Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economic policy uncertainty, energy consumption and carbon emissions in G7 countries: evidence from a panel Granger causality analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the causal relationship between economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and energy consumption and carbon (CO2) emissions in G7 countries. We employ a bootstrap panel Granger causality test developed by Kónya (Econ Model 23:978–992, 2006), using a yearly data set spanning from 1998 to 2018. Our test results provide significant support for a unidirectional causality running from EPU to energy consumption in Japan; from EPU to CO2 emissions in the USA and Germany; and from EPU to both energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Canada. In Italy, causality runs from CO2 emissions to EPU, but a bidirectional causality between EPU and energy consumption exists as well. We also explore a unidirectional causality that runs from energy consumption to CO2 in the USA. Based on the overall findings, we draw important implications for policymakers and we strongly recommend for G7 countries to take into account possible negative effects of EPU on energy conservation policies, which should be embarked upon to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions, as committed in their recent climate mandate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is particularly true when “growth hypothesis” holds where energy consumption causes economic growth. However, literature supports for “conservation hypothesis” (unidirectional causality running from economic growth to energy consumption), “feedback hypothesis” (bidirectional causality), and “neutrality hypothesis” (no causality) as well. We refer to “Theoretical background” for a concise review of the broad literature regarding the energy consumption-economic growth nexus.

  2. Please refer to “Theoretical background” for the origination of the EKC hypothesis as well as its transformation within the energy literature. However, we would like to emphasize that testing the EKC hypothesis is out of the scope of this paper. We rather include CO2 emissions variable both in order to augment our model specifications (see Section 3.2) and more importantly to analyze its relationship with EPU on the basis of CO2 emissions-economic growth nexus (see Section 2.2).

  3. We refer to Khandokar and Serletis (2018) and Su et al. (2019) for a brief comparison of EPU with other sources of uncertainty.

  4. Note that the European EPU index is composed of data pertaining to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK.

  5. Hajko (2017) argues that one of reasons of the inconclusive evidence is significant methodological omissions.

  6. All indices are available on https://www.policyuncertainty.com/.

  7. See Kar et al. (2011) and Wolde-Rufael (2014) and references therein.

  8. We refer to Pesaran et al. (2008) for further details.

  9. We refer to Pesaran and Yamagata (2008) for further details of Swamy test and its estimators.

  10. Frankly, our trivariate analysis can handle only direct, one-period-ahead causality between any pair of variables ignoring the possibility of indirect causality at longer time horizons. That is, the possibility of indirect causality is disregarded, even though two-step causality may arise when, for instance, EPU causes energy consumption and/or energy consumption causes EPU indirectly, via CO2 emissions. In bivariate systems, however, absence of causality for one-period-ahead implies the same for any horizon. Thus, bivariate and trivariate causality test results are not comparable (Kónya 2004).

  11. We refer to Kónya (2006) for further details of the bootstrap sampling procedure.

  12. Though not reported in order to save space, results from the lag selection procedure are available upon request. In the case of Emirmahmutoglu and Kose’s (2011) procedure, however, the individual lag orders are selected based on the Schwarz Bayesian Criterion (BCI).

  13. In line with this requirement, we determine the maximum integration degree (d) of the series. Briefly, we investigate the time series properties of the variables by employing the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test and find that d is equal to I(1) for each member country in our panel. Data are available upon request.

  14. Also note that unreported entire panel results obtained from Emirmahmutoglu and Kose (2011) indicate no-causality among variables of interest. This finding suggests that individual countries (i.e. cross-sectional units) are not able to drive the results for G7 as a whole (i.e. entire panel) since time series evidence is not largely consistent with the panel analysis results. Data are available on request.

  15. Banday and Aneja (2019) employ Emirmahmutoglu and Kose (2011) and Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) in a comparative manner and conclude with divergent results for individual G7 countries.

  16. This is also confirmed by the entire panel statistics of Emirmahmutoglu and Kose (2011). See footnote 14.

  17. We checked the relationships among our variables by means of standard panel data analyses as well. Unreported results show that there are no statistically significant associations between EPU and energy consumption (with positive coefficient sign) or CO2 emissions (with negative coefficient sign), while positive and significant links are found for energy consumption and CO2 emissions in all cases. These findings corroborate the panel correlation results previously given in Table 2. Data are available on request.

  18. Interestingly, Akadiri et al. (2019) argue that Italy is an energy-independent country and, therefore, energy conservation policies would not harm economic growth. This outcome contradicts with that of Stamatiou and Dritsakis (2019), which posits that a reduction in energy consumption has an adverse effect on economic growth. The former study use data spanning from 1970 to 2014 whereas the latter focuses on the sampling period of 1960–2011. This implies that the causal links may be time-variant.

  19. Note that, Japan, among the G7, is also a huge energy consumer and the country’s energy dependency rate is the highest [around 93%, (Statista 2015)], but one reason for this may be the nuclear plant disaster occurred in Fukushima on March 11, 2011, when the steady declining trend in the energy dependency rate started to reverse. Dissimilar findings we obtain for these two high energy-consuming countries imply that, in the meantime, Japan appears to have stuck to policies to realize its potential in reducing energy intensity and optimizing energy structure without harming growth, probably, by virtue of the advancement of alternative sources of energy (Pereira et al. 2014).

References

  • Abosedra S, Baghestani H (1989) New evidence on the causal relationship between United States energy consumption and gross national product. J Energy Dev 185–292.

  • Ahmed M, Azam M (2016) Causal nexus between energy consumption and economic growth for high, middle and low income countries using frequency domain analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:653–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Aizenmann J, Marion N (1993) Policy uncertainty, persistence, and growth. Rev Int Econ 1(2):145–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajmi A, El Montasser G, Nguyen DK (2013) Testing the relationships between energy consumption and income in G7 countries with nonlinear causality tests. Econ Model 35:126–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajmi N, Hammoudeh S, Nguyen D, Sato J (2015) On the relationships between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and income: the importance of time variation. Energy Econ 49:629–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Akadiri S, Alkawfi M, Uğural S, Akadiri A (2019) Towards achieving environmental sustainability target in Italy. The role of energy, real income and globalization. Sci Total Environ 671:1293–1301

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alam M, Begum I, Buysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G (2012) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh: cointegration and dynamic causality analysis. Energy Policy 45:217–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Özler S, Roubini N, Swagel P (1996) Political instability and economic growth. J Econ Growth 1(2):189–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloui R, Gupta R, Miller S (2016) Uncertainty and crude oil returns. Energy Econ 55:92–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni V, Galmarini S (2012) Decoupling economic growth from carbon dioxide emissions: a decomposition analysis of Italian energy consumption. Energy 44:682–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang J (2007) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35(10):4772–4778

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang J (2008) Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia. J Policy Model 30(2):271–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonakakis N, Chatziantoniou I, Filis G (2014) Dynamic spillovers of oil price shocks and economic policy uncertainty. Energy Econ 44:433–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Ozturk İ (2015) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecol Indic 52:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Payne J (2010) The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Policy 38(1):650–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Appiah M (2018) Investigating the multivariate Granger causality between energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Ghana. Energy Policy 112:198–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbatli E, Davis S, Ito A, Miake N (2019) Policy Uncertainty in Japan. IMF

  • Aslan A (2016) The causal relationship between biomass energy use and economy growth in the United States. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:362–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Aslan A, Destek M, Okumus İ (2018) Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(3):2402–2408

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann R, Elstner S, Sims E (2013) Uncertainty and economic activity: evidence from business survey data. Am Econ J 5(2):217–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek J (2015) A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries. Appl Energy 145:133–138

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker S, Bloom N, Davis S (2013) Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Stanford University and University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Q J Econ 131(4):1593–1636 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker S, Bloom N, Davis S (2016) Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Q J Econ 131(4):1593–1636

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcilar M, Ozdemir Z, Arslanturk Y (2010) Economic growth and energy consumption causal nexus viewed through a bootstrap rolling window. Energy Econ 32:1398–1410

    Google Scholar 

  • Banday U, Aneja R (2019) Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions: evidence from G7 countries. World J Sci Technol Sustain Dev 16(1):22–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum C, Caglayan M, Ozkan N, Talavera O (2006) The impact of macroeconomic uncertainty on non-financial firms’ demand for liquidity. Rev Financ Econ 15(4):289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekiros S, Gupta R, Paccagnini A (2015) Oil price forecastability and economic uncertainty. Econ Lett 132:125–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Belke A, Dobnik F, Dreger C (2011) Energy consumption and economic growth: new insights into the cointegration relationship. Energy Econ 33:782–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Bento J, Moutinho V (2016) CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:142–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke B (1983) Irreversibility, uncertainty, and cyclical investment. Q J Econ 98:85–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) he dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:838–845

