the environmental kuznets curve reconsidered from the ... · 1 the environmental kuznets curve...

37
THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE RECONSIDERED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HETEROGENEITY: INSIGHTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY POLICY Documents de travail GREDEG GREDEG Working Papers Series Thomas Jobert Fatih Karanfil Anna Tykhonenko GREDEG WP No. 2012-15 http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs. The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion UMR CNRS 7321

Upload: others

Post on 01-Nov-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE RECONSIDERED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HETEROGENEITY: INSIGHTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY POLICY

Documents de travail GREDEG GREDEG Working Papers Series

Thomas JobertFatih KaranfilAnna Tykhonenko

GREDEG WP No. 2012-15

http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html

Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs.

The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s).

Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, GestionUMR CNRS 7321

Page 2: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

1

The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective

of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and energy policy

Thomas Jobert ba, , Fatih Karanfil ,*,dc , Anna Tykhonenko a

a

Nice Sophia Antipolis University, Nice, France. b CREDEG – CNRS,Valbonne, France. c EconomiX – CNRS, University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.

d GIAM, Department of Economics, Galatasaray University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Abstract

Designing an efficient global climate policy turns out to be a difficult yet crucial task since

there are noteworthy cross-country differences in energy and carbon intensities. In this paper,

the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis is tested for carbon dioxide ( 2CO )

emissions and the iterative Bayesian shrinkage procedure is employed to handle the cross-

country differences. The results suggest that: first, the EKC hypothesis is rejected for 49 out

of the 51 countries considered when the heterogeneity in countries’ energy efficiencies and

cross-country differences in the 2CO emissions trajectories are accounted for; second, a

classification of the results, with respect to the development levels of the countries concerned,

reveals that the emergence of an overall inverted U-shape curve is due to the fact that in the

high-income countries, increase in gross domestic product (GDP) decreases emissions, while

in the low-income countries emissions and GDP are positively correlated.

Keywords: Environmental Kuznets curve; Bayesian shrinkage estimator; Heterogeneity

JEL classification: O13; O44; Q56

*Corresponding author at University of Paris Ouest, EconomiX-CNRS, 200 Avenue de la République,

92001 Nanterre cedex, France. Tel.:+33140977815 Fax:+33140974198.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Jobert), [email protected] (F. Karanfil),

[email protected] (A. Tykhonenko).

Page 3: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

2

1. Introduction and previous work

As an introduction, let us cite a few lines from a number of published articles dealing with the

assessment (and reassessment) of the environmental Kuznets curve (henceforth EKC).

Emphasizing the fact that the EKC literature has made so far several significant contributions

in the field of development and environmental economics, Copeland and Taylor (2004)

concluded that their review of this literature, including both theoretical and empirical studies,

leads them “to be skeptical about the existence of a simple and predictable relationship

between pollution and per-capita income.” (Copeland and Taylor, 2004, p. 8). Indeed, the

EKC hypothesis, which postulates in a general sense that the relationship between per capita

pollutant emissions and per capita income has an inverted U-shape, has been revisited in an

increasing number of studies in this research area. However, revisiting the EKC hypothesis

has led to a large number of inconsistent outcomes. In recent years, scholars begun to question

the necessity of further research on the EKC and to claim that “the literature on the EKC is

very large and why, indeed, do we need another paper?” (Johansson and Kriström, 2007, p.

78). Before we respond to this question, it would be useful to discuss different properties and

aspects of the emissions-income relationship in light of the current knowledge on the EKC.1

A concise and purposive review of the literature reveals that, thanks to recent advances in

theoretical and empirical tools, the bulk of the research has been directed towards extending

the basic framework of Grossman and Krueger’s (1991) path breaking study to include a

number of additional variables and equations. In a recent study, Acaravci and Ozturk (2010)

analyzed the relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide ( 2CO ) emissions and

gross domestic product (GDP) for 19 European countries using autoregressive distributed lag

bounds testing approach of cointegration and concluded that the EKC hypothesis is validated

only for Denmark and Italy. Very similarly, Apergis and Payne (2010) included energy

Page 4: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

3

consumption with GDP as an explanatory variable of 2CO and validated the EKC hypothesis

for the Common wealth of Independent States over the period 1992-2004 employing a panel

vector error correction model. The main reason for introducing energy consumption into the

GDP-2CO nexus is that, first, energy consumption is a key determinant of

2CO emissions,

and has a strong impact on pollution levels, and, second, there is a direct relationship between

energy consumption and economic development “since more energy consumption leads to

higher economic development through the enhancement of productivity” (Ang, 2007, p.4773).

The present paper proposes a novel approach to analyzing the EKC, within the analytical

framework described above, and it takes into account cross-sectional heterogeneity in the

relationship between economic growth, energy consumption and 2CO emissions.

In fact, in the related literature, a wide range of variables has been suggested as being

associated with the EKC hypothesis. For instance, trade intensity or openness of a country is a

very popular variable involved in the EKC studies (Suri and Chapman, 1998; Cole, 2003;

Copeland and Taylor, 2004). The idea in these studies is that trade liberalization may lead to a

decrease in emission levels as countries become more competitive and thus more efficient in

their use of resources. In parallel, a related strand of literature focuses on the pollution haven

hypothesis. This theory posits that the existence of an EKC in developing countries is a

consequence of free trade, which displaces “dirty” industries from developed to developing

countries that have relatively lax environmental standards, regulations and enforcement

mechanisms. However, the empirical evidence of this hypothesis is, once again, inconclusive

(Janicke et al., 1997; Cole, 2004). Following Stern’s (2002) decomposition model, Auci and

Becchetti (2006) offered an “adjusted” EKC model. Their specification considers the

percentage of coal, gas and oil used in electricity generation, as well as the GDP shares of

manufacturing, agriculture and services sectors, in order to account for the output and input

Page 5: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

4

mix and the effects of technology on emission levels. They use a fixed effects estimation

technique on a panel dataset of 173 countries and the results indicate that there is very little

evidence of the existence of an EKC. Furthermore, using fixed effects as indicators of

environmental performance, their model also provides a ranking of countries where Eastern

European countries and high income OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development) countries seem to be the worst performers while, in general, Latin American

and Asian emerging countries have the best environmental performances. Furthermore, in

order to obtain country specific results of the EKC, other studies (e.g. Dijkgraaf and

Vollebergh, 2005) have offered to include country fixed effects in the regression models.

However, fixed-effect model has some disadvantages such as the non-stationarity of the data

or the omission of cross-sectional variations.

In another string of literature, polynomial functional form is criticized and nonparametric

specifications are used to investigate the 2CO -GDP nexus. For example, Azomahou et al.

(2006) rejected the EKC hypothesis in favor of a monotonic relationship hypothesis for the

period 1960-1996 on a panel of 100 countries. Halkos and Tsionas (2001) have also reported

a monotonic relationship, on a sample of 61 countries, using switching regime models, which

consider different economic and demographic variables, even very distant ones such as

urbanization and mortality. In a well-written paper, Begun and Eicher (2008) applied the

Bayesian model averaging approach searching for the proper model that could be used to

assess the emissions-income relationship. In addition to the “conventional” regressors, they

also account for some other interesting variables such as education, executive constraints,

precipitation variation and a dummy for nations that signed the Helsinki Protocol in 1985.

Although their overall results do not support the EKC hypothesis in the case of sulphur

dioxide ( 2SO ) emissions, they showed that richer countries, having higher physical and

Page 6: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

5

human capital levels and higher trade volumes, also have cleaner environments (and vice

versa for poorer countries). From another but related perspective, Bimonte (2002) used the

number of newspapers (per 1000 people) sold yearly in each country (as a proxy of

information accessibility) and the Gini index (measuring income distribution) as explanatory

variables, along with GDP, and showed that the EKC hypothesis holds true in a sample of 35

European countries. Other interesting studies have looked at extending the EKC hypothesis

examining, for example, the impact of corruption on emissions and on the income level at the

turning point of the EKC (Leitao, 2010), or the relationship between health, environment and

income (Gangadharan et al. 2001).

