Export diversification, CO2 emissions and EKC: panel data analysis of 125 countries

  • Hongbo LiuEmail author
  • Hanho Kim
  • Justin Choe


This study explores the applicable stipulation of cross-country regression analysis of international trade and carbon emissions using data on export diversification across 125 countries from 2000 to 2014 at the HS4 digit of disaggregation. Export diversification is subdivided into vertical and horizontal diversification in order to justify its correlation with pollution emission through scale effect, technique effect as well as composition effect. We use an empirical regression equation incorporating Driscoll and Kraay standard errors to rectify the possible problems of heteroscedasticity as well as auto-correlated issues. Besides, interaction terms of economic development and export diversification facilitate the comparison among different income levels: low-income countries illustrate U-shaped relationship between economic development and CO2 emissions, while OECD countries still keep an inverted U-shaped EKC curve which is unanimous with the outcome of 125 countries in general.


Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI) Export product diversification Export market diversification Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions Driscoll and Kraay standard errors 


  1. Agras J, Chapman D (1999) A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecol Econ 28:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics letters 80:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akbar M, Naqvi ZF (2000) Export diversification and the structural dynamics in the growth process: the case of Pakista. Pak Dev Rev 39(4):573–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali R, Alwang JR, Siegel PB (1991) Is export diversification the best way to achieve export growth and stability? A look at three African countries. World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Marhubi F (2000) Export diversification and growth: an empirical investigation. Appl Econ Lett 7:559–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Ind 48:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amurgo-Pacheco A, Pierola MD (2007) Patterns of export diversification in developing countries: intensive and extensive margins. Ploicy Res Wrking PapGoogle Scholar
  8. Antonie MD, Cristescu A, Cataniciu N (2010) A panel data analysis of the connection between employee remuneration, productivity and minimum wage in Romania. In: Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS Int. Conf. MCBE, pp 134–139Google Scholar
  9. Balli HO, Sørensen BE (2013) Interaction effects in econometrics. Empirical Econ 45:583–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bekhet HA, Yasmin T (2013) Exploring EKC, trends of growth patterns and air pollutants concentration level in Malaysia: A Nemerow Index Approach. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 16(1):012015.
  11. Brajer V, Mead RW, Xiao F (2011) Searching for an environmental Kuznets Curve in China’s air pollution. China Econ Rev 22:383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brambor T, Clark WR, Golder M (2005) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Polit Anal 14:63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cadot O, Carrère C, Strauss-Kahn V (2011) Export diversification: what’s behind the hump? Rev Econ Stat 93:590–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cadot O, Carrere C, Strauss-Kahn V (2013) Trade diversification, income, and growth: what do we know? J Econ Surveys 27:790–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2009) Microeconometrics using stata. Stata press College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. Can M, Gozgor G (2016) Dynamic relationships among CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and economic complexity in France. SSRN Electron J. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR (2009) Taking the “U” out of Kuznets. Ecol Econ 68:1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole MA (2004) Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecol Econ 48:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cole MA, Rayner AJ, Bates JM (1997) The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis. Environ Dev Econ 2:401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1995) Trade and transboundary pollution. Am Econ Rev 59:716–737Google Scholar
  21. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 42:7–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2005) Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol. J Environ Econ Manag 49:205–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2013) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Cui J, Lapan H, Moschini G (2016) Productivity, export, and environmental performance: air pollutants in the United States. Am J Agr Econ 98:447–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. das Neves Almeida TA, Cruz L, Barata E, García-Sánchez IM (2017) Economic growth and environmental impacts: an analysis based on a composite index of environmental damage. Ecol Indic 76:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Diao XD, Zeng SX, Tam CM, Tam VW (2009) EKC analysis for studying economic growth and environmental quality: a case study in China. J Cleaner Prod 17:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh HR (2001) A note on testing for environmental Kuznets curves with panel data. Nota di Lavoro, Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  28. Dinda S (2008) EKC: static or dynamic? Int J Global Environ Issues 9:84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Driscoll JC, Kraay AC (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferreira GF, Harrison RW (2012) From coffee beans to microchips: export diversification and economic growth in Costa Rica. J Agric Appl Econ 44:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedl B, Getzner M (2003) Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecol Econ 45:133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frost (2013) Regression analysis: how do I interpret R-squared and assess the goodness-of-fit?
  33. Frost J (2014) How to interpret a regression model with low R-squared and low p values. In: Minitab Inc.(ed) Getting started with minitab 17Google Scholar
  34. Garetti M, Taisch M (2012) Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges. Prod Plan Control 23:83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gengenbach C, Palm FC, Urbain J-P (2009) Panel unit root tests in the presence of cross-sectional dependencies: comparison and implications for modelling. Econ Rev 29:111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gozgor G, Can M (2016a) Effects of the product diversification of exports on income at different stages of economic development. Eurasian Bus Rev 6:215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gozgor G, Can M (2016b) Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:21594–21603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gozgor G, Can M (2017) Does export product quality matter for CO2 emissions? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:2866–2875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Soc Sci Electron Publishing 8(2):223–250Google Scholar
  40. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37:1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hartman R, Kwon O-S (2005) Sustainable growth and the environmental Kuznets curve. J Econ Dyn Control 29:1701–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heil MT, Selden TM (2001) International trade intensity and carbon emissions: a cross-country econometric analysis. J Environ Dev 10:35–49Google Scholar
  44. Heil MT, Wodon QT (1997) Inequality in CO2 emissions between poor and rich countries. J Environ Dev 6:426–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoechle D (2007) Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata J 7:281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holtz-Eakin D, Selden TM (1995) Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. J Public Econ 57:85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hsiao C (2014) Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hu PJ, Chau PY, Sheng ORL, Tam KY (1999) Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manag Inf Syst 16:91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hummels D (2009) How further trade liberalization would change greenhouse-gas emissions from international freight transport. In: NBER working paper, prepared for global forum on trade and climate changeGoogle Scholar
  50. Jaccard J, Turrisi R (2003) Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Juvenal L, Monteiro PS (2013) Export market diversification and productivity improvements: theory and evidence from Argentinean firms. Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaufmann RK, Kauppi H, Mann ML, Stock JH (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:11790–11793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lee C-C, Chiu Y-B, Sun C-H (2009) Does one size fit all? A reexamination of the environmental Kuznets curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Rev Agric Econ 31:751–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liddle B (2015) What are the carbon emissions elasticities for income and population? Bridging STIRPAT and EKC via robust heterogeneous panel estimates. Global Environ Change 31:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu X, Heilig GK, Chen J, Heino M (2007) Interactions between economic growth and environmental quality in Shenzhen, China’s first special economic zone. Ecol Econ 62:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nemati M, Hu W, Reed M (2016) Are free trade agreements good for the environment? a panel data analysis. Soc Sci Electron PublishingGoogle Scholar
  60. Niu S, Ding Y, Niu Y, Li Y, Luo G (2011) Economic growth, energy conservation and emissions reduction: a comparative analysis based on panel data for 8 Asian-Pacific countries. Energy Policy 39:2121–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Özokcu S, Özdemir Ö (2017) Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Pasten R, Figueroa E (2012) The environmental Kuznets curve: a survey of the theoretical literature. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 6:195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perman R, Stern DI (2003) Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rodgers A (1957) Some aspects of industrial diversification in the United States. Econ Geogr 33:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rondeau F, Roudaut N (2014) What diversification of trade matters for economic growth of developing countries? Econ Bull 34:1485–1497Google Scholar
  67. Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 51:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve and energy consumption in Malaysia: a cointegration approach. Energy Sources Part B 11:861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Samen S (2010a) Export development, diversification and competitiveness: how some developing countries got it right. World Bank Institute. pp. 1–23.
  70. Samen S (2010b) A primer on export diversification: key concepts, theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence. Growth and Crisis Unit World Bank Institute, pp 1–23,
  71. Seetanah B, Sannassee R, Lamport M (2012) Export diversification and economic growth: the case of Mauritius. In: 4th World Trade Organization Annual Conference, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  72. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ manag 27:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence. World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  74. Shafik N Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality : time series and cross-country evidence (English). Policy, research working papers; no. WPS 904. World Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  75. Sims CA (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 45(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sirag A, Matemilola BT, Law SH, Bany-Ariffin AN (2018) Does environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis exist? Evidence from dynamic panel threshold. J Environ Econ Policy 7:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Song T, Zheng T, Tong L (2008) An empirical test of the environmental Kuznets curve in China: a panel cointegration approach. China Econ Rev 19:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32:1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stern DI (2015) The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioecon 19(1)1–22Google Scholar
  80. Stern DI (2017) The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioecon 19:7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stern DI, Common MS (2001) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? J Environ Econ Manag 41:162–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stern DI, Zha D (2016) Economic growth and particulate pollution concentrations in China. Environ Econ Policy Stud 18:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Torras M, Boyce JK (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vogt WP, Johnson RB (2011) Dictionary of statistics and methodology: a nontechnical guide for the social sciences: a nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  86. Wang P, Wu W, Zhu B, Wei Y (2013) Examining the impact factors of energy-related CO 2 emissions using the STIRPAT model in Guangdong Province, China. Appl Energy 106:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Williams R (2015) Interaction effects between continuous variables.
  88. Xuefeng Q, Yaşar M (2016) Export market diversification and firm productivity: evidence from a large developing country. World Dev 82:28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yaguchi Y, Sonobe T, Otsuka K (2007) Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve: a comparative study of SO2 and CO2 emissions between Japan and China. Environ Dev Econ 12:445–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Section of the Regional Science Association International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Agriculture and Life ScienceSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.U.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations