Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 23, pp 23170–23194 | Cite as

Is skewed income distribution good for environmental quality? A comparative analysis among selected BRICS countries

  • Mantu Kumar Mahalik
  • Hrushikesh Mallick
  • Hemachandra Padhan
  • Bhagaban Sahoo
Research Article

Abstract

A large number of studies have examined the linkage between income inequality and environmental quality at the individual country levels. This study attempts to examine the linkage between the two factors for the individual BRICS economies from a comparative perspective, which is scarce in the literature. It examines the selected countries (Brazil, India, China and South Africa) by endogenising the patterns of primary energy consumption (coal use and petroleum use), total primary energy consumption, economic growth, and urbanisation as key determining factors in CO2 emission function. The long-run results based on ARDL bounds testing revealed that income inequality leads to increase in CO2 emissions for Brazil, India and China, while the same factor leads to reduction in CO2 emissions for South Africa. However, it observes that while coal use increases CO2 emissions for India, China and South Africa, it has no effect for Brazil. In contrast, the use of petroleum products contributes to CO2 emissions in Brazil, while the use of the same surprisingly results in reduction of carbon emissions in South Africa, India and China. The findings suggest that given the significance of income inequality in environmental pollution, the policy makers in these emerging economies have to take into consideration the role of income inequality, while designing the energy policy to achieve environmental sustainability.

