2 emissions: evidence from OECD countries. Appl Econ 44(27):3513–3519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energ Policy 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jena PR, Grote U (2008). Growth–trade–environment nexus in India. Econ Bull 17(11):1–11Google Scholar
  41. Johansen S (1995) Identifying restrictions of linear equations with applications to simultaneous equations and cointegration. J Econ 69(1):111–132Google Scholar
  42. Kearsley A, Riddel M (2010) A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecol Econ 69(4):905–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Khalid A, Shahbaz M, Long AQ (2014) The linkages between deforestation, energy and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecol Indic 49:95–103Google Scholar
  44. Khalil, S. and Inam, Z. (2006). Is trade good for environment? A unit root cointegration analysis. Pak Dev Rev 1187–1196Google Scholar
  45. Kohler M (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: a South African perspective. Energ Policy 63:1042–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kukla-Gryz A (2009) Economic growth, international trade and air pollution: a decomposition analysis. Ecol Econ 68(5):1329–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lau L-S, Chee-Keong C, Eng Y-E (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energ Policy 68:490–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee C, Chiu Y, Sun C (2009) Does one size fit all? A re-examination of the environmental Kuznets curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Rev Agric Econ 31:751–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levinson A, Taylor MS (2001) Trade and the environment: unmasking the pollution haven effect. Unpublished manuscript, US National Science FoundationGoogle Scholar
  50. Levinson A, Taylor MS (2008) Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int Econ Rev 49(1):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liddle HA (2001) Free trade and the environment-development system. Ecol Econ 39(1):21–26Google Scholar
  52. Low P, Yeats A (1992) Do dirty industries migrate? World Bank Discussion Papers, 1992Google Scholar
  53. Lucas RE, Wheeler D, Hettige H (1992) Economic development, environmental regulation, and the international migration of toxic industrial pollution, 1960–88 (vol. 1062). World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  54. Managi S (2004) Trade liberalization and the environment: carbon dioxide for 1960–1999. Econ Bull 17(1):1–5Google Scholar
  55. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mani M, Wheeler D (1998) In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy, 1960 to 1995. J Environ Dev 7(3):215–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McArthur, J. W. and Sachs, J. D. (2001). Institutions and geography: comment on Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2000) (No. w8114). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  58. Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) Energy consumption, pollutant emissions and economic growth in South Africa. Energy Econ 32(6):1374–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Naranpanawa A (2010) Does trade openness promote carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. Empir Econ Lett 10(10):973–986Google Scholar
  60. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energ Policy 38:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nasir M, Rehman F-U (2011) Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energ Policy 39:1857–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ozturk I (2010) A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energ Policy 38:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634Google Scholar
  64. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326Google Scholar
  65. Pesaran MH, Smith LV, Smith RP (2007) What if the UK or Sweden had joined the euro in 1999? An empirical evaluation using a Global VAR. International Journal of Finance & Economics 12(1):55–87Google Scholar
  66. Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 97–118Google Scholar
  67. Saboori B, Sulaiman J (2013) Environmental degradation, economic growth and energy consumption: evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. Energ Policy 60:892–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energ Policy 51:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sbia R, Shahbaz M, Hamdi H (2014) A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Econ Model 36:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shahbaz M, Lean HH (2012a) Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy Policy 40:473–479Google Scholar
  71. Shahbaz M, Lean HH, Shabbier MM (2012b) Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Pakistan: cointegration and Granger causality. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:2947–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shahbaz M, Zeshan M, Afza T (2012c) Is energy consumption effective to spur economic growth in Pakistan? New evidence from bounds test to level relationships and Granger causality tests. Econ Model 29(6):2310–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shahbaz M, Khan S, Tahir MI (2013a) The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from multivariate framework analysis. Energy Econ 40:8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Mahmood H, Arouri M (2013b) Does financial development reduce CO2 emissions in Malaysian economy? A time series analysis. Econ Model 35:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shahbaz M, Tiwari AK, Nasir M (2013c) The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa. Energ Policy 61:1452–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2014a) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shahbaz M, Sbia R, Hamdi H, Ozturk I (2014b) Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecol Indic 45:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shahbaz M, Uddin GS, Rehman I, Imran K (2014c) Industrialization, electricity consumption and CO2 emissions in Bangladesh. Renew Sust Energ Rev 31:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Loganathan N (2015a) Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecol Indic 52:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shahbaz M, Nasreen S, Abbas F, Anis O (2015b) Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Econ 51:275–287Google Scholar
  81. Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S (2015c) Does energy intensity contribute to CO2 emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries. Ecol Indic 50:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Solarin SA (2014) Tourist arrivals and macroeconomic determinants of CO2 emissions in Malaysia. Anatolia 25(2):228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Takeda F, Matsuura K (2006) Trade and the environment in East Asia: examining the linkages with Japan and the USA. J Korean Econ 7(1):33–56Google Scholar
  84. Temurshoev U (2006) Pollution haven hypothesis or factor endowment hypothesis: theory and empirical examination for the US and China. CERGE-EIGoogle Scholar
  85. Tiwari AK, Shahbaz M, Hye QMA (2013) The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Todaro MP, Smith SC (2002) Economic development pearson education ltd. Edenburg Gate, EssexGoogle Scholar
  87. Tsurumi T, Managi S (2010) Decomposition of the environmental Kuznets curve: scale, technique, and composition effects. Environ Econ Policy Stud 11(1–4):19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Van Beers C, Van Den Bergh JC (1997) An empirical multi‐country analysis of the impact of environmental regulations on foreign trade flows. Kyklos 50(1):29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zivot E, Andrews D (1992) Further evidence of great crash, the oil price shock and unit root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10:251–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Postgraduate StudiesUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Business AdministrationSukkurPakistan
  3. 3.Faculty of Business and AccountancyUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Management SciencesCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations