Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 30, pp 30772–30781 | Cite as

The economic growth/development and environmental degradation: evidence from the US state-level EKC hypothesis

  • Cem IsikEmail author
  • Serdar Ongan
  • Dilek Özdemir
Research Article


This study investigates the validity of the EKC (environmental Kuznets curve) hypothesis for the 50 US states and a Federal District (Washington, D.C.). To this aim, the common correlated effects (CCE) and the augmented mean group (AMG) estimation procedures are applied between 1980 and 2015. While the CCE estimation does not support EKC hypothesis, the AMG does. The empirical findings of the AMG estimation indicate that only 14 states verify the EKC hypothesis. Additionally, the expected negative impacts of fossil energy consumption on the environment (CO2 emissions) are strongly detected in all states except Texas. However, the expected positive impacts of renewable energy consumption on the CO2 emissions are detected only in 13 states. Furthermore, the expected negative impacts of the population are not detected in some mostly populated states like New York, Texas, and Ohio. The overall findings of this study may help the US state-level policy makers in two ways: first, to understand whether their economic growths are sustainable (eco-friendly); second, to see how their fossil and renewable energy consumptions affect their environments and to review their energy policies.


Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) Fossil and renewable energy consumptions Cross-sectional dependence CCE AMG 

Jel classification

Q00 Q2 Q3 Q5 


Supplementary material

11356_2019_6276_MOESM1_ESM.dta (51 kb)
ESM 1 (DTA 51 kb)
11356_2019_6276_MOESM2_ESM.txt (24 kb)
ESM 2 (TXT 23 kb)
11356_2019_6276_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (356 kb)
ESM 3 (XLSX 355 kb)


  1. Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35(12):5412–5420Google Scholar
  2. Aldy JE (2005) An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of US state-level carbon dioxide emissions. J Environ Dev 14(1):48–72Google Scholar
  3. Apergis N, Christou C, Gupta R (2017) Are there environmental Kuznets curves for US state-level CO2 emissions? Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:551–558Google Scholar
  4. Apergis N, Ozturk I (2015) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecol Indic 52(2015):16–22Google Scholar
  5. Atasoy BS (2017) Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the US: evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:731–747Google Scholar
  6. Boluk G, Mert M (2015) The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:587–595Google Scholar
  7. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253Google Scholar
  8. Chen PY, Chen ST, Hsu CS, Chen CC (2016) Modeling the global relationships among economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Renew Sust Energ Rev 65:420–431Google Scholar
  9. Census (2019). US Census Bureau. Accessed 04/12/2018
  10. Destek MA, Ulucak R, Dogan E (2018) Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:29387–29396Google Scholar
  11. Dogan E, Seker F, Bulbul S (2017) Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issue Tour 20(16):1701–1719Google Scholar
  12. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Control Res 23(2):1203–1213Google Scholar
  13. Dogan E, Seker F (2016a) Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renew Energy 94:429–439Google Scholar
  14. Dogan E, Seker F (2016b) The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:1074–1085Google Scholar
  15. Eberhardt M, Bond S (2009) Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator, MPRA Paper 17692. University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. EIA, (2019). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed 04/12/2018
  17. Esteve V, Tamarit C (2012) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for Spain? Fresh evidence from old data. Econ Model 29(6):2696–2703Google Scholar
  18. Farhani S, Mrizak S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 71:189–198Google Scholar
  19. FED, (2019). (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). Accessed 04/12/2018
  20. Franklin RS, Ruth M (2012) Growing up and cleaning up: the environmental Kuznets curve redux. Appl Geogr 32(1):29–39Google Scholar
  21. Friedl B, Getzner M (2003) Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecol Econ 45(1):133–148Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, G. M., and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impact of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER Working paper, 3914.Google Scholar
  23. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377Google Scholar
  24. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37(3):1156–1164Google Scholar
  25. He J, Richard P (2010) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada. Ecol Econ 69(5):1083–1093Google Scholar
  26. Heidari H, Katircioğlu ST, Saeidpour L (2015) Economic growth, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption in the five ASEAN countries. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 64:785–791Google Scholar
  27. Herzer D, Vollmer S (2012) Inequality and growth: evidence from panel cointegration. J Econ Inequal 10:489–503Google Scholar
  28. Hettige H, Lucas REB, Wheeler D (1992) The toxic intensity of industrial production: global patterns, trends, and trade policy. Am Econ Rev 82:478–481Google Scholar
  29. Işik C (2010) Natural gas consumption and economic growth in Turkey: a bound test approach. Energy Syst 1(4), 441–456Google Scholar
  30. Işık C, Shahbaz M (2015) Energy consumption and economic growth: a panel data aproach to OECD countries. International Journal of Energy Science 5(1), 1–5Google Scholar
  31. Isik C, Kasımatı E, Ongan S (2017) Analyzing the causalities between economic growth, financial development, international trade, tourism expenditure and/on the CO2 emissions in Greece. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 12(7):665–673Google Scholar
  32. Isik C. Radulescu M (2017) Investigation of the relationship between renewable energy, tourism receipts and economic growth in Europe. Statistika-Statistics and Economy Journal 97(2), 85–94Google Scholar
  33. Isik C, Dogru T, Turk ES (2018) A nexus of linear and non‐linear relationships between tourism demand, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Theory and evidence. Int J Tour Res 20(1), 38–49Google Scholar
  34. Isik C, Ongan S, Ozdemir D (2019) Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:10846–10853 1-8Google Scholar
  35. Jobert T, Karanfil F, Tykhonenko A (2014) Estimating country-specific environmental Kuznets curves from panel data: a Bayesian shrinkage approach. Appl Econ 46(13):1449–1464Google Scholar
  36. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 65(1):1–28Google Scholar
  37. Lindmark M (2002) An EKC-pattern in historical perspective: carbon dioxide emissions, technology, fuel prices and growth in Sweden 1870–1997. Ecol Econ 42(1):333–347Google Scholar
  38. Nasreen S, Anwar S, Ozturk I (2017) Financial stability, energy consumption and environmental quality: evidence from South Asian economies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:1105–1122Google Scholar
  39. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38(1):661–666Google Scholar
  40. Ozokcu S, Ozdemir O (2017) Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72(2017):639–647Google Scholar
  41. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development,’ Working Paper WP238, Technology and Employment Programme. International Labor Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Panayotou T (1995) Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. In: Ahmed I, Doeleman JA (eds) Beyond Rio (The environmental crisis and sustainable livelihoods in the third world). International Labor Organization, Macmillan Press Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Pesaran, M. H (2004). General diagnostic tests for corss section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240.Google Scholar
  44. Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74(4):967–1012Google Scholar
  45. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22:265–312Google Scholar
  46. Roca J, Padilla E, Farré M, Galletto V (2001) Economic growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain: discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecol Econ 39(1):85–99Google Scholar
  47. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Manag, XXVII 27:147–162Google Scholar
  48. Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24(7):1151–1160 Great Britain: Elsevier Science LtdGoogle Scholar
  49. Vincent, J. (1996). Pollution and economic development in natural resources, environment and development, in Malaysia: a economic perspective, by Jeffrey Vincent, Rozali bin Mohamed Ali, and Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of TourismAnadolu UniversityEskişehirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSt. Mary’s College of MarylandSt. Mary’s CityUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of EconomicsAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations