Advertisement

Journal of Social and Economic Development

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 212–233 | Cite as

Environmental Kuznets curve for local and global pollutants: application of GMM and random coefficient panel data models

  • Devleena Chakravarty
  • Sabuj Kumar MandalEmail author
Research Paper
First Online:
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of the study is to test the empirical validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis—an inverted U shape relationship between economic growth measured by GDP and environmental damage from the global pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2) and the local pollutant, sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. We use a sample of 57 economies for CO2 and 63 economies for SO2 for the period 1992–2011. The study uses dynamic panel data model (GMM approach) to address the dynamism in the emission level and endogeneity of income, if any. We also use the random coefficient model (RCM) to test the validity of the assumption that all the economies in a sample travel the same growth path. Our results differ from the findings of the previous studies. Results of our dynamic panel model show evidence supporting EKC hypothesis in case of CO2 for both developing and developed economies. For the local pollutant, SO2 emission, a monotonically decreasing relationship with income is found in the context of developed economies, but insignificant impact of income is found for developing economies. Results pertaining to the RCM show that income and its square have insignificant impact on both local and global pollutant and therefore do not support the EKC hypothesis for both developing and developed economies.

Keywords

Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis Local and global pollutant GMM Random coefficient model 

JEL Classification

C33 Q55 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Agras J, Chapman D (1999) A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecol Econ 28(2):267–277Google Scholar
  2. Anjum Z, Burke PJ, Gerlagh R, Stern DI (2014) Rethinking the emissions-income relationship in terms of growth rates. In: Proceedings of the fifty eighth Conference of Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Available from: University of Minnesota Libraries http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/165876/2/Stern%20CP.pdf. [3 November 2014]
  3. Arellano M, Bond S (1998) Dynamic panel data estimation using PPD: a guide for users. Institute for Fiscal Studies, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econometrics 68(1):29–51Google Scholar
  5. Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R, Dasgupta P, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO, Levin S, Maler KG, Perrings C, Pimentel D (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecol Econ 15(2):91–95Google Scholar
  6. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1):115–143Google Scholar
  7. Breitung J (2001) The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: Baltagi B, Fomby T, Carter Hill R (ed) Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration and dynamic panels (Advances in Econometrics, Vol 15). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 161–177Google Scholar
  8. Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR (2009) Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 68(4):1149–1159Google Scholar
  9. Carvalho TS, Almeida E (2011) The global environmental Kuznets curve and the kyoto protocol. CEP 36036:330Google Scholar
  10. Cherniwchan J (2012) Economic growth, industrialization, and the environment. Resour Energy Econ 34(4):442–467Google Scholar
  11. Clement M, Meunie A (2010) Is inequality harmful for the environment? An empirical analysis applied to developing and transition countries. Rev Soc Econ 68(4):413–445Google Scholar
  12. Cole MA (2004) Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecol Econ 48(1):71–81Google Scholar
  13. Coondoo D, Dinda S (2002) Causality between income and emission: a country group-specific econometric analysis. Ecol Econ 40(3):351–367Google Scholar
  14. De Bruyn SM, van den Bergh JC, Opschoor JB (1998) Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves. Ecol Econ 25(2):161–175Google Scholar
  15. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh HRJ (2005) A test for parameter homogeneity in CO2 panel EKC estimations. Environ Resource Econ 32(2):229–239Google Scholar
  16. Ehrhardt-Martinez K (1998) Social determinants of deforestation in developing countries: a cross-national study. Soc Forces 77:567Google Scholar
  17. Eskeland GS, Harrison AE (2003) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. J Dev Econ 70(1):1–23Google Scholar
  18. Galeotti M, Lanza A, Pauli F (2006) Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a robustness exercise. Ecol Econ 57(1):152–163Google Scholar
  19. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. No. w3914. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  20. Halkos GE (2003) Environmental Kuznets Curve for sulfur: evidence using GMM estimation and random coefficient panel data models. Environ Dev Econ 8(04):581–601Google Scholar
  21. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2009) Exploring the existence of Kuznets curve in countries’ environmental efficiency using DEA window analysis. Ecol Econ 68(7):2168–2176Google Scholar
  22. Harbaugh WT, Levinson A, Wilson DM (2002) Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev Econ Stat 84(3):541–551Google Scholar
  23. Harris RDF, Tzavalis E (1999) Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed. J Econom 91(2):201–226Google Scholar
  24. Hildreth C, Houck JP (1968) Some estimators for a linear model with random coefficients. J Am Stat Assoc 63(322):584–595Google Scholar
  25. Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2011) A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: a pooled mean group approach. Appl Energy 88(5):1986–1996Google Scholar
  26. Junyi SHEN (2006) A simultaneous estimation of environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from China. China Econ Rev 17(4):383–394Google Scholar
  27. Kahn ME, Schwartz J (2008) Urban air pollution progress despite sprawl: the “greening” of the vehicle fleet. J Urban Econ 63(3):775–787Google Scholar
  28. Kahuthu A (2006) Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environ Dev Sustain 8(1):55–68Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann RK, Davidsdottir B, Garnham B, Pauly P (1998) The determinants of atmospheric SO2 concentrations: reconsidering the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):209–220Google Scholar
  30. Lee JW (2013) The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy 55:483–489Google Scholar
  31. Lee CC, Lee JD (2009) Income and CO2 emissions: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests.”. Energy Policy 37(2):413–423Google Scholar
  32. 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. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 31(4):751–778Google Scholar
  33. Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CSJ (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom 108(1):1–24Google Scholar
  34. List JA, Gallet CA (1999) The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all? Ecol Econ 31(3):409–423Google Scholar
  35. Liu X (2005) Explaining the relationship between CO2 emissions and national income—the role of energy consumption. Econ Lett 87(3):325–328Google Scholar
  36. Martı́nez-Zarzoso I, Bengochea-Morancho A (2004) Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Econ Lett 82(1):121–126Google Scholar
  37. Martínez-Zarzoso I, Maruotti A (2011) The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: evidence from developing countries. Ecol Econ 70(7):1344–1353Google Scholar
  38. Millimet DL, List JA, Stengos T (2003) The environmental Kuznets curve: real progress or misspecified models? Rev Econ Stat 85(4):1038–1047Google Scholar
  39. Munasinghe M (1999) Is environmental Kuznets curve an inevitable consequence of economic growth: tunneling through the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 29(1):89–109Google Scholar
  40. Omri A (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus in MENA countries: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Energy Econ 40:657–664Google Scholar
  41. Omri A, Nguyen DK, Rault C (2014) Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Econ Model 42:382–389Google Scholar
  42. Panayotou T (1997) Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ Develop Econ 2(04):465–484Google Scholar
  43. Pao HT, Tsai CM (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy 38(12):7850–7860Google Scholar
  44. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(s1):653–670Google Scholar
  45. Perman R, Stern DI (2003) Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Aust J Agric Resource Econ 47(3):325–347Google Scholar
  46. Prieur F (2009) The environmental Kuznets curve in a world of irreversibility. Econ Theor 40(1):57–90Google Scholar
  47. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?. J Environ Econ Manage 27(2):147–162Google Scholar
  48. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence, vol 904. World Bank Publications, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharma SS (2011) Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl Energy 88(1):376–382Google Scholar
  50. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439Google Scholar
  51. Stern DI, Common MS (2001) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? J Environ Econ Manag 41(2):162–178Google Scholar
  52. Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier ES (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24(7):1151–1160Google Scholar
  53. Taguchi H (2012) The environmental Kuznets curve in Asia: the case of Sulphur and carbon emissions. Asia Pac Dev J 19(2):77–92Google Scholar
  54. Tao S, Zheng T, Lianjun T (2008) An empirical test of the environmental Kuznets curve in China: a panel cointegration approach. China Econ Rev 19(3):381–392Google Scholar
  55. Wang H, Jin Y (2007) Industrial ownership and environmental performance: evidence from China. Environ Resour Econ 36(3):255–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Social and Economic Change 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options