Energy use, CO2 emission and foreign direct investment: Is there any inconsistence between causal relations?
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Ertugrul Yildirim
- 关键词：CO2 emissions ; energy consumption ; liberalization
- 刊名：Frontiers in Energy
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：September 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：8
- 期：3
- 页码：269-278
- 全文大小：151 KB
- 参考文献：1. Chang N. The empirical relationship between openness and environmental pollution in China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2012, 55(6): 783-96 CrossRef
2. Zarsky L. Havens, halos and spaghetti: untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. In: Meyer K E ed. Multinational Enterprises and Host Economies. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008, 283-06
3. Blackman A, Wu X. Foreign direct investment in China's power sector: trends, benefits and barriers. Energy Policy, 1999, 27(12): 695-11 CrossRef
4. Mielnik O, Goldemberg J. Foreign direct investment and decoupling between energy and gross domestic product in developing countries. Energy Policy, 2002, 30(2): 87-9 CrossRef
5. Eskeland G S, Harrison A E. Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics, 2003, 70(1): 1-3 CrossRef
6. Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson G H, Ma J, Xu J. Technology development and energy productivity in China. Energy Economics, 2004, 28(5, 6): 690-05
7. Tang C F. Electricity consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and population in Malaysia: new evidence from multivariate framework analysis. Journal of Economic Studies (Glasgow, Scotland), 2009, 36(4): 371-82 CrossRef
8. Hübler M, Keller A. Energy savings via FDI? Empirical evidence from developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 2010, 15(1): 59-0 CrossRef
9. Sadorsky P. The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(5): 2528-535 CrossRef
10. Pao H T, Tsai C M. Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 2011, 36(1): 685-93 CrossRef
11. Ting Y, Long R Y, Zhuang Y Y. Analysis of the FDI effect on energy consumption intensity in Jiangsu province. Energy Procedia, 2011, 5: 100-04 CrossRef
12. Song F, Zheng X. What drives the change in China's energy intensity: combining decomposition analysis and econometric analysis at the provincial level. Energy Policy, 2012, 51: 445-53 CrossRef
13. Herrerias M J, Cuadros A, Orts V. Energy intensity and investment ownership across Chinese provinces. Energy Economics, 2013, 36: 286-98 CrossRef
14. Al-mulali U, Tang C F. Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 2013, 60: 813-19 CrossRef
15. Cole M A, Elliott R J R. FDI and the capital intensity of “dirty-sectors: a missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics, 2005, 9(4): 530-48 CrossRef
16. Hoffmann R, Lee C G, Ramasamy B, Yeung M. FDI and pollution: a Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 2005, 17(3): 311-17 CrossRef
17. He J. Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 2006, 60(1): 228-45 CrossRef
18. Merican Y, Yusop Z, Noor Z M, Hook L S. Foreign direct investment and the pollution in five ASEAN nations. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2007, 1(2): 245-61
19. Waldkirch A, Gopinath M. Pollution control and foreign direct investment in Mexico: an industry-level analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2008, 41(3): 289-13 CrossRef
20. Jorgenson A K. Foreign direct investment and the environment, the mitigating influence of institutional and civil society factors, and relationships between industrial pollution and human health: a panel study of less-developed countries. Organization & Environment, 2009, 22(2): 135-57 CrossRef
21. Lee C G. Foreign direct investment, pollution and economic growth: evidence from Malaysia. Applied Economics, 2009, 41(13): 1709-716 CrossRef
22. Tamazian A, Chousa J P, Vadlamannati K C. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(1): 246-53 CrossRef
23. Kim M H, Adilov N. The lesser of two evils: an empirical investigation of foreign direct investment-pollution tradeoff. Applied Economics, 2012, 44(20): 2597-606 CrossRef
24. Blanco L, Gonzalez F, Ruiz I. The impact of FDI on CO2 emissions in Latin America. Oxford Development Studies, 2013, 41(1): 104-21 CrossRef
25. Chandran V G R, Tang C F. The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 24: 445-53 CrossRef
26. Kónya L. Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD Countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 2006, 23(6): 978-92 CrossRef
27. Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1962, 57(298): 348-68 CrossRef
28. Pesaran MH. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panel with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 2006, 74(4): 967-012 CrossRef
29. Huang Y. Private investment and financial development in a globalized world. Empirical Economics, 2011, 41(1): 43-6 CrossRef
30. Selover D D. International interdependence and business cycle transmission in ASEAN. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1999, 13(3): 230-53 CrossRef
31. Sayek S, Selover D D. International interdependence and business cycle transmission between Turkey and the European Union. Southern Economic Journal, 2002, 69(2): 206-38 CrossRef
32. Breusch T S, Pagan A R. The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 1980, 47(1): 239-53 CrossRef
33. Pesaran M H. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper, 2004, Paper No. 1229
34. Granger C W J. Some aspects of causal relationships. Journal of Econometrics, 2003, 112(1): 69-1 CrossRef
35. Breitung J. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 2005, 24(2): 151-73 CrossRef
36. Kar M, Nazlioglu S, Agir H. Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: bootstrap panel granger causality analysis. Economic Modelling, 2011, 28(1-2): 685-93 CrossRef
37. Pesaran M H, Shin Y, Smith R P. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1999, 94(446): 621-34 CrossRef
38. Dumitrescu E I, Hurlin C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29(4): 1450-460 CrossRef
39. Phillips P C B. Fully modified least squares and vector autoregression. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29(4): 1450-460 CrossRef - 作者单位：Ertugrul Yildirim (1)
1. Department of Economics, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, 67100, Turkey - ISSN：2095-1698
文摘
In this study, the causal relations between inward foreign direct investment (FDI) -energy use per capita and inward FDI-CO2 emission per capita were analyzed and the inconsistency between the causal relations was investigated via bootstrap-corrected panel causality test and cross-correlation analysis. In this direction, data from 76 countries including the period of 1980-009 was processed. No supportive evidence was found for changing causal relations to country group which was classified into income level. The findings indicated that while the pollution haven hypothesis was supported for Mozambique, United Arab Emirates and Oman, the pollution halo hypothesis was supported in the case of India, Iceland, Panama and Zambia. For other countries, energy use and CO2 emission were neutral to inward FDI flows in aggregated level. Furthermore, this study urged that increased (decreased) energy use due to the inward FDI flows did not necessarily mean an increase (decrease) in pollution level, and vice versa. For policy purpose, FDI attractive policy should be regulated by taking into account this possibility.