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom N (2009) The impact of uncertainty shocks. Econometrica 77(3):623–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom N (2017) Observations on uncertainty. Aust Econ Rev 50(1):79–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden N, Payne J (2010) Sectoral analysis of the causal relationship between renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real output in the US. Energy Sources Part B 5(4):400–408

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bozoklu S, Yilanci V (2013) Energy consumption and economic growth for selected OECD countries: further evidence from the Granger causality test in the frequency domain. Energy Policy 63:877–881

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BP (2019) BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Pureprint Group Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitung J (2005) A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econ Rev 24(2):151–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Breusch T, Pagan A (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai Y, Sam C, Chang T (2018) Nexus between clean energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions. J Clean Prod 182:1001–1011

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou-Wei S, Chen C, Zhu Z (2008) Economic growth and energy consumption revisited: evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality. Energy Econ 30:3063–3076

    Google Scholar 

  • Chontanawat J, Hunt L, Pierse R (2008) Does energy consumption cause economic growth? evidence from a systematic study. J Policy Model 30(2):209–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu H, Chang T (2012) Nuclear energy consumption, oil consumption and economic growth in G-6 countries: bootstrap panel causality test. Energy Policy 48:762–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Contreras G, Platania F (2019) Economic and policy uncertainty in climate change mitigation: the London Smart City case scenario. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 142:384–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan W, Chang T, Inglesi-Lotz R, Gupta R (2014) The nexus of electricity consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries. Energy Policy 66:359–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Degiannakis S, Filis G, Panagiotakopoulou S (2018) Oil price shocks and uncertainty: how stable is their relationship over time? Econ Model 72:42–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Destek M, Okumus İ (2017) Disaggregated energy consumption and economic growth in G-7 countries. Energy Sources Part B 12(9):808–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan E, Ozturk İ (2017) The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO2 emissions in the USA: evidence from structural break tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(11):10,846–10,854

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Res 23(2):1203–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1701–1719

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumitrescu E, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirmahmutoglu F, Kose N (2011) Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Econ Model 28(3):870–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirmahmutoglu F, Balcilar M, Apergis N, Simo-Kengne B, Gupta R (2016) Causal relationship between asset prices and output in the United States: evidence from the state-level panel Granger causality test. Reg Stud 50(10):1728–1741

    Google Scholar 

  • Erol U, Yu E (1987) On the relationship between electricity and income for industrialized countries. J Electr Employ 13:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2017) European Commission’s Web Site. Retrieved from From where do we import energy and how dependent are we?: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2c.html

  • Fodha M, Zaghdoud O (2010) Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 38(2):1150–1156

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1968) The role of monetary policy. Am Econ Rev 58(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S (2010) Examining carbon emissions economic growth nexus for India: a multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Policy 38(6):3008–3014

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger C (2003) Some aspects of causal relationships. J Econ 112:69–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GM, Krueger A (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Natl Bur Econ Res

  • Gulen H, Ion M (2015) Policy uncertainty and corporate investment. Rev Financ Stud 29(3):523–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailemariam A, Smyth R, Zhang X (2019) Oil prices and economic policy uncertainty: evidence from a nonparametric panel data model. Energy Econ 83:40–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajko V (2017) The failure of Energy-Economy Nexus: a meta-analysis of 104 studies. Energy 125:771–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37(3):1156–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton J (1983) Oil and macroeconomy since World War II. J Polit Econ 91(2):47–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett K, Metcalf G (1999) Investment with uncertain tax policy: does random tax policy discourage investment? Econ J 109:372–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs R (1997) Regime uncertainty: why the Great Depression lasted so long and why prosperity resumed after the war. Indep Rev 1:561–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu S, Gong D (2019) Economic policy uncertainty, prudential regulation and bank lending. Financ Res Lett 29:373–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Hwang M, Yang C (2008) Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth revisited: a dynamic panel data approach. Ecol Econ 67(1):41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • IMF (2013) 2013 Spillover Report. IMF, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Meng J, Nie H (2018) Visiting the economic policy uncertainty shocks-economic growth relationship: Wavelet-based Granger-causality in quantiles approach. Rom J Econ Forecast 21(2):80–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Zhou Z, Liu C (2019) Does economic policy uncertainty matter for carbon emission? Evidence from US sector level data. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(24):24,380–24,394

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones P, Olson E (2013) The time-varying correlation between uncertainty, output, and inflation: evidence from a DCC-GARCH model. Econ Lett 118(1):33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang W, Ratti R (2013) Oil shocks, policy uncertainty and stock market return. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 26:305–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang W, Ratti R, Vespignani J (2017) Oil price shocks and policy uncertainty: new evidence on the effects of US and non-US oil production. Energy Econ 66:536–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Kar M, Nazlioglu S, Agir H (2011) Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: bootstrap panel granger causality analysis. Econ Model 28:685–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnizova L, Li J (2014) Economic policy uncertainty, financial markets and probability of US recessions. Econ Lett 125(2):261–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes J (1936) The general theory of employment, interest, and money. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Khandokar I, Serletis A (2018) Economic policy uncertainty and real output: evidence from the G7 countries. Appl Econ 50(39):4222–4233

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y (2015) Electricity consumption and economic development: are countries converging to a common trend? Energy Econ 49:192–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Kónya L (2004) Export-led growth, growth-driven export, both or none? Granger causality analysis on OECD countries. Appl Econ Int Dev 4(1):73–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Kónya L (2006) Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD Countries with a panel data approach. Econ Model 23:978–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft J, Kraft A (1978) On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev 3(2):401–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Kum H, Ocal O, Aslan A (2012) The relationship among natural gas energy consumption, capital and economic growth: bootstrap-corrected causality tests from G-7 countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(5):2361–2365

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C (2006) The causality relationship between energy consumption and GDP in G-11 countries revisited. Energy Policy 34:1086–1093

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Chang C (2007) Energy consumption and GDP revisited: a panel analysis of developed and developing countries. Energy Econ 29(6):1206–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Chien M (2010) Dynamic modelling of energy consumption, capital stock, and real income in G-7 countries. Energy Econ 32(3):564–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Li F, Dong S, Li X, Liang Q, Yang W (2011) Energy consumption-economic growth relationship and carbon dioxide emissions in China. Energy Policy 39:568–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston D (2016) The G7 climate mandate and the tragedy of horizons. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magazzino C (2014) Electricity demand, GDP and employment: evidence from Italy. Front Energy 8(1):31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Magazzino C (2015) Energy consumption and GDP in Italy: cointegration and causality analysis. Environ Dev Sustain 17(1):137–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Magazzino C (2018) GDP, energy consumption and financial development in Italy. Int J Energy Sect Manag 12(1):28–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Mardani A, Streimikiene D, Cavallaro F, Loganathan N, Khoshnoudi M (2019) Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic growth: a systematic review of two decades of research from 1995 to 2017. Sci Total Environ 649:31–49

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mark N, Ogaki M, Sul D (2005) Dynamic seemingly unrelated cointegrating regression. Rev Econ Stud 72:797–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Menegaki A (2011) Growth and renewable energy in Europe: a random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Econ 33(2):257–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Menegaki AN, Tugcu CT (2017) Energy consumption and Sustainable Economic Welfare in G7 countries; a comparison with the conventional nexus. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:892–901

    Google Scholar 

  • Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) Energy consumption, pollutant emissions and economic growth in South Africa. Energy Econ 32(6):1374–1382

    Google Scholar 

  • Monfort A, Renne J, Rüffer R, Vitale G (2003) Is economic activity in the G7 synchronized? Common shocks versus spillover effects. CEPR, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutascu M (2016) A bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis of energy consumption and economic growth in the G7 countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 63:166–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan P, Popp S (2012) The energy consumption-real GDP nexus revisited: empirical evidence from 93 countries. Econ Model 29(2):303–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan P, Smyth R (2009) Multivariate granger causality between electricity consumption, exports and GDP: evidence from a panel of Middle Eastern countries. Energy Policy 37:229–236

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell P (1998) The overvaluation of purchasing power parity. J Int Econ 44(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Olanipekun I, Olasehinde-Williams G, Akadiri S (2019) Gasoline prices andeconomic policy uncertainty: what causes what, and why does it matter: evidence from 18 selected countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(15):15,187–15,193

