Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 23, pp 22829–22841 | Cite as

Testing the agriculture-induced EKC hypothesis: the case of Pakistan

  • Korhan K. Gokmenoglu
  • Nigar Taspinar
Research Article
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigates the long-run equilibrium relationship among carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, income growth, energy consumption, and agriculture, thus testing the existence of what we call the agriculture-induced environmental Kuznetscurve (EKC) hypothesis in the case of Pakistan for the period of 1971–2014. The long-run equilibrium relationship among the variables in the conducted model is confirmed by Maki’s (EM 29(5), 2011–2015, 2012) co-integration test under multiple structural breaks. Toda-Yamamoto’s (JE 66(1):225–250, 1995) causality test results reveal bidirectional causal relationships among gross domestic product (GDP), energy use, agriculture, and CO2 emissions. Fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) results suggest that GDP has elastic positive impacts on CO2 emissions, and energy use and agricultural value added have inelastic positive impacts on CO2 emissions, whereas squared GDP has an inelastic and negative effect on CO2 emissions. This finding confirms the existence of the agriculture-induced EKC hypothesis in Pakistan and can be a guideline for other agrarian developing countries for the creation of effective policies around environmental degradation.

Keywords

Air pollution Agriculture Energy consumption Causality Pakistan EKC 

JEL classification

Q5 Q1 Q4 C01 

References

  1. Abu-Bader S, Abu-Qarn AS (2008) Financial development and economic growth: empirical evidence from six MENA countries. Rev Dev Econ 12(4):803–817Google Scholar
  2. Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35:5412–5420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcántara V, & Padilla E (2005) Analysis of CO2 and its explanatory factors in the different areas of the world. Technical report Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Department of Economics Applied, SpainGoogle Scholar
  4. Alluvione F, Moretti B, Sacco D, Grignani C (2011) EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy 36(7):4468–4481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015a) Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH (2015b) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Indic 48:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ang JB (2007) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35:4772–4778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apergis N, Payne JE (2009a) CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37:3282–3286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Apergis N, Payne JE (2009b) Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Econ 31:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Apergis N, Ozturk I (2015) Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecol Indic 52:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aslan A, Destek MA, Okumus I (2018) Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(3):2402–2408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baek J (2015) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: the case of Arctic countries. Energy Econ 50:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baek J, Kim HS (2011) Trade liberalization, economic growth, energy consumption and the environment: time series evidence from G-20 countries. J East Asian Econ Integr 15(1):3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Balaguer J, Cantavella M (2018) The role of education in the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Evidence from Australian data. Energy Econ 70:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balaguer J, Cantavella M (2016) Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for Spain by considering fuel oil prices (1874–2011). Ecol Indic 60:853–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bölük G, Mert M (2015) The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carson RT (2010) The environmental Kuznets curve: seeking empirical regularity and theoretical structure. Rev Environ Econ Policy 4(1):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cetin MA (2018) Investigating the environmental Kuznets Curve and the role of green energy: emerging and developed markets. Int J Green Energy 15(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, Sansó A (2006) Testing the null of cointegration with structural breaks. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 68(5):623–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Bruyn S, van den Bergh C, Opschoor J (1998) Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves. Ecol Econ 25:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Bruyn SM, Heintz RJ (1999) Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Deininger K, Byerlee D, Lindsay J, Norton A, Selod H, Stickler M (2011) Rising global interest in farmland. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dietz S, Adger WN (2003) Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort. J Environ Manag 68(1):23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh H (2005) A test for parameter homogeneity in CO2panel EKC estimations. Environ Resour Econ 32:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dogan N (2016) Agriculture and Environmental Kuznets Curves in the case of Turkey: evidence from the ARDL and bounds test. Agric Econ 62(12):566–574Google Scholar
  26. Farhani S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Econ Model 38:426–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009) How to feed the world in 2050. High Level Expert Forum, Rome Retrieved from: www.fao.org
  28. Fuglie K (2010) Total factor productivity in the global agricultural economy: evidence from FAO data. In: Alston JM, Babcock BA, Pardey PG (eds) The shifting patterns of agricultural production and productivity worldwide. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center Iowa State University, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuglie K, Nin-Pratt A (2012) Global food policy report: a changing global harvest. The International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Ghali KH (2004) Energy use and output growth in Canada: a multivariate cointegration analysis. Energy Econ 26(2):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996) Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. J Econ 70(1):99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic environment and the economic growth. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hacker S, Hatemi-J A (2012) A bootstrap test for causality with endogenous lag length choice: theory and application in finance. J Econ Stud 39(2):144–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hatemi-j A (2008) Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration. Empir Econ 35(3):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hochman G, Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2010) The effect of biofuels on crude oil markets. Agbio Forum 13(2):112–118Google Scholar
  38. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or . jp./public/2006gl/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Fifth assessment report (AR5). Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2006). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the National Greenhouse gas Inventories Programme. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
  40. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jalil A, Feridun M (2011) The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ 33:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katircioglu ST (2014) Testing the tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: the case of Singapore. Econ Model 41:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Katircioglu S (2017) Investigating the role of oil prices in the conventional EKC model: evidence from Turkey. Asian Econ Financ Rev 7(5):498–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Katircioğlu S, Katircioğlu S (2017) Testing the role of urban development in the conventional environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from Turkey. Appl Econ Lett:1–6Google Scholar
  45. Katircioglu S, Celebi A (2018) Testing the role of external debt in environmental degradation: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–10Google Scholar
