Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 87–116 | Cite as

Domestic Energy Consumption and Country’s Income Growth: A Quantitative Analysis of Developing and Developed Countries Using Panel Causality, Panel VECM, Panel Cointegration and SURE

  • Somesh K. Mathur
  • Rahul Arora
  • Ishita Ghoshal
  • Sarbjit Singh
Original Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

The present study is an attempt to test the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth for developed and developing counties. For this purpose, panel data on various factors of GDP growth has been taken for 18 developing and 18 developed countries from 1980–2013. The paper uses the variant of Solow model to provide the economic justification behind the econometric estimation of regression model which includes energy consumption as one of the independent variables affecting GDP growth of a country, among others. The paper also runs a separate regression model for developed and developing countries to compare the effect of energy consumption on economic growth. To estimate the regression model, study uses various panel data estimation methodologies such as: panel data cointegration, panel causality, panel VECM, panel VAR and panel data ARDL and SURE to find out the short run and long-run relationship between the policy variables. The overall conclusion emerges from the analysis is that per capita energy consumption has a negative impact on growth of per capita GDP in developing countries but positive impact in case of developed countries. This may be due to the fact that in developed nations, the energy consumption expenditures may be more devoted to technological progress in alternative source of oil like shell gas or in expenditures related to renewable energy intensive technological products. The developing countries although trying to put efforts in increasing expenditures in alternative energy sources like non renewable, oil consumption still seem to not have many alternatives sources of energy. Therefore, reducing oil expenditures tend to promote growth among developing countries. The paper tests the direction of causality between energy consumption and GDP for set of developed and developing countries by working on the following hypotheses
  • Neutrality hypothesis, which holds that there is no causality (in either direction) between these two variables.

  • Energy conservation hypothesis, which holds that there is evidence of unidirectional causality from GDP growth to energy consumption.

  • Growth hypothesis, energy consumption drives GDP growth.

  • Feedback hypothesis, which suggests a bidirectional causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth. Growth, energy conservation and feedback hypotheses tend to work for developed and developing countries.

Keywords

Energy consumption Economic growth Panel data  Solow model 

JEL Classification

O13 O47 C33 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Abosedra, S., and H. Baghestani. 1991. New evidence on the causal relationship united states energy consumption and gross national product. Journal of Energy and Development 14: 285–292.Google Scholar
  2. Adjaye, A.J. 2000. The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from asian developing countries. Energy Economics 22(6): 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akarca, A.T., and T.V. Long II. 1980. On the relationship between energy and GNP: a reexamination. Journal of Energy and Development 5: 326–331.Google Scholar
  4. Arellano, M., and S. Bond. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies 58(2): 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barro, R.J., and X.S.I. Martin. 1995. Technology diffusion, convergence and growth. NBER Working Paper, No. 5151.Google Scholar
  6. Belloumi, M. 2009. Energy consumption and GDP inTunisia: cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Policy 37(2009): 2745–2753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breitung, J. 2000. The local power of some unit root tests for pane data. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, ed. B.H. Baltagi, 161–177. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiang, C.L. 2005. Energy consumption and GDP in developing countries: a cointegrated panel analysis. Energy Economics 27(3): 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi, I. 2001. Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance 20: 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, W.W., L.M. Seiford, and K. Tone. 2007. Data envelopment analysis. In A comprehensive text with models, applications,references and dea-solver software. 2nd ed. Berlin:Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Engle, R.F., and C.W.J. Granger. 1987. Co-Integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2): 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdal, Z., G. Daigger, and B. Forbes. 2008. Energy future: how to bridge the gap between energy innovations and sustainability using a whole system approach. JRB08-Energy Future Manuscript 122607.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, P., and G. Karras. 1996. Convergence revisited. Journal of Monetary Economics 37: 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glasure, Y.U. 2002. Energy and national income in Korea: further evidence on the role of omitted variables. Energy Economics 24: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, W.H. 2008. Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Hadri, K. 2000. Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal 3: 148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howland & Derek Murrow, ENE Lisa Petraglia & Tyler Comings. 2009. Energy efficiency: engine of economic growth : a macroeconomic modelling assessment. Boston: Economic Development Research Group Inc. http://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ENE_ExecSum_EnergyEfficiencyEngineofEconomicGrowth_FINAL.pdf
  18. Hurlin, C., and B. Venet. 2001. Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients.http://basepub.dauphine.fr/bitstream/handle/123456789/6159/3F117993d01.pdf?sequence=1
  19. Hurlin, C., and E. Dumitrescu. 2012. Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00224434/document.
  20. Im, K.S., M.H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin. 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogenous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansen, S. 1988. Statistical analysis of cointegrating vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12(1988): 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, C.I. 2002. Introduction to economic growth, 2nd ed. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. Kraft, J., and A. Kraft. 1978. On the relationship between energy and GNP. Journal of Energy and Development 3: 401–403.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, A., C.F. Lin, and C-S.J. Chu. 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Applied Econometrics 108: 1–22.Google Scholar
  25. MacKinnon, J.G., A. Haug, and L. Michelis. 1999. Numerical distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Journal of Applied Econometrics 14(5): 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddala, G.S., and S. Wu. 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61(S1): 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magazzino, C. 2011. The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Italy. International Journal of Sustainable Energy. 11/2014. doi: 10.1080/14786451.2014.953160
  28. Mankiw, N.G., D. Romer, and D. Weil. 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. QJE 107(May): 407–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masih, A.M.M., and R. Masih. 1996. Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality: results from a multi-country study based on cointegration and errorcorrection modeling techniques. Energy Economics 18(3): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Masih, M.M., and R. Masih. 1997. On the temporal causal relationship between energy consumption, real income and prices: some new evidence from Asian-energy Dependent NICs based on multivariate cointegration/vector error correction approach. Journal of Policy Modeling 19: 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ozturk, I. 2010. A literature survey on energy–growth nexus. Energy Policy 38: 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pedroni, P. 1999. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue. 0305-9049.Google Scholar
  33. Pedroni, P. 2004. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory 20: 597–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pesaran, M.H., Y. Shin, and R.J. Smith. 1999. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of long-run relationships. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics. No. 9907. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Soytas, U., and R. Sari. 2003. Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Economics 25: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Squalli, J. 2007. Electricity consumption and economic growth: bounds and causality analyses of OPEC countries. Energy Economics 29(6): 1192–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Somesh K. Mathur
    • 1
  • Rahul Arora
    • 1
  • Ishita Ghoshal
    • 2
  • Sarbjit Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia
  2. 2.Symbiosis School of EconomicsSymbiosis International UniversityPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations