Sectoral convergence in energy consumption from developing country perspective: The case of Turkey

Abstract

Recent studies investigating convergence in energy consumption at the sectoral level within a country suggest that aggregate energy consumption could mask considerable differential impacts that might be observed at the sectoral level. This study aims to contribute and complement the existing convergence literature with an attempt to analyze sectoral convergence in energy consumption from the developing country perspective. To this end, we choose Turkey as a developing country and employ both the conventional unit root tests and the residual augmented least squares-Lagrange multiplier (RALS-LM) methodology to investigate stochastic conditional convergence in per capita energy consumption at the sectoral level. Our findings suggest some interesting outcomes that could be relevant from the sectoral energy consumption perspectives for developing countries. While energy consumption in Turkey shows a trending upward, the leading sectors of industry and transport energy consumption per capita diverge from the mean consumption and, therefore, lead to further increases in energy consumption and energy-related emissions. Moreover, agriculture and the other sector, whose consumption per capita values are below the mean, converge towards the mean. Overall, Turkish sectoral energy consumption trends follow developing countries’ patterns, and the empirical findings suggest that this trend is worrying from the sustainability perspective.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    We should approach this claim cautiously, especially when we analyze stochastic conditional convergence in energy consumption from a developing country perspective. As discussed in the following pages of this paper in detail, stochastic conditional convergence is mainly defined as the deviations from the sample average, which generally has upward trend for developing countries. Therefore, even if we find sectoral convergence in per capita energy consumption for a developing country, sectors might converge to a higher level of energy consumption, but not to a lower level.

  2. 2.

    According to S-shaped relationship between energy consumption and economic development, at the early stages of economic development, which refers to labor-intensive agriculture-oriented economies, the energy consumption is relatively slow compared with economic growth. When economies transit to become more industrial, the energy consumption increases with this type of transformation as more capital and energy-intensive sectors require more demand for energy use. At final stage, transforming to a service sector, energy demand again stabilizes as these sectors are less energy-intensive and able to employ more energy-efficient technologies (Deichmann et al. 2018).

  3. 3.

    Please note that the shares of fossil fuel and renewables cannot be quantified for final energy consumption for each sector since electricity consumption for these sectors does not provide a detailed information with regard to energy types.

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that the figures do not add up to 100%. This is because we do not include heat generation or renewables as their shares have not changed significantly or become very small.

  5. 5.

    Abramovitz (1986), Baumol (1986), and De Long (1988) can be regarded as the earlier empirical works in this direction. However, it is equally important to note that the number of studies on income convergence dramatically increased after Mankiw et al. (1992), which emerge as the fundamental empirical framework in the existing literature to test for β convergence using cross-section data based on the Solow (1956) cross-country growth regressions. These regressions are then estimated using panel data estimators, i.e., fixed effect, random effect, difference GMM, or system GMM (Islam 1995; Caselli et al. 1996; Bond et al. 2001). It is worth noting that while several empirical studies including Carlino and Mills (1993), Evans (1996), and Li and Papell (1999) have investigated stochastic convergence, Durlauf and Johnson (1995), Papageorgiou (2002), Masanjala and Papageorgiou (2004), and others have examined the club convergence.

  6. 6.

    Gujarati (2004: 818) states that “An important assumption of the DF test is that the error terms are independently and identically distributed. The ADF test adjusts the DF test to take care of possible serial correlation in the error terms by adding the lagged difference terms of the regressand. Phillips and Perron use nonparametric statistical methods to take care of the serial correlation in the error terms without adding lagged difference terms. Since the asymptotic distribution of the PP test is the same as the ADF test statistic (...)”. Baltagi (2011: 383) simply explains that “All tests for unit root have the hypothesis of non-stationarity as the null with the alternative being that the series is stationary. Two unit roots tests with stationarity as the null and non-stationarity as the alternative are given by Kwaitowski et al. (1992) (...) Test known as KPSS is an analog of the Phillips-Perron test (...)”. Gujarati (2004:819) also highlights that “Most tests of the DF type have low power; that is, they tend to accept the null of unit root more frequently than is warranted. That is, these tests may find a unit root even when none exists. (...) In applying the unit root tests one should therefore keep in mind the limitations of the tests.” Enders (2014:35) confirms this with “A test with good power would correctly reject the null hypothesis of a unit root when the series in question is actually stationary. Monte Carlo simulations have shown that the power of the various Dickey Fuller tests can be very low.” For a detailed comparison between these unit root tests, see Arltová and Fedorová (2016).

  7. 7.