Keywords

Income inequality Pattern of energy use CO2 emissions Urbanisation Growth BRICS 

JEL classification

Q54 C12 R51 & O47 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the comments received from the conference participants and paper panellists in the 1st International Conference on “Energy, Finance and the Macroeconomy (ICEFM)” during 22–24 November 2017, held at Montpellier Business School, France. We also acknowledge the comments received from the workshop participants and paper panellists on “Multi-scale Climate Governance in India: Understanding the Challenges and Opportunities” during 18–19 January 2018, held at TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi. We would also like to thank the editor and three anonymous referees for constructive and useful comments.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2401_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 40 kb)
11356_2018_2401_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Abid M (2015) The close relationship between informal economic growth and carbon emissions in Tunisia since 1980: the (ir) relevance of structural breaks. Sustainable Cities and Society 15:11–21Google Scholar
  2. Ahmad A, Zhao Y, Shahbaz M, Bano S, Zhang Z, Wang S, Liu Y (2016) Carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: an aggregate and disaggregate analysis of the Indian economy. Energy Policy 96:131–143Google Scholar
  3. Akin CS (2014) The impact of foreign trade, energy consumption and income on Co2 emissions. Int J Energy Econ Policy 4(3):465Google Scholar
  4. Antle JM, Heidebrink G (1995) Environment and development: theory and international evidence. Econ Dev Cult Chang 43(3):603–625Google Scholar
  5. Arvin-Mark B, Pradhan RP, Norman NR (2015) Transportation intensity, urbanization, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in the G-20 countries. Util Policy 35:50–66Google Scholar
  6. Baek J, Gweisah G (2013) Does income inequality harm the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States. Energy Policy 62:1434–1437Google Scholar
  7. Baloch, A., Shah, S. Z., Noor, Z. M., & Magsi, H. B. (2017) The nexus between income inequality, economic growth and environmental degradation in Pakistan. Geo J 1–16Google Scholar
  8. Banerjee A, Dolado J, Mestre R (1998) Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. J Time Ser Anal 19(3):267–283Google Scholar
  9. Bayer C, Hanck C (2013) Combining non-cointegration tests. J Time Ser Anal 34(1):83–95Google 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 41:594–601Google Scholar
  11. Boyce JK (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 11(3):169–178Google Scholar
  12. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J. M. (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 149–192Google Scholar
  13. Castellucci, L., D’Amato, A., & Zoli, M. (2012) Environmental quality and income inequality: the impact of redistribution on direct household emissions in Italy. In Environmental taxes and fiscal reform (pp. 123–141). Palgrave Macmillan UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowan WN, Chang T, Inglesi-Lotz R, Gupta R (2014) The nexus of electricity consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries. Energy Policy 66:359–368Google Scholar
  15. Cushing L., Morello-Frosch R, Wander M, & Pastor M (2015) The haves, the have-nots, and the health of everyone: the relationship between social inequality and environmental quality. Annual Review of Public Health, 36Google Scholar
  16. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimation for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366):427–431Google Scholar
  17. Dietz T, Rosa EA (1994) Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence and technology. Hum Ecol Rev 1(2):277–300Google Scholar
  18. Dietz T, Rosa EA (1997) Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94(1):175–179Google Scholar
  19. Downey L (2015) Inequality, democracy, and the environment. NYU PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Drabo A (2011) Impact of income inequality on health: does environment quality matter? Environ Plan A 43(1):146–165Google Scholar
  21. Ehrlich P, Holdren J (1970) The people problem. Saturday Rev 4(42):42–43Google Scholar
  22. Engle RF, Granger CW (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276Google Scholar
  23. Eriksson C, Persson J (2003) Economic growth, inequality, democratization, and the environment. Environ Resour Econ 25(1):1–16Google Scholar
  24. Esso LJ, Keho Y (2016) Energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: cointegration and causality evidence from selected African countries. Energy 114:492–497Google Scholar
  25. 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 22(20):15663–15676Google Scholar
  26. Fisher RA, Immer FR, Tedin O (1932) The genetical interpretation of statistics of the third degree in the study of quantitative inheritance. Genetics 17(2):107–124Google Scholar
  27. Franco S, Mandla VR, Rao KRM (2017) Urbanization, energy consumption and emissions in the Indian context a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 71:898–907Google Scholar
  28. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377Google Scholar
  29. Hallegatte S, Rozenberg J (2017) Climate change through a poverty lens. Nat Clim Chang 7(4):250–256Google Scholar
  30. Hamilton JT (1995) Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the toxics release inventory data. J Environ Econ Manag 28(1):98–113Google Scholar
  31. Hao Y, Chen H, Zhang Q (2016) Will income inequality affect environmental quality? Analysis based on China’s provincial panel data. Ecol Indic 67:533–542Google Scholar
  32. He Z, Xu S, Shen W, Long R, Chen H (2017) Impact of urbanization on energy related CO2 emission at different development levels: regional difference in China based on panel estimation. J Clean Prod 140:1719–1730Google Scholar
  33. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):5167–5172Google Scholar
  34. Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42:450–460Google Scholar
  35. Jun Y, Zhong-kui Y, Peng-fei S (2011) Income distribution, human capital and environmental quality: empirical study in China. Energy Procedia 5:1689–1696Google Scholar
  36. Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52(2):169–210Google Scholar
  37. Johansen S (1991) Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 59:1551–1580Google Scholar
  38. Kanjilal K, Ghosh S (2013) Environmental Kuznet’s curve for India: evidence from tests for cointegration with unknown structural breaks. Energy Policy 56:509–515Google Scholar
  39. Kasuga H, Takaya M (2017) Does inequality affect environmental quality? Evidence from major Japanese cities. J Clean Prod 142:3689–3701Google Scholar
