Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 7676–7691 | Cite as

Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: evidence from the newly industrializing countries

  • Khalid AhmedEmail author
  • Muhammad Shahbaz
  • Phouphet Kyophilavong
Research Article


This paper applies Pedroni’s panel cointegration approach to explore the causal relationship between trade openness, carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth for the panel of newly industrialized economies (i.e., Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) over the period of 1970–2013. Our panel cointegration estimation results found majority of the variables cointegrated and confirm the long-run association among the variables. The Granger causality test indicates bidirectional causality between carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption. A unidirectional causality is found running from trade openness to carbon dioxide emission and energy consumption and economic growth to carbon dioxide emissions. The results of causality analysis suggest that the trade liberalization in newly industrialized economies induces higher energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, the causality results are checked using an innovative accounting approach which includes forecast-error variance decomposition test and impulse response function. The long-run coefficients are estimated using fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) method, and results conclude that the trade openness and economic growth reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the long run. The results of FMOLS test sound the existence of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. It means that trade liberalization induces carbon dioxide emission with increased national output, but it offsets that impact in the long run with reduced level of carbon dioxide emissions.


Newly industrialized economies Gross domestic production (GDP) Carbon dioxide emissions Trade liberalization Energy consumption 


  1. Ahmed K, Long W (2013a) An empirical analysis of CO< DN> 2</DN> emission in Pakistan using EKC hypothesis. J Int Trade Law Policy 12(2):188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed K, Long W (2013b) Climate change and trade policy: from legal complications to time factor. J Int Trade Law Policy 12(3):258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed K, Qazi AQ (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions in Mongolia: an empirical analysis. Manag Environ Qual An Int J 25(4):10–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed K, Shahbaz M, Qasim A, Long W (2015a) The linkages between deforestation, energy and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecol Indic 49:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahmed K, Bhattacharya M, Qazi AQ, Long W (2015b) Department of economics discussion paper series (discussion paper 43–15). University, Monash, Energy Consumption in China and Underlying Factors in a Changing Landscape: Empirical Evidence since the Reform Period Google Scholar
  6. Ang JB (2007) CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35(10):4772–4778Google Scholar
  7. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908Google Scholar
  8. Arouri MEH, Ben Youssef A, M’henni H, Rault C (2012) MPRA paper 46185. University Library of Munich, Germany, Empirical Analysis of The EKC Hypothesis for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in Selected Middle East and North African Countries Google Scholar
  9. Baek J, Cho Y, Koo WW (2009) The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis. Ecol Econ 68(8):2255–2264Google Scholar
  10. Birdsall N, Wheeler D (1993) Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are the pollution havens? J Environ Dev 2(1):137–149Google Scholar
  11. Breitung J (2005) A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econ Rev 24(2):151–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang Y (2002) Nonlinear IV unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. J Econ 110(2):261–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang MC (2015) Room for improvement in low carbon economies of G7 and BRICS countries based on the analysis of energy efficiency and environmental Kuznets curves. J Clean Prod 99:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. J Int Money Financ 20(2):249–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole MA (2004) Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecol Econ 48(1):71–81Google Scholar
  16. 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):363–383Google Scholar
  17. Cole MA, Elliott RJ, Shimamoto K (2005) Industrial characteristics, environmental regulations and air pollution: an analysis of the UK manufacturing sector. J Environ Econ Manag 50(1):121–143Google Scholar
  18. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1994) North–south trade and the environment. Q J Econ 755–787Google Scholar
  19. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1995) Trade and transboundary pollution. Am Econ Rev 85(4):716–737Google Scholar
  20. Copeland BR and Taylor MS (2003) Trade, growth and the environment (No. w9823). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, tragedy, and the commons (No. w10836). National Bur Econ Res. doi: 10.3386/w10836
  22. Copeland B R and Taylor MS (2013) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Costantini M, Lupi C (2013) A simple panel CADF test for unit roots. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 75(2):276–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Hoyos RE, Sarafidis V (2006) Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata J 6(4):482Google Scholar
  25. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y (2008) The clean development mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study. Energy Policy 36(4):1273–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Driscoll JC, Kraay AC (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80(4):549–560Google Scholar
  28. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duro JA, Padilla E (2006) International inequalities in per capita CO< sub> 2</sub> emissions: a decomposition methodology by Kaya factors. Energy Econ 28(2):170–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Engle RF, Granger CW (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 251–276Google Scholar
  31. Eskeland GS, Harrison AE (2003) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. J Dev Econ 70(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frankel JA (2008) Global environmental policy and global trade policy. Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91Google Scholar
  34. Fodha M, Zaghdoud O (2010) Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 38(2):1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 32:675–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Granger CW (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica. J Econ Soc 37(3):424–438. doi: 10.2307/1912791
  37. Granger CWJ, & Newbold P (2014). Forecasting economic time series. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Groen JJJ, Kleibergen F (2003) Likelihood-based cointegration analysis in panels of vector errorcorrection models. J Bus Econ Stat 21(2):295–318Google Scholar
  39. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bur Econ Res. doi: 10.3386/w3914
  40. Gujarati DN (2012) Basic econometrics., Tata McGraw-Hill Education Google Scholar
  41. Gul et al (2015) Causal nexus between energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission for Malaysia using maximum entropy bootstrap approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(24):19773–19785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Han C, Lee H (2013) Dependence of economic growth on CO2 emissions. J Econ Dev 38:47–57Google Scholar
  43. Hansen BE (1995) Rethinking the univariate approach to unit root testing: using covariates to increase power. Econometric Theory 11(5):1148–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hartung J (1999) A note on combining dependent tests of significance. Biom J 41(7):849–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoechle D (2007) Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata J 7(3):281Google Scholar
  46. Hossain S (2011) Panel estimation for CO< sub> 2</sub> emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy 39(11):6991–6999, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (1997) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels, manuscript, Department of Applied Economics. University of Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  48. IMF (2013) World economic outlook, April-2013. (
  49. Jalil A, Feridun M (2011) The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ 33(2):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO< sub> 2</sub> emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12(2):231–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kahuthu A (2006) Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environ Dev Sustain 8(1):55–68Google Scholar
  53. Kao C (1999) Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econ 90(1):1–44Google Scholar
  54. Kawahara S (2014) Trade, environment and market access: policy reforms in a small open economy. Environ Dev Econ 19(02):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Kellenberg DK (2008) A reexamination of the role of income for the trade and environment debate. Ecol Econ 68(1):106–115Google Scholar
  57. Khan et al (2016) Triangular relationship among energy consumption, air pollution and water resources in Pakistan. J Clean Prod 112(2):1375–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 1–28Google Scholar
  59. Larsson R, Lyhagen J, Löthgren M (2001) Likelihood-based cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels. Econ J 4(1):109–142. doi: 10.1111/1368-423X.00059
  60. Lee CC, Chiu YB, Sun CH (2009) Does one size fit all? A reexamination of the environmental Kuznets curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Applied Econ Perspect Policy 31(4):751–778Google Scholar
  61. Levin A, Lin CF (1993) Working paper 56. University of California at San Diego, Department of Economics, Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: New Results Google Scholar
  62. Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CSJ (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Liddle B (2012) The importance of energy quality in energy intensive manufacturing: evidence from panel cointegration and panel FMOLS. Energy Econ 34(6):1819–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ling CH, Ahmed K, Muhamad RB, Shahbaz M (2015) Decomposing the trade-environment nexus for Malaysia: what do the technique, scale, composition, and comparative advantage effect indicate? Environ Scie Pollut Res 22(24):20131–20142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lopez R (1994) The environment as a factor of production: the effects of economic growth and trade liberalization. J Environ Econ Manag 27(2):163–184Google Scholar
  66. 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(S1):631–652Google Scholar
  67. Managi S, Jena PR (2008) Environmental productivity and Kuznets curve in India. Ecol Econ 65(2):432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2008) Does trade liberalization reduce pollution emissions. Discussion papers 8013Google Scholar
  69. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Mazzanti M, Montini A, Zoboli R (2008) Environmental Kuznets curves for air pollutant emissions in Italy: evidence from environmental accounts (NAMEA) panel data. Econ Syst Res 20(3):277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McCoskey S, Kao C (1998) A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econ Rev 17(1):57–84Google Scholar
  73. Messerlin PA (2010) Climate change and trade policy: From mutual destruction to mutual support. World Bank Policy Res Work Pap Ser Vol. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-5378
  74. Mudakkar et al (2013) Energy for economic growth, industrialization, environment and natural resources: living with just enough. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:580–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Naranpanawa A, Bandara JS, Selvanathan S (2011) Trade and poverty nexus: A case study of Sri Lanka. J Policy Model 33(2):328–346Google Scholar
  76. Omri A (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus in MENA countries: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Energy Econ 40:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) OECD environmental outlook to 2030. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  78. Ozturk I (2015) Sustainability in the food-energy-water nexus: evidence from BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) countries. Energy 93:999–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pan J, Phillips J, Chen Y (2008) China’s balance of emissions embodied in trade: approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24(2):354–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(1):653–670Google Scholar
  81. Pedroni P (2001) Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Adv Econ 15:93–130Google Scholar
  82. Pedroni P (2004) Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econ Theory 20(03):597–625Google Scholar
  83. Pedroni P (2007) Social capital, barriers to production and capital shares: implications for the importance of parameter heterogeneity from a nonstationary panel approach. J Appl Econ 22(2):429–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O (2011) Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(21):8903–8908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Phillips PC (1987) Time series regression with a unit root. Journal of the Econometric Society, Econometrica, pp 277–301Google Scholar
  87. Qazi AQ, Ahmed K, Mudassar M (2012) Disaggregate energy consumption and industrial output in Pakistan: an empirical analysis (No. 2012-29). Economics discussion papersGoogle Scholar
  88. Qureshi et al (2016) Energy crisis, greenhouse gas emissions and sectoral growth reforms: repairing the fabricated mosaic. J Clean Prod 112(5):I3657–I3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sadorsky P (2011) Trade and energy consumption in the Middle East. Energy Econ 33(5):739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sadorsky P (2012) Correlations and volatility spillovers between oil prices and the stock prices of clean energy and technology companies. Energy Econ 34(1):248–255Google Scholar
  91. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Manag 27(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford economic papers 757–773.
  93. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and crosscountry evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications Google Scholar
  94. Shahbaz M (2012) Does trade openness affect long run growth? Cointegration, causality and forecast error variance decomposition tests for Pakistan. Econ Model 29(6):2325–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shahbaz M, Lean H-H, Shabbir M-S (2012) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Pakistan: cointegration and Granger causality. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:2947–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shahbaz M, Khan S, Tahir MI (2013) 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
  97. Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shahbaz M, Bhattacharya M, Ahmed K (2015) Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series (discussion paper 23–15). University, Monash, Growth-Globalisation-Emissions Nexus: The Role of Population in Australia Google Scholar
  99. Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62(3):482–489Google Scholar
  100. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Suri V, Chapman D (1998) Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):195–208Google Scholar
  102. Topalova P, Khandelwal A (2011) Trade liberalization and firm productivity: the case of India. Review Econ Stat 93(3):995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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
  104. Wacziarg R, Welch KH (2008) Trade liberalization and growth: new evidence. World Bank Econ Rev 22(2):187–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data*. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69(6):709–748Google Scholar
  106. Wiebe KS, Bruckner M, Giljum S, Lutz C (2012) Calculating energy-related CO2 emissions embodied in international trade using a global input–output model. Econ Syst Res 24(2):113–139Google Scholar
  107. Wooldridge J (2012) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach., Cengage Learning Google Scholar
  108. World Bank (1992) World development report 1992: development and the environment., Oxford University Press Google Scholar
  109. World Bank (2008) Development and Climate Change. A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group, Consultation Draft, August 2008. Available at
  110. Youngman R, Schmidt J, Lee J, De Coninck H (2007) Evaluating technology transfer in the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. Clim Pol 7(6):488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zaman et al (2011) Bivariate cointegration between energy consumption and development factors: a case study of Pakistan. Int J Green Energy 8(8):820–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sukkur Institute of Business Administration (IBA-Sukkur)SukkurPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Management SciencesCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyLahorePakistan
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and Business ManagementNational University of LaosVientianeLaos

Personalised recommendations