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan B (2013) The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 62:1138–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I (2010) A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energy Policy 38(1):340–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne J (2011) On biomass energy consumption and real output in the US. Energy Sources Part B 6(1):47–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira JP, Parady GT, Dominguez BC (2014) Japan’s energy conundrum: post-Fukushima scenarios from a life cycle perspective. Energy Policy 67:104–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran M (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran M (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panel with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74(4):967–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2015) Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econ Rev 34(6–10):1089–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran M, Yamagata T (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econ 142:50–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran M, Ullah A, Yamagata T (2008) A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econ J 11:105–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson F, Maddison D, Acar S, Söderholm P (2014) Convergence of carbon dioxide emissions: a review of the literature. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 7(2):141–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck R (1991) Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment. J Econ Lit 29(3):1110–1148

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman S, Serletis A (2010) The asymmetric effects of oil price and monetary policy shocks: a nonlinear VAR approach. Energy Econ 32:1460–1466

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehman M (2018) Do oil shocks predict economic policy uncertainty? Physica A 498:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci F (2007) Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth: a survey of the theory. Ecol Econ 60:688–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond A, Kaufmann R (2006) Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecol Econ 56:176–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (1991) Policy uncertainty and private investment. J Dev Econ 36:229–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano T, Fumagalli E (2018) Greening the power generation sector: understanding the role of uncertainty. Renew Sust Energ Rev 91:272–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohamed S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 51:184–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Salahuddin M, Gow J, Ozturk I (2015) Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust? Renew Sust Energ Rev 51:317–326

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Sinha A (2019) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a literature survey. J Econ Stud 46(1):106–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Hye Q, Tiwari A, Leitão N (2013) Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013:109–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin G, Ozturk I (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:325–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Hammoudeh S, Shahzad SJ (2017) Bounds testing approach to analyzing the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis with structural beaks: the role of biomass energy consumption in the United States. Energy Econ 68:548–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoczkowski, T., Bielecki, S., Kochański, M., & Korczak, K. (2019). Climate-change induced uncertainties, risks and opportunities for the coal-based region of Silesia: stakeholders’ perspectives. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions(In Press).

  • Soytas U, Sari R (2003) Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Econ 25:33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Soytas U, Sari R (2006) Energy consumption and income in G7 countries. J Policy Model 28:739–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Soytas U, Sari R (2009) Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 68(6):1667–1675

    Google Scholar 

  • Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing B (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):482–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatiou P, Dritsakis N (2019) Causality among CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Italy. Int J Comput Econ Econ 9(4):268–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Statista (2015) Statista Web Site. Retrieved from Net energy imports as a percentage of energy use in Japan from 1990 to 2015: https://www.statista.com/statistics/576007/energy-dependency-in-japan-based-on-percent-of-energy-use/

  • Stern D (2017) The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioecon 19(1):7–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockhammar P, Österholm P (2016) Effects of US policy uncertainty on Swedish GDP growth. Empir Econ 50:443–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Su Z, Fang T, Yin L (2019) Understanding stock market volatility: what is the role of U.S. uncertainty? N Am J Econ Financ 48:582–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy P (1970) Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica 38:311–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekin R (2012) Economic growth, exports and foreign direct investment in Least Developed Countries: a panel Granger causality analysis. Econ Model 29:868–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiba S, Omri A (2017) Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:1129–1146

    Google Scholar 

  • Tugcu C, Ozturk I, Aslan A (2012) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth relationship revisited: evidence from G7 countries. Energy Econ 34:1942–1950

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaona A (2012) Granger non-causality tests between (non) renewable energy consumption and output in Italy since 1861: the (ir) relevance of structural breaks. Energy Policy 45:226–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolde-Rufael Y (2014) Electricity consumption and economic growth in transition countries: a revisit using bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis. Energy Econ 44:325–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolde-Rufael Y, Menyah K (2010) Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in nine developed countries. Energy Econ 32:550–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Xepapadeas A (2005) Economic growth and the environment. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1219–1271).

  • Zachariadis T (2007) Exploring the relationship between energy use and economic growth with bivariate models: new evidence from G-7 countries. Energy Econ 29(6):1233–1253

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, 06800, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Burak Pirgaip

  2. Department of Business, Atilim University, Kızılcaşar Mahallesi, 06830, Incek Golbasi, Ankara, Turkey

    Burcu Dinçergök

Authors
  1. Burak Pirgaip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burcu Dinçergök
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burak Pirgaip.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Eyup Dogan

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pirgaip, B., Dinçergök, B. Economic policy uncertainty, energy consumption and carbon emissions in G7 countries: evidence from a panel Granger causality analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 30050–30066 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08642-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08642-2

Keywords

JEL classifications

Search

Navigation