Rediscovering the EKC Hypothesis on the High and Low Globalized OECD Countries

  • Patrícia Alexandra LealEmail author
  • António Cardoso Marques
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


The global warming is considered a huge threat for humanity, and for several years, economic growth was considered the main cause for environmental degradation. However, in the reality of an era of globalization and with an increasing economic activity what are the consequences on environment? The present analysis intends to show the effect of globalization on environmental quality. This study is focused on the analysis of the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation for 28 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, by considering energy consumption, renewable and non-renewable, efficiency and globalization. This analysis is performed using the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) based on annual data from 1990 to 2015. The EKC is assessed through the autoregressive distributed lag model and the Driscoll–Kraay estimator. The 28 countries were divided into two groups, namely the high globalized countries (HGC) and the low globalized countries (LGC), by recurring to the globalization ranking available in 2018. This division by the group of countries allows to understand the influence of different globalization levels. The results obtained show that there is evidence for the EKC hypothesis for the HGC, while for the LGC the U-shaped relationship was verified. The era of globalization lived had both consequences on environmental, restrictive and expansive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The HGC need to prepare to the social globalization, which in turn imply an increase of the economic activity and considering the results causes an increase of the CO2 emissions. The LGC has to promote the conversion of the technologies, namely by using more electricity and less fossil technologies.. Therefore, the HGC could be considered policy-makers and the LGC could be considered policy takers.


Globalization de jure Globalization de facto Efficiency index Environmental Kuznets curve 