We provided here-above a set of non-inclusive examples of different model specifications (or

combinations of variables) used in the search for the EKC-type relationships. What we have

understood from the existing literature is that most previous investigators of the EKC

hypothesis attempt to account for other potential variables that may impact (directly or

indirectly) environmental quality, besides the GDP variable. Although these attempts are

somewhat promising, they do not allow to address the main concerns adequately, thus

diverging from the general idea of the EKC analysis. The reasons for including the

aforementioned variables as additional regressors are, to a certain extent, described in these

papers.2 However, these descriptions shift the debate of the form of the environment-income

relationship away from the principal purposes of the EKC hypothesis (i.e. energy and

environmental efficiency), to a vast research field dealing with multiple social, economic and

institutional issues, thus clouding the picture of what is expected to be the shape of this

relationship.

These postulates bring us back to the question that we asked above, that is, whether or not

further analysis of EKC is still needed. Despite the abundance of studies on this topic, this

Page 7: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

6

literature seems to be deficient with respect to the heterogeneity of countries in terms of

economic development and energy and environmental efficiency (apart from a few exceptions

using the fixed-effect models, as mentioned above). The reason why little attention has been

given to this issue so far is that commonly used methods in time series and panel data

econometrics do not provide researchers with adequate analytical tools to investigate the EKC

hypothesis in a way that the heterogeneity in countries’ energy efficiencies and cross-country

differences in the 2CO emissions trajectories can be accounted for. This paper attempts to

address this deficiency by using Bayesian shrinkage estimators that can capture this

heterogeneity, revealing global and country-specific information about the economy-energy-

environment relationship. This information is crucial to the effectiveness of global climate

change policies and programs, which depend, evidently, on cross-country differences in the

intensity of 2CO emissions. As addressed in the “common but differentiated convergence”

approach introduced by Hohne et al. (2006), all countries may share the responsibility to

reducing global emissions, but this non-normative obligation may be delayed for non-Annex-I

countries (i.e. mostly developing countries) and it should be conditional to the mitigation

actions of Annex-I countries (i.e. the industrialized countries that were members of the OECD

in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition). Hence, from the EKC hypothesis point

of view, we suggest that countries may follow different emission reduction timetables

depending on the shape of their 2CO -GDP relationship, consistently with the “common but

differentiated responsibilities” principle of the Climate Change Framework Convention

(UNFCCC). As will be shown below, this paper seeks to contribute to the EKC literature by

showing that the shrinkage estimator is an accurate and efficient tool for the analysis of the

differentiated emission profiles in the EKC framework.

Page 8: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

7

The outline of the remaining part of this paper is as follows: first, in Section 2 we introduce

the data sets used in the study and perform some descriptive analyses to provide an overview

of energy consumption and 2CO emission trends; some details of the empirical methods

employed are discussed in Section 3; then, the results and their interpretations are presented in

Section 4; finally, in Section 5, we draw our conclusions and further discuss the results.

2. Data and preliminary analysis

2.1. Data description

The variables considered in this study are per capita 2CO emissions, real per capita GDP and

per capita energy consumption. Both 2CO emissions and primary energy consumption data

(in millions tones of 2CO (MtC) and in million tones of oil equivalent, respectively) are taken

from BP (2010).3 Furthermore, data for per capita GDP (in US dollars at constant 1990 prices

and exchange rates) and the data for total population (in thousand) are taken from UNCTAD

(2009). All data are annual, cover the years 1970 to 2008, and extend to 55 countries. The

tables and figures of the present paper use the following country abbreviation: Algeria (ALG),

Argentina (ARG), Australia (AUS), Austria (AUT), Belgium & Luxembourg (BEL), Brazil

(BRZ), Bulgaria (BLG), Canada (CND), Chile (CHL), China (CHN), China Hong Kong SAR

(CHK), Colombia (CLB), Czech Republic (CZE), Denmark (DNK), Ecuador (ECD), Egypt

(EGP), Finland (FIN), France (FRA), Germany (DEU), Greece (GRC), Hungary (HUN),

Iceland (ICL), India (IND), Indonesia (INA), Iran (IRN), Italy (ITL), Japan (JPN), Kuwait

(KUW), Malaysia (MLS), Mexico (MEX), Netherlands (NLD), New Zealand (NZL), Norway

(NRW), Pakistan (PKS), Peru (PER), Philippines (PHI), Poland (POL), Portugal (PRT), Qatar

(QTR), Republic of Ireland (IRL), Romania (ROM), Saudi Arabia (SAR), Singapore (SGP),

South Africa (AFR), South Korea (KOR), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), Switzerland (SWZ),

Page 9: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

8

Taiwan (TWN), Thailand (TAI), Turkey (TRK), United Arab Emirates (EMT), United

Kingdom (GBR), United States of America (USA), and Venezuela (VEN).

