Impact of Trade Inequality on Environmental Quality: A Global Assessment

  • Avik SinhaEmail author
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


The interaction between environmental degradation and economic growth is a growing matter of interest among policymakers, and in the era of globalized economy, trade openness plays a significant role in determining the economic growth of nations. Given this context, this paper examines the impact of inequality in trade volume on CO2 emissions, following environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis, for 187 countries and over the period of 1990–2017. In terms of methodology, this study has employed Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) and Geweke (J Am Stat Assoc 77:304–313, [22]) causality analysis, while checking for the cross-sectional dependence. The study has been carried out on both aggregate and disaggregated dataset. Disaggregation of the dataset has been done based on the income levels (low, middle, and high) and continents (Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, and Africa). This study has found the evidence of N-shaped EKC for both the aggregate and disaggregated dataset. The impacts of inequality in trade volume and globalization differ in accordance with the level of development of the nations under consideration.


Inequality Trade volume Theil index EKC hypothesis CO2 


  1. 1.
    Ahad M, Khan W (2016) Does globalization impede environmental quality in Bangladesh? The role of real economic activities and energy use. Available at:
  2. 2.
    Akpan UF, Abang DE (2015) Environmental quality and economic growth: a panel analysis of the “U” in Kuznets. J Econ Res 20(3):317–339Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2016) The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: the role of energy prices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:1622–1631Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arouri M, Shahbaz M, Onchang R, Islam F, Teulon F (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in Thailand: cointegration and causality analysis. J Energy Dev 39:149–170Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2(3):244–263MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Audi M, Ali A (2018) Determinants of environmental degradation under the perspective of globalization: a panel analysis of selected MENA nations. Available at:
  7. 7.
    Bai J, Kao C, Ng S (2009) Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends. J Econ 149(1):82–99MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bai J, Ng S (2006) Evaluating latent and observed factors in macroeconomics and finance. J Econ 131:507–537MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernard J, Mandal SK (2016) The impact of trade openness on environmental quality: an empirical analysis of emerging and developing economies. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 203:195–208Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boutabba MA (2014) The impact of financial development, income, energy and trade on carbon emissions: evidence from the Indian economy. Econ Model 40:33–41Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bu M, Lin CT, Zhang B (2016) Globalization and climate change: new empirical panel data evidence. J Econ Surv 30(3):577–595Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chudik A, Pesaran MH (2015) Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. J Econ 188(2):393–420MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Empirical evidence from a new Index. Appl Econ 38(10):1091–1110Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dreher A, Gaston N, Martens P (2008) Measuring globalization—gauging its consequence. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dogan E, Seker F (2016) The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 60:1074–1085Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):1203–1213Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 Issues Tour 20(16):1701–1719Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ertugrul HM, Cetin M, Seker F, Dogan E (2016) The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecol Ind 67:543–555Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farhani S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Econ Model 38:426–434Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farhani S, Mrizak S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 71:189–198Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(20):15663–15676Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Geweke J (1982) Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. J Am Stat Assoc 77(378):304–313MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (no. w3914). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115(1):53–74MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jaforullah M, King A (2017) The econometric consequences of an energy consumption variable in a model of CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 63:84–91Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2015) The role of renewable energy consumption and trade: environmental Kuznets curve analysis for sub-Saharan Africa countries. Afr Dev Rev 27(3):288–300Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khan HH, Khan O (2018) Income-FDI-environmental degradation nexus for developing countries: a panel analysis of America continent. Available at:
  28. 28.
    Kivyiro P, Arminen H (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for sub-Saharan Africa. Energy 74:595–606Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lau LS, Choong CK, Eng YK (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy 68:490–497Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leitão NC (2014) Economic growth, carbon dioxide emissions, renewable energy and globalization. Int J Energy Econ Policy 4(3):391–399Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mutascu M (2018) A time-frequency analysis of trade openness and CO2 emissions in France. Energy Policy 115:443–455Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nwani C (2017) Causal relationship between crude oil price, energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Ecuador. OPEC Energy Rev 41(3):201–225Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osabuohien ES, Efobi UR, Gitau CMW (2014) Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve in Africa: evidence from panel cointegration. J Environ Plan Policy 16(4):517–538Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oshin S, Ogundipe AA (2014) An empirical examination of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) in West Africa. Euro-Asia J Econ Finan 3(1)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ozatac N, Gokmenoglu KK, Taspinar N (2017) Testing the EKC hypothesis by considering trade openness, urbanization, and financial development: the case of Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(20):16690–16701Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U (2015) Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecol Ind 57:324–330Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sapkota P, Bastola U (2017) Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Econ 64:206–212Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlör H, Fischer W, Hake JF (2012) Measuring social welfare, energy and inequality in Germany. Appl Energy 97:135–142Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seker F, Ertugrul HM, Cetin M (2015) The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:347–356Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shackleton S, Campbell B, Lotz-Sisitka H, Shackleton C (2008) Links between the local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa. World Dev 36(3):505–526Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 34:325–336Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shahbaz M, Sbia R, Hamdi H, Ozturk I (2014) Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecol Ind 45:622–631Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shahbaz M, Bhattacharya M, Ahmed K (2017) CO2 emissions in Australia: economic and non-economic drivers in the long-run. Appl Econ 49(13):1273–1286Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shahbaz M, Khan S, Ali A, Bhattacharya M (2017) The impact of globalization on CO2 emissions in China. Singap Econ Rev 62(04):929–957Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shahbaz M, Shahzad SJH, Mahalik MK (2018) Is globalization detrimental to CO2 emissions in Japan? New threshold analysis. Environ Model Assess 23(5):557–568Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shahbaz M, Balsalobre D, Shahzad SJH (2018) The influencing factors of CO2 emissions and the role of biomass energy consumption: statistical experience from G-7 countries. Environ Model Assess 1–19Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shahbaz M, Haouas I, Sbia R, Ozturk I (2018) Financial development-environmental degradation nexus in the United Arab Emirates: the importance of growth, globalization and structural breaks. Available at:
  50. 50.
    Shannon CE (1951) Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Syst Tech J 30(1):50–64zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shorrocks A (1980) The class of additively decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica 48(3):613–625MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sinha A, Bhattacharya J (2014) Is economic liberalization causing environmental degradation in India? An analysis of interventions. J Appl Bus Econ 16(5):121–136Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sinha A, Sen S (2016) Atmospheric consequences of trade and human development: a case of BRIC countries. Atmos Pollut Res 7(6):980–989Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sinha A, Shahbaz M, Balsalobre D (2017) Exploring the relationship between energy usage segregation and environmental degradation in N-11 countries. J Clean Prod 168:1217–1229Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tang CF, Tan BW (2015) The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy 79:447–454Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Theil H (1967) Economics and information theory. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Westerlund J, Edgerton DL (2007) A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Econ Lett 97(3):185–190MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    You W, Lv Z (2018) Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: a spatial panel approach. Energy Econ 73:248–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Management & EconomicsGoa Institute of ManagementGoaIndia

Personalised recommendations