  40. Kivyiro P, Arminen H (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for sub-Saharan Africa. Energy 74:595–606Google Scholar
  41. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  42. Magnani E (2000) The environmental Kuznets curve, environmental protection policy and income distribution. Ecol Econ 32(3):431–443Google Scholar
  43. Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Sahoo M (2018) Is crude oil price detrimental to domestic private investment for an emerging economy? The role of public sector investment and financial sector development in an era of globalization. Energy Econ 69:307–324Google Scholar
  44. May, J. (1998) Experience and perceptions of poverty in South Africa. Praxis PublishingGoogle Scholar
  45. Nnaji CE, Chukwu JO, Nnaji M (2013) Electricity supply, fossil fuel consumption, Co2 emissions and economic growth: implications and policy options for sustainable development in Nigeria. Int J Energy Econ Policy 3(3):262Google Scholar
  46. Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ 37(17):1979–1990Google Scholar
  47. Panayotou T (1997) Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ Dev Econ 2(4):465–484Google Scholar
  48. Pao HT, Tsai CM (2011) Multivariate Granger causality between CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy 36(1):685–693Google Scholar
  49. Pesaran MH, Shin Y (1996) Cointegration and speed of convergence to equilibrium. J Econ 71(1):117–143Google Scholar
  50. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326Google Scholar
  51. Pesaran, M. H., & Pesaran, B. (1997) Working with Microfit 4.0: interactive econometric analysis; [Windows version]. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75(2):335–346Google Scholar
  53. Ravallion M, Heil M, Jalan J (2000) Carbon emissions and income inequality. Oxf Econ Pap 52(4):651–669Google Scholar
  54. Sachs, J. D. (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Salahuddin M, Gow J (2014) Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Energy 73:44–58Google Scholar
  56. Sebri M, Ben-Salha O (2014) On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 39:14–23Google Scholar
  57. Seker F, Ertugrul HM, Cetin M (2015) The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:347–356Google Scholar
  58. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Manag 27(2):147–162Google Scholar
  59. Shafik N (1994) Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxf Econ Pap 46:757–773Google Scholar
  60. Shahbaz M, Sbia R, Hamdi H, Ozturk I (2014) Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecol Indic 45:622–631Google Scholar
  61. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Loganathan N (2015) Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecol Indic 52:379–393Google Scholar
  62. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Sadorsky P (2016) The role of globalization on the recent evolution of energy demand in India: implications for sustainable development. Energy Econ 55:52–68Google Scholar
  63. Shahbaz, M., Bhattacharya, M., & Mahalik, M. K. (2017) Finance and income inequality in Kazakhstan: evidence since transition with policy suggestions. Appl Econ 1–15Google Scholar
  64. Solt F (2009) Standardizing the world income inequality database. Soc Sci Q 90(2):231–242Google Scholar
  65. Sim N, Zhou H (2015) Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quantiles. J Bank Financ 55:1–8Google Scholar
  66. Solt F (2016) The standardized world income inequality database. Soc Sci Q 97(5):1267–1281Google Scholar
  67. Torras M, Boyce JK (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):147–160Google Scholar
  68. Tol RS (2009) The economic effects of climate change. J Econ Perspect 23(2):29–51Google Scholar
  69. Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhou J, Zhu X, Lu G (2011) Energy consumption and economic growth in China: a multivariate causality test. Energy Policy 39(7):4399–4406Google Scholar
  70. Wang C (2013) Differential output growth across regions and carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from US and China. Energy 53:230–236Google Scholar
  71. Wang Y, Li L, Kubota J, Han R, Zhu X, Lu G (2016a) Does urbanization lead to more carbon emission? Evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Appl Energy 168:375–380Google Scholar
  72. Wang Y, Han R, Kubota J (2016b) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for SO2 emissions? A semi-parametric panel data analysis for China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:1182–1188Google Scholar
  73. Wang Y, Chen L, Kubota J (2016c) The relationship between urbanization, energy use and carbon emissions: evidence from a panel of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. J Clean Prod 112:1368–1374Google Scholar
  74. Wang Y, Zhang C, Lu A, Li L, He Y, ToJo J, Zhu X (2017) A disaggregated analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for industrial CO2 emissions in China. Appl Energy 190:172–180Google Scholar
  75. Wolde-Rufael Y, Idowu S (2017) Income distribution and CO2 emission: a comparative analysis for China and India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 74:1336–1345Google Scholar
  76. World Bank (2009) World development report 2009: reshaping economic geography. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5991
  77. Wu L, Liu S, Liu D, Fang Z, Xu H (2015) Modelling and forecasting CO2 emissions in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries using a novel multi-variable grey model. Energy 79:489–495Google Scholar
  78. Wu Y, Shen J, Zhang X, Skitmore M, Lu W (2016) The impact of urbanization on carbon emissions in developing countries: a Chinese study based on the U-Kaya method. J Clean Prod 135:589–603Google Scholar
  79. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46(3):351–365Google Scholar
  80. Zakarya GY, Mostefa BELMOKADDEM, Abbes SM, Seghir GM (2015) Factors affecting CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries: a panel data analysis. Proc Econ Finance 26:114–125Google Scholar
  81. Zhang C, Zhao W (2014) Panel estimation for income inequality and CO2 emissions: a regional analysis in China. Appl Energy 136:382–392Google Scholar
  82. Zhang, N., Yu, K., & Chen, Z. (2017) How does urbanization affect carbon dioxide emissions? A cross-country panel data analysis. Energy PolicyGoogle Scholar
  83. 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 GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) KharagpurMedinipurIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Development Studies (CDS)TrivandrumIndia
  3. 3.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesNational Institute of Technology (NIT), RourkelaSundargarhIndia
  4. 4.Anandapur College, AnandapurKeonjharIndia

Personalised recommendations