The sample of 55 countries involved in the analysis covers nearly 90% of global 2CO

emissions. We should mention here that although at present the United Nations has more than

190 member states, we think that it is not necessary to include all of these countries in the

analysis. This is because, on one hand, some countries emit very low levels of 2CO (e.g.

African countries), on the other hand, following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, 15 Soviet

republics became independent countries and if these countries were included in the analysis,

then the study would have to cover the period after 1991. To give some examples of the

magnitude of this exclusion, in 2009, Russian 2CO emissions represented 4.9% of global

2CO emissions while its primary energy consumption was 5.7% of global primary energy

consumption, which is roughly equal to the total primary energy consumed in Middle-Eastern

countries. Similarly, primary energy consumption in both Ukraine and Australia represent 1%

of global consumption, and Ukrainian emissions account for 0.9% of global 2CO emissions

due to fossil fuel combustion.

Some summary statistics on the variables of interest for the countries under analysis are

provided in the Appendix A (Table A.1).

2.2. A first look

Fig. 1 shows the first sign of the existence of an EKC for a sample of 55 countries in the

period considered. Representing per capita 2CO emissions as a function of per capita GDP

seems to create an inverted U-shape curve. Naturally, such a relationship is not surprising, and

it has similar (but not identical) representations in the literature.

Page 10: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

9

A more interesting point may be made, in Fig.1, by representing the outlier countries with a

diamond shape and representing the data for the rest of the countries with a diamond-on-

square shape. Then we see clearly that an inverted U-shape curve exists for the 2CO -GDP

relationship, both with and without the outliers, although it is much more evident in the first

case. It should be mentioned that the relative share of the outliers’ (the largest emitters of

2CO per capita in the world, that is, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Singapore)

primary energy consumption and 2CO emissions is not that important since it represents

roughly 1.7% of global energy consumption and emissions.

Fig. 1. Scatter plot of per capita 2CO emissions (in kg of 2CO ) and per capita GDP (in

constant 1990 US dollars): full sample of 55 countries. Data sources: BP (2010), UNCTAD

(2009).

Page 11: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

10

To provide a further preliminary analysis, let us now examine this relationship in a more

analytical manner. In the standard EKC hypothesis testing procedure, the equation to be

estimated is in the following form:

tttt yaybce ε+++= 2)( (1)

where te is an indicator of environmental degradation (in general per capita 2CO emissions),

ty denotes income per capita (per capita GDP) and tε and c represent respectively the

stochastic error term and the constant. The shape of the curve is determined by the parameters

b and a . The idea is that the relationship between per capita 2CO emissions and per capita

GDP may have an inverted U-shape curve if 0>b and 0<a . On the other hand, the turning

point income (henceforth TP), where per capita 2CO emissions reach their maximum level,

can simply be calculated by a

byt

2−= .

In the related literature, Eq. (1) is also used to test the same hypothesis in the case of energy

consumption. So on the left-hand side of Eq. (1), one would introduce energy data instead of

2CO data (e.g. Luzzati and Orsini, 2009). However, in general, Eq. (1) is modified by

introducing, as an additional covariate, energy data on the right-hand side (e.g. Apergis and

Payne, 2010; Pao and Tsai, 2010). In our case, per capita primary energy consumption is

included as an additional variable, that is, we have:

ititiitiitiiit NRJdGDPaGDPbcCO ε++++= 2)(2 (2)

where NRJ represents per capita primary energy consumption. Note that other variables are

also in per capita terms.

Table 1 gives the estimation results when an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is

applied to Eq. (2) using our data set.

Page 12: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

11

Table 1. OLS estimation results

With outliers R² = 0.91 Without outliers R² = 0.77

Variables Coefficient Std.-Error T-Stat. Coefficient Std.-Error T-Stat.