  46. Kijima M, Nishide K, Ohyama A (2010) Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: a survey. J Econ Dyn Control 34:1187–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  48. Lau LS, Choong CK, Eng YK (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy 68:490–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lean HH, Smyth R (2010) CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Appl Energy 87(6):1858–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lütkepohl H (2008) Impulse response function. In: The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  51. Maertens M & Swinnen JF (2014) Agricultural trade and development: a supply chain perspective, geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO), forthcoming Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  52. Maki D (2012) Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks. Econ Model 29(5):2011–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mirza FM, Kanwal A (2017) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in Pakistan: dynamic causality analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:1233–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2005) Estimating income and price elasticities of imports for Fiji in a cointegration framework. Econ Model 22(3):423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nasir M, Rehman FU (2011) Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy 39(3):1857–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Osabuohien ES, Efobi UR, Gitau CMW (2014) Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve in Africa: evidence from panel cointegration. J Environ Policy Plan 16(4):517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Özokcu S, Özdemir Ö (2017) Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical test and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development(Working Paper, P238). Technology and employment programme, International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  59. Pasten R, Figueroa BE (2012) The environmental Kuznets curve: a survey of the theoretical literature. Int Rev Environ Resource Econ 6(3):195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pata UK (2017) The effect of urbanization and industrialization on carbon emissions in Turkey: evidence from ARDL bounds testing procedure. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–8Google Scholar
  61. Perron P (1990) Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. J Bus Econ Stat 8(2):153–162Google Scholar
  62. Phillips PC, Hansen BE (1990) Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. Rev Econ Stud 57(1):99–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pimentel D (2006) Impacts of organic farming on the efficiency of energy use in agriculture. An organic center state of science review, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  64. Rafique MM, Rehman S (2017) National energy scenario of Pakistan—current status, future alternatives, and institutional infrastructure: an overview. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richmond AK, Kaufmann RK (2006) Energy prices and turning points: the relationship between income and energy use/carbon emissions. Energy J 27(4):157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Robalino-López A, García-Ramos JE, Golpe AA, Mena-Nieto Á (2014) System dynamics modelling and the environmental Kuznets curve in Ecuador (1980–2025). Energy Policy 67:923–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roberts J, Grimes P (1997) Carbon intensity and economic development 1962–91: a brief exploration of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 25:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saboori B, Sulaiman J (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries: a cointegration approach. Energy 55:813–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seppälä T, Haukioja T, Kaivo-oja J (2001) The EKC hypothesis does not hold for direct material flows: environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis tests for direct material flows in five industrial countries. Popul Environ 23(2):217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shafik N, & Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  71. Shahbaz M, Ozturk I, Afza T, Ali A (2013) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Loganathan N (2015) Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecol Indic 52:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sinha A, Shahbaz M (2018) Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renew Energy 119:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stern D, Common M, Barbier E (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tabar IB, Keyhani A, Rafiee S (2010) Energy balance in Iran’s agronomy (1990–2006). Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(2):849–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Timmer P (2009) The evolving structure of world agricultural trade. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  78. Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econ 66(1):225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tokgoz S, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Hayes DJ, Babcock BA, Yu THE et al (2008) Bottlenecks, drought, and oil price spikes: impact on US ethanol and agricultural sectors. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 30(4):604–622Google Scholar
  80. Tutulmaz O (2015) Environmental Kuznets curve time series application for Turkey: why controversial results exist for similar models? Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. USCB. 2004–2005. Statistical abstract of the U.S. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  82. Villanueva IA (2012) Introducing institutional variables in the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC): a Latin American study. Annals-Economy Series 1:71–81Google Scholar
  83. Wagner M (2008) The carbon Kuznets curve: a cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics? Resour Energy Econ 30(3):388–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Westerlund J, Edgerton DL (2007) New improved tests for cointegration with structural breaks. J Time Ser Anal 28(2):188–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. World Bank (2007) World development report 2008: agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014a) World trade report 2014:market access for products and services of export interest for least-developed countries. World Trade Organization, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014b) World trade report 2014 trade and development: recent trends and the role of the WTO. World Trade Organization, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yang J, Chen B (2014) Carbon footprint estimation of Chinese economic sectors based on a three-tier model. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yavuz NC (2014) CO2 emission, energy consumption, and economic growth for Turkey: evidence from a cointegration test with a structural break. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ Plan Policy 9(3):229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. World Bank Development Indicators (2015). Retrieved from:http://databank.worldbank.org
  91. World Bank Development Indicators (2017). Retrieved from: http://databank.worldbank.org
  92. World Bank (1992) World development report 1992: development and the environment. In: New York: Oxford university press. World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5975 Google Scholar
  93. Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Carvajal-Lara C, Urgiles-Sanchez R (2018) Is there an inverted U-shaped curve? Empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve in Singapore. Asia-Pac J Account Econ 25(1–2):145–162Google Scholar
  94. Zhang S (2018) Is trade openness good for environment in South Korea? The role of non-fossil electricity consumption. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–13Google Scholar
  95. Zilio M, Recalde M (2011) GDP and environment pressure: the role of energy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Energy Policy 39(12):7941–7949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10:251–270Google Scholar
  97. Zoundi Z (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the environmental Kuznets curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:1067–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Banking and Finance DepartmentEastern Mediterranean UniversityFamagustaTurkey

Personalised recommendations