    Note that LM test employed here is sometimes called as transformed LM and differs from LM test developed in LS (2003).

  8. 8.

    During our discussions on LM and RALS-LM unit root tests, we follow, for consistency, the notation used by Meng et al. (2014). For further information, see Meng et al. (2014).

  9. 9.

    While the two-step LM unit root test depends only on the number of structural breaks, it is invariant to the size and location of the breaks (Lee et al. 2012: 102). On the other hand, RALS-LM tests have good size and power properties even when the sample size is relatively small (Meng et al. 2014: 353). As in our study, Meng et al. (2013) and Akram et al. (2020) using LM and RALS-LM methods also carried out their analysis using 51 and 47 years, respectively.

  10. 10.

    For further information on data transformation process, see data Appendix in the supplementary file or visit https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/tgmk8dgz4v/2.

  11. 11.

    Some researchers, however, define stochastic convergence as a deviation from a reference economy, and in this case, averagePCECt is replaced by PCEC1t, where 1 is the index for the reference country (Islam 2003).

  12. 12.

    For empirical results of ADF, PP, and KPSS unit root tests, see data Appendix in the supplementary file.

  13. 13.

    For both the graphical representation of these structural breaks and detailed information on possible national and global causes of them, see Fig. 2 and Table A1 in the Appendix.

References

  1. Abid, M., & Alimi, M. (2019). Stochastic convergence in US disaggregated gas consumption at the sector level. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 61, 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385–406.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acar, S., & Yeldan, A. E. (2018). Investigating patterns of carbon convergence in an uneven economy: The case of Turkey. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics., 46(C), 96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acaravci, A., & Erdogan, S. (2016). The convergence behavior of CO2 emissions in seven regions under multiple structural breaks. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(3), 575–580.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Akram, V., Sahoo, P. K., & Jangam, B. P. (2019). Do shocks to electricity consumption revert to its equilibrium? Evidence from Indian states. Utilities Policy, 61, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Akram, V., Rath, B. N., & Sahoo, P. K. (2020). Stochastic conditional convergence in per capita energy consumption in India. Economic Analysis and Policy, 65, 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aldy, J. E. (2006). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence? Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(4), 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Anoruo, E., & DiPietro, W. R. (2014). Convergence in per capita energy consumption among African countries: Evidence from sequential panel selection method. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(4), 568.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Apergis, N., & Christou, C. (2016). Energy productivity convergence: new evidence from club converging. Applied Economics Letters, 23(2), 142–145.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Arltová, M., & Fedorová, D. (2016). Selection of unit root test on the basis of length of the time series and value of AR (1) parameter. Statistika, 96(3), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baltagi, B. H. (2011). Econometrics (Fifth Edition). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20059-5.

  12. Barassi, M. R., Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. R. (2008). Stochastic divergence or convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: Re-examining the evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40, 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barassi, M. R., Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. (2011). The stochastic convergence of CO2 emissions: A long memory approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(3), 367–385.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Barros, C. P., Gil-Alana, L. A., & Payne, J. E. (2012). Evidence of long memory behavior in US renewable energy consumption. Energy Policy, 41, 822–826.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baumol, W. J. (1986). Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare: What the long-run data show. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  16. van Benthem, A. A. (2015). Energy leapfrogging. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2, 93–132.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berk, I., Kasman, A., & Kılınç, D. (2018). Towards a common renewable future: The system-GMM approach to assess the convergence in renewable energy consumption of EU countries. Energy Economics, 103922.

  18. Bond, S. R., Hoeffler, A., & Temple, J. R. (2001). GMM estimation of empirical growth models.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Borozan, D. (2017). Testing for convergence in electricity consumption across Croatian regions at the consumer’s sectoral level. Energy Policy, 102, 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bulut, U., & Durusu-Ciftci, D. (2018). Revisiting energy intensity convergence: New evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–7.

  21. Carlino, G. A., & Mills, L. O. (1993). Are U.S. regional incomes converging?: A time series analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(2), 335–346.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., & Sansó, A. (2007). The KPSS test with two structural breaks. Spanish Economic Review, 9(2), 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Caselli, F., Esquivel, G., & Lefort, F. (1996). Reopenning the convergence debate: A new look at cross-country growth empirics. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(3), 363–389.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen, P. F., & Lee, C. C. (2007). Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels. Energy Policy, 35(6), 3526–3540.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cheong, T. S., Li, V. J., & Shi, X. (2019). Regional disparity and convergence of electricity consumption in China: A distribution dynamics approach. China Economic Review., 58, 101154.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Costantini, V., & Martini, C. (2010). The causality between energy consumption and economic growth: A multi-sectoral analysis using non-stationary cointegrated panel data. Energy Economics, 32(3), 591–603.