Constant 294 101 2.90 635 100 6.32

GDP 187 20 9.35 300 21.1 14.5

GDP2 -9.05 0.58 -15.41 -11.08 0.59 -18.7

NRJ 2.44 0.02 116.8 1.96 0.039 49.9

Both Fig. 1 and the results given in Table 1 give confirmation of the existence of an EKC for

both 55- and 51-country samples, since all variables are found to be significant with

“expected” signs. Furthermore, as predicted from Fig. 1, the EKC hypothesis seems to be

supported more strongly (having greater R² value) when the outliers are included. Moreover,

one may calculate the TP of the EKC from the estimated coefficients, which is 10.33 with the

outliers, and 13.53 without the outliers.

Evidently this analysis ignores two crucial facts: first, the heterogeneity of countries, since it

assumes that all the countries involved in the analysis are homogenous; second, the un-

stationary nature of the data, since the distribution of test statistics generated by the pooled

OLS regression model is based on the assumption that the data is stationary. The issue is that

if either or both of these assumptions do not hold, biased estimates may result. In

consequence, this first look brings us to the research question we address in this paper, that is,

whether or not there is a lack of robustness to heterogeneity in the EKC analysis. In what

follows, we extend the EKC analysis to the Bayesian shrinkage framework, which allows the

question of interest to be addressed rigorously and the heterogeneity between countries to be

accounted for.

Page 13: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

12

3. Estimation methodology

3.1. Theoretical background and relation to the literature

Stern (2004) argues that “the research challenge now is to revisit some of the issues addressed

earlier in the EKC literature using the new decomposition and frontier models and rigorous

panel data and time-series statistics” (Stern, 2004, p. 1435). As indicated by Wagner (2008),

the series of per capita GDP and per capita 2CO emissions are often non-stationary, and this

problem has not been sufficiently addressed in the EKC literature. The author surveyed panel

unit root tests, distinguishing between so-called first generation tests designed for cross-

sectionally independent panels and second generation tests which account for cross-sectional

correlation. In fact, although under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity some tests can be

employed to release the constraint on the coefficient homogeneity, their use may have further

shortcomings.

For example, Im et al. (2003) develop several unit root tests for the model with random

coefficients, in which they loosen the homogeneity constraint imposed on the autoregressive

structure under the alternative hypothesis. So far, because the unit root tests developed for

panel data have been based on individual time-series unit root tests, the interpretation of the

unit root test results in panel data should be made cautiously. In other words, rejection of the

null hypothesis of unit root for the whole sample of countries does not imply that all the

variables are stationary, since it is sufficient to have some series that are stationary, and others

that are not (the series contain a unit root) to reject the null hypothesis. Furthermore,

sometimes introducing one atypical country in the sample may be sufficient for the analysis to

fail to assess the stationarity properties of the entire sample of countries. Using recently

developed tests for unit root and cointegration in panel data, some scholars test for

Page 14: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

13

cointegration considering that the EKC estimates will be spurious if there is no cointegration

relation.

However, panel cointegration techniques do not take into account the heterogeneity in the

coefficients of the long-term relationship. These coefficients are assumed to be identical for

all countries in the sample, which implies the existence of a common turning point income

(described above). However, this assumption is not reasonable and some recent approaches

attempt to relax it. Although the system fractional integration and cointegration approaches

adopted by Galeotti et al. (2009) have the advantage of explicitly taking into account

individual heterogeneity, further investigation is needed. It is thus necessary to investigate the

EKC hypothesis in a way that accounts for the heterogeneity in countries’ energy efficiencies

and cross-country differences in 2CO emission trajectories.

On the other hand, recent empirical panel studies pointed to the problem of inconsistent

estimators, due not to non-stationary series but to the insufficient consideration of cross-

country heterogeneity (Vollebergh et al., 2009; Baltagi et al., 2008; Baltagi and Kao, 2000;

Maddala et al., 1997). According to Maddala et al. (1997), in the panel data analysis, it is

customary to pool the observations, with or without individual-specific dummies. These

dummy variables are assumed to be fixed (fixed-effects models, named FE models) or

random (random-effects or variance-components models, named RE models). In RE models,

heterogeneity is modeled through the random effects (individual and temporal) absorbed into

the regression residual term. Recently, Stern (2010) used the between estimator, which,

despite the restrictive assumptions associated with its use (including more specifically the

lack of correlation between the specific effects and the explanatory variables), may be seen as

a consistent estimator of the long-run relationship. But still, this specification imposes that the

slope coefficients of this relationship be common to all countries. Besides, Dijkgraaf and

Page 15: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

14

Vollebergh (2005) reject, at the 99% significance level, the null hypothesis of homogeneous

country-specific slopes, which, as the authors state, is at the core of the traditional models.