  1. 1.
    Scholte JA (2008) Defining globalisation. World Econ 31:1471–1502. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gygli S, Haelg F, Sturm J-E (2018) The KOF globalisation index—revisited. KOF Working Paper.
  3. 3.
    Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl Econ 38:1091–1110. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martens P, Caselli M, De Lombaerde P, Figge L, Scholte JA (2015) New directions in globalization indices. Globalizations 12:217–228. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Expert Group on Energy Efficiency (2007) Realizing the potential of energy efficiency: targets, policies and measures for G8 countries. United Nation Found, Washington, DC, p 72Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher I (1921) The best form of index number. Q Publ Am Stat Assoc 17:533–537Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraft J, Kraft A (1978) On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev 3:401–403. 6713220Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gozgor G, Lau CKM, Lu Z (2018) Energy consumption and economic growth: new evidence from the OECD countries. Energy 153:27–34. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shahbaz M, Zakaria M, Shahzad SJH, Mahalik MK (2018) The energy consumption and economic growth nexus in top ten energy-consuming countries: fresh evidence from using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Energy Econ 71:282–301. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35:5412–5420. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ang JB (2007) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy 35:4772–4778. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leal PH, Marques AC, Fuinhas JA (2018) How economic growth in Australia reacts to CO2 emissions, fossil fuels and renewable energy consumption. Int J Energy Sect Manag 12:696–713. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62:482–489. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American Free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No 3914, pp 1–57.
  15. 15.
    Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1139. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ang BW, Zhang FQ (2000) A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 25:1149–1176. Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Freitas LC, Kaneko S (2011) Decomposing the decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth in Brazil. Ecol Econ 70:1459–1469. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ma XW, Ye Y, Shi XQ, Zou L Le (2016) Decoupling economic growth from CO2emissions: a decomposition analysis of China’s household energy consumption. Adv Clim Change Res 7:192–200. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao X, Zhang X, Li N, Shao S, Geng Y (2017) Decoupling economic growth from carbon dioxide emissions in China: a sectoral factor decomposition analysis. J Clean Prod 142:3500–3516. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao X, Zhang X, Shao S (2016) Decoupling CO2 emissions and industrial growth in China over 1993–2013: the role of investment. Energy Econ 60:275–292. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang N, Li H, Liu G, Meng F, Shan S, Wang Z (2018) Developing a more comprehensive energy efficiency index for coal production: indicators, methods and case study. Energy 162:944–952. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feng C, Wang M (2018) Analysis of energy efficiency in China’s transportation sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 94:565–575. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gökgöz F, Güvercin MT (2018) Energy security and renewable energy efficiency in EU. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 96:226–239. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyd GA, Roop JR (2004) A Note on the Fisher Ideal Index Decomposition for Structural Change in Energy Intensity. Energy J. 25:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao X, Ma C, Hong D (2010) Why did China’s energy intensity increase during 1998–2006: decomposition and policy analysis. Energy Policy 38:1379–1388. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tajudeen IA, Wossink A, Banerjee P (2018) How significant is energy efficiency to mitigate CO2 emissions? Evidence from OECD countries. Energy Econ 72:200–221. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45:1–28. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Technology Environment Employment of Geneva International, Labour OffGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. Policy Res Work Pap Ser 18:55. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49:431–455. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32:1419–1439. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaika D, Zervas E (2013) The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory-part a: concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy 62:1392–1402. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwabena Twerefou D, Danso-Mensah K, Bokpin GA (2017) The environmental effects of economic growth and globalization in Sub-Saharan Africa: a panel general method of moments approach. Res Int Bus Financ 42:939–949. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olale E, Ochuodho TO, Lantz V, El Armali J (2018) The environmental Kuznets curve model for greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. J Clean Prod 184:859–868. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ú (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited Environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:838–845. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Farhani S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Econ Model 38:426–434. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lantz V, Feng Q (2006) Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on CO2 emissions in Canada: where’s the EKC? Ecol Econ 57:229–238. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bouznit M, Pablo-Romero M, del P (2016) CO2 emission and economic growth in Algeria. Energy Policy 96:93–104. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu X, Bae J (2018) Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. J Clean Prod 172:178–186. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mrabet Z, Alsamara M (2017) Testing the Kuznets curve hypothesis for Qatar: a comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 70:1366–1375. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liobikienė G, Butkus M (2017) Environmental Kuznets curve of greenhouse gas emissions including technological progress and substitution effects. Energy 135:237–248. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang X, Lou F, Sun M, Wang R, Wang Y (2017) Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the environmental Kuznets curve. Appl Energy 193:162–173. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Holtz-Eakin D, Selden T (1995) Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. J Public Econ 57:85–101. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shahbaz M, Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Do coal consumption and industrial development increase environmental degradation in China and India? Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:3895–3907. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang C, Wang Y, Song X, Kubota J, He Y, Tojo J, Zhu X (2017) An integrated specification for the nexus of water pollution and economic growth in China: panel cointegration, long-run causality and environmental Kuznets curve. Sci Total Environ 609:319–328. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Apergis N, Payne JE (2010) The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: Evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Policy 38:650–655. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marques AC, Fuinhas JA, Leal PA (2018) The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Australia: the environmental Kuznets curve and the decoupling index. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:27283–27296. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roca J, Alca V (2001) Energy intensity, CO emissions and the environmental Kuznets curve. The Spanish case 29:553–556Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Suri V, Chapman D (1998) Economic growth, trade and energy : implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. 25:195–208Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    López-Menéndez AJ, Pérez R, Moreno B (2014) Environmental costs and renewable energy: re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve. J Environ Manage 145:368–373. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S (2015) Does energy intensity contribute to CO2 emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries. Ecol Ind 50:215–224. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xu Q, Dong YX, Yang R (2018) Urbanization impact on carbon emissions in the pearl river delta region: Kuznets curve relationships. J Clean Prod 180:514–523. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chandran VGR, Tang CF (2013) The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:445–453. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rehman FU, Nasir M, Kanwal F (2012) Nexus between corruption and regional environmental Kuznets curve: the case of South Asian countries. Environ Dev Sustain 14:827–841. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Ozturk I (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecol Ind 67:623–636. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tiba S, Omri A (2017) Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:1129–1146. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moutinho V, Varum C, Madaleno M (2017) How economic growth affects emissions? An investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve in Portuguese and Spanish economic activity sectors. Energy Policy 106:326–344. Scholar
  59. 59.
    Huwart JY, Verdier L (2013) Economic globalization: origins and consequences. OECD Insights.
  60. 60.
    Raab M, Ruland M, Schönberger B, Blossfeld HP, Hofäcker D, Buchholz S, Schmelzer P (2008) GlobalIndex: a sociological approach to globalization measurement. Int Sociol 23. Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vujakovic P (2010) How to measure globalization? A new globalization index (NGI). Atl Econ J 38:237. Scholar
  62. 62.
    Figge L, Martens P (2014) Globalisation continues: the maastricht globalisation index revisited and updated. Globalizations 11:875–893. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Potrafke N (2015) The evidence on globalisation. World Econ 38:509–552. Scholar
  64. 64.
    Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131. Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ben Jebli M, Ben Youssef S (2015) The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 47:173–185. Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:3220–3225. Scholar
  67. 67.
    Danish, Zhang B, Wang B, Wang Z (2017) Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Clean Prod 156:855–864. Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pata UK (2018) Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Clean Prod 187:770–779. Scholar
  69. 69.
    Azam M, Khan AQ (2016) Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a comparative empirical study for low, lower middle, upper middle and high income countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 63:556–567. Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zoundi Z (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:1067–1075. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38:661–666. Scholar
  72. 72.
    Robalino-López A, Mena-Nieto Á, García-Ramos JE, Golpe AA (2015) Studying the relationship between economic growth, CO2 emissions, and the environmental Kuznets curve in Venezuela (1980–2025). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:602–614. Scholar
  73. 73.
    Waslekar SS (2014) World environmental Kuznets curve and the global future. Proc Soc Behav Sci 133:310–319. Scholar
  74. 74.
    Martínez-Zarzoso I, Bengochea-Morancho A (2004) Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Econ Lett 82:121–126. Scholar
  75. 75.
    Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37:3282–3286. Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tamazian A, Bhaskara Rao B (2010) Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Econ 32:137–145. Scholar
  77. 77.
    Riti JS, Song D, Shu Y, Kamah M (2017) Decoupling CO2 emission and economic growth in China: is there consistency in estimation results in analyzing environmental Kuznets curve? J Clean Prod 166:1448–1461. Scholar
  78. 78.
    Brown SPA, McDonough IK (2016) Using the environmental Kuznets curve to evaluate energy policy: some practical considerations. Energy Policy 98:453–458. Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ali W, Abdullah A, Azam M (2015) Re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Malaysia: fresh evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 0–1. Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bölük G, Mert M (2015) The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:587–595. Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yin J, Zheng M, Chen J (2015) The effects of environmental regulation and technical progress on CO2 Kuznets curve: an evidence from China. Energy Policy 77:97–108. Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sharif A, Raza SA, Ozturk I, Afshan S (2019) The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew Energy 133:685–691. Scholar
  83. 83.
    Akbostanci E, Türüt-Aşik S, Tunç GI (2009) The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 37:861–867. Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22:265–312. Scholar
  85. 85.
    Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CSJ (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108:1–24. Scholar
  86. 86.
    Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 61:631–652. Scholar
  87. 87.
    Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data 20:249–272Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Metcalf GE (2008) An empirical analysis of energy intensity and its determinants at the state level. Energy J 29:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Diewert WE (2001) The consumer price index and index number theory: a survey. Dep Econ Univ Br Columbia Vancouver 1–104Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econometrics. Scholar
  91. 91.
    Pesaran MH, Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94:621–634. Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ahmad N, Du L (2017) Effects of energy production and CO2 emissions on economic growth in Iran: ARDL approach. Energy 123:521–537. Scholar
  93. 93.
    Driscoll JC, Kraay AC (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80:549–560. Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hoechele D (2010) Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata J. 10:288–308Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Neves SA, Marques AC, Fuinhas JA (2017) Is energy consumption in the transport sector hampering both economic growth and the reduction of CO2 emissions? A disaggregated energy consumption analysis. Transp Policy 59:64–70. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrícia Alexandra Leal
    • 1
    Email author
  • António Cardoso Marques
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Management and Economics DepartmentUniversity of Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.NECE-UBIUniversity of Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal

Personalised recommendations