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Long, J. B. (1988). Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare: Comment. The American Economic Review, 78(5), 1138–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Deichmann, U., Reuter, A., Vollmer, S., & Zhang, F. (2018). Relationship between energy intensity and economic growth: Relationship between energy intensity and economic growth. In World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper, 8322. South Asia: Region.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Durlauf, S. N., & Johnson, P. A. (1995). Multiple regimes and cross-country growth behaviour. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10(4), 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Enders, W. (2014). Applied econometric time series (Fourth Edition). Wiley. isbn:978-1-118-80856-6.

  32. Evans, P. (1996). Using cross-country variances to evaluate growth theories. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 20, 1027–1049.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Fallahi, F. (2017). Stochastic convergence in per capita energy use in world. Energy Economics, 65, 228–239.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Fallahi, F., & Voia, M. (2015). Convergence and persistence in per capita energy use among OECD countries: Revisited using confidence intervals. Energy Economics, 52, 246–253.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics (Fourth Edition). The McGraw-Hill Companies.

  36. Herrerias, M. J., Aller, C., & Ordóñez, J. (2017). Residential energy consumption: A convergence analysis across Chinese regions. Energy Economics, 62, 371–381.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Howarth, N., Galeotti, M., Lanza, A., & Dubey, K. (2017). Economic development and energy consumption in the GCC: An international sectoral analysis. Energy Transit, 1(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41825-017-0006-3.

  38. IEA (2017a). World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA, 2017.

  39. IEA. (2017b). Energy Efficiency 2017. OECD/IEA: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Im, K. S., & Schmidt, P. (2008). More efficient estimation under non-normality when higher moments do not depend on the regressors, using residual augmented least squares. Journal of Econometrics, 144, 219–233.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Im, K. S., Lee, J., & Tieslau, M. A. (2014). More powerful unit root tests with non-normal errors. In Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 315–342). New York: Springer New York.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Islam, N. (1995). Growth empirics: A panel data approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 1127–1170.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Islam, N. (2003). What have we learnt from the convergence debate? Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(3), 309–362.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ivanovski, K., Churchill, S. A., & Smyth, R. (2018). A club convergence analysis of per capita energy consumption across Australian regions and sectors. Energy Economics, 76, 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jakob, M., Haller, M., & Marschinski, R. (2012). Will history repeat itself? Economic convergence and convergence in energy use patterns. Energy Economics, 34(1), 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Johnson, P. and Papageorgiou, C. (2018). What remains of cross-country convergence?. Chris Papageorgiou website. 28.06.2018, http://www.chrispapageorgiou.com/ papers/ convergence.pdf

  47. Karakaya, E., Alataş, S., & Yılmaz, B. (2019a). Replication of Strazicich and List (2003): Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Energy Economics., 82, 135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Karakaya, E., Yılmaz, B., & Alataş, S. (2019b). How production based and consumption based emissions accounting systems change climate policy analysis: The case of CO2 convergence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research., 26(16), 16682–16694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05007-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Karimu, A., Brännlund, R., Lundgren, T., & Söderholm, P. (2017). Energy intensity and convergence in Swedish industry: A combined econometric and decomposition analysis. Energy Economics, 62, 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kum, H. (2012). Are fluctuations in energy consumption transitory or permanent? Evidence from a panel of East Asia & Pacific countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(3), 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2014). Are shocks to disaggregated energy consumption in Malaysia permanent or temporary? Evidence from LM unit root tests with structural breaks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 319–328.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lean, H. H., Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2016). Conditional convergence in US disaggregated petroleum consumption at the sector level. Applied Economics, 48(32), 3049–3061.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lee, J., Strazicich, M. C., & Meng, M. (2012). Two-step LM unit root tests with trend breaks. Journal of Statistical and Econometric Methods, 1, 81–107.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lescaroux, F. (2011). Dynamics of final sectoral energy demand and aggregate energy intensity. Energy Policy, 39(1), 66–82.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Li, Q., & Papell, D. (1999). Convergence of international output time series evidence for 16 OECD countries. International Review of Economics and Finance, 8, 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lima, F., Nunes, M. L., Cunha, J., & Lucena, A. F. P. (2017). Driving forces for aggregate energy consumption: A cross-country approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 1033–1050, ISSN 1364-0321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Liu, W. C. (2013). The study on the stationarity of energy consumption in US states: Considering structural breaks, nonlinearity, and cross-sectional dependency, In Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (No. 80, p. 626). Engineering and Technology (WASET): World Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407–437.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Markandya, A., Pedroso-Galinato, S., & Streimikiene, D. (2006). Energy intensity in transition economies: Is there convergence towards the EU average? Energy Economics, 28(1), 121–145.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Masanjala, W. H., & Papageorgiou, C. (2004). The Solow model with CES technology: Nonlinearities and parameter heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19, 171–201.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Medlock, K. B., & Soligo, R. (2001). Economic development and end-use energy demand. Energy J., 22, 77–105.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Meng, M., Payne, J. E., & Lee, J. (2013). Convergence in per capita energy use among OECD countries. Energy Economics, 36, 536–545.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Meng, M., Im, K. S., Lee, J., & Tieslau, M. A. (2014). More powerful LM unit root tests with non-normal errors. In R. C. Sickles & W. C. Horrace (Eds.), Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 343–357). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  66. MENR. (2018). Energy Balance Tables. Several Issues: Ministry of Energy and Resources of Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Miketa, A., & Mulder, P. (2005). Energy productivity across developed and developing countries in 10 manufacturing sectors: patterns of growth and convergence. Energy Economics, 27(3), 429–453.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2014). Convergence in energy consumption per capita among ASEAN countries. Energy Policy, 73, 180–185.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2017). Conditional convergence in Australia’s energy consumption at the sector level. Energy Economics, 62, 396–403.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mulder, P., & de Groot, H. L. (2007). Sectoral energy-and labour-productivity convergence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(1), 85–112.

    Google Scholar 

  71. de Oliveira, G., & Bourscheidt, D. M. (2017). Multi-sectorial convergence in greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 402–410.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ozcan, B. (2013). Are shocks to energy consumption permanent or temporary? The case of 17 middle east countries. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 31(4), 589–605.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pan, L. and Maslyuk-Escobedo, S. (2017). Stochastic convergence in per capita energy consumption and its catch-up rate: Evidence from 26 African countries. Monash University Department of Economics ISSN number 1441-5429 Discussion number 16/17.

  74. Panopoulou, E., & Pantelidis, T. (2009). Club convergence in carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(1), 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Papageorgiou, C. (2002). Trade as a threshold variable for multiple regimes. Economics Letters, 77, 85–91.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Payne, J. E., Vizek, M., & Lee, J. (2017a). Is there convergence in per capita renewable energy consumption across US states? Evidence from LM and RALS-LM unit root tests with breaks. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Payne, J. E., Vizek, M., & Lee, J. (2017b). Stochastic convergence in per capita fossil fuel consumption in US states. Energy economics, 62, 382–395.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pettersson, F., Maddison, D., Acar, S., & Söderholm, P. (2014). Convergence of carbon dioxide emissions: A review of the literature. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 141–178.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regressions. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  80. Sala-i Martin, X. X. (1996). The classical approach to convergence analysis. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 1019–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Schmidt, P., & Phillips, P. (1992). LM tests for a unit root in the presence of deterministic trends. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54, 257–287.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Shi, X., Yu, J., & Cheong, T. S. (2020). Convergence and distribution dynamics of energy consumption among China’s households. Energy Policy, 142, 111496.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Smyth, R., & Narayan, P. K. (2015). Applied econometrics and implications for energy economics research. Energy Economics, 50, 351–358.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Strazicich, M. C., & List, J. A. (2003). Are Co2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 263–271.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.

    Google Scholar 

  87. The World Bank (2017). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source = world-development-indicators.

  88. The World Bank (2019). World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE

  89. Vieweg, M.; Bongardt, D.; Hochfeld, C.; Jung, A.; Scherer, E.; Adib, R.; Guerra, F. (2018) Towards decarbonising transport : Taking stock of G20 sectoral ambition. Report on behalf of Agora and GIZ.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Villaverde, J., & Maza, A. (2008). Productivity convergence in the European regions, 1980–2003: a sectoral and spatial approach. Applied Economics, 40(10), 1299–1313.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Yu, S., Hu, X., Fan, J. L., & Cheng, J. (2018). Convergence of carbon emissions intensity across Chinese industrial sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sedat Alataş.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 93 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 27 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 225 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karakaya, E., Alataş, S. & Yılmaz, B. Sectoral convergence in energy consumption from developing country perspective: The case of Turkey. Energy Efficiency 13, 1457–1472 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-020-09891-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sectoral convergence
  • Energy consumption
  • Unit root tests
  • Turkey