More generally, as recently emphasized by Vollebergh et al. (2009), the current lack of

robustness of EKC estimation is due to under-identification of the reduced-form hypothesis.

More specifically, the results are dependent on imposed restrictions on the independent and

control variables.

In fact, this problem was already discussed by Maddala et al. (1997), who argued that the

reality is probably situated between complete homogeneity and complete heterogeneity. The

parameters are not perfectly identical, but there is a certain similarity between them. One way

to take into account this similarity is to admit that the parameters are assumed to come from a

common distribution, from the same mathematical expectation, and from the non-zero

variance-covariance matrix. The authors show that the resulting parameter estimates are a

weighted average of the overall pooled estimate and the separate time-series estimates based

on each cross-section. Each individual estimator is thus “shrunk” toward the pooled estimator

(i.e., “shrinkage estimators”). The authors also show that the shrinkage estimator gives more

reasonable parameter values. Hsiao et al. (1999) confirmed that in the case of panel data

model with coefficient heterogeneity, the Bayesian approach performs fairly well, even when

the time dimension is small.4 Maddala and Hu (1996) have also presented some Monte Carlo

evidence to suggest that the iterative procedure gave better estimates (in the mean squared

sense) for panel data models. To conclude, in the Bayesian framework, the panel data models

raise other issues than individual time series, such as a correct consideration of cross-country

homogeneity/heterogeneity. This is the reason why the Bayesian shrinkage estimator can be

considered as an alternative estimation method, capturing cross-sectional heterogeneity in the

economy-energy-environment relationship. Indeed, the estimated TP can henceforth differ

Page 16: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

15

from country to country. In this way, the solution relies on the use of a random-coefficient

model in which the parameters are assumed to come from a common distribution.

3.2. The Bayesian shrinkage estimator

Let us consider the Bayesian approach of the Eq. (2), which can be rewritten in the framework

of the random-coefficients model, with the following specification:

iiii uXy += γ (3)

where iy contains 2CO time series, X is the matrix with explanatory variables, and iγ slope

coefficients. In the Bayesian framework, the prior distribution of iγ is given by: iγ ∼ ),( ΣµN

where the parameters µ (mean of iγ ), Σ (variance of iγ ) and 2iσ (residual variance) are

unknown. That is why some assumptions have to be made on prior specification of these

parameters. Then we can derive the posterior distribution for the parameters iγ . On the other

hand, if µ , Σ and 2iσ are all known, the posterior distribution of iγ is normal and calculated

by:

Σ+

Σ+

′= −

− **ˆ*1*

*1* 1

2

1

12

µγσσ

γ iii

i

ii

ii XXXX (4)

where iγ̂ is the OLS estimator of iγ . The posterior distribution mean of iγ and its variance

are shown in Eqs. (5) and (6) respectively.

∑=

=N

i

iN

1

*1* γµ (5)

1

12

**1*][

Σ+

′= ii

ii XXV

σγ (6)

Page 17: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

16

Since in general, Σ and 2iσ are unknown parameters, one needs to specify priors for them.

For this purpose, Smith (1973) suggested using the mode of the joint posterior distribution

given by the following equations:

′−+

++= *)(*)(

21*2

iiiiiiii

i

i XyXyT

γγλςς

σ (7)

and

′−−+

+−−=Σ ∑

=

N

i

iiRkT

1

*)**)(*(2

1* µγµγδ

(8)

where the parameters iς , iλ , δ and R arise from the specification of the prior distributions.

Moreover, Smith (1973) proposed the approximation of these parameters by setting 0=iς ,

1=δ and R as a diagonal matrix with small positive entries (e.g., 0.001). By doing so, the

estimators take the following forms:

′−

+= *)(*)(

21*2

iiiiiii XyXyT

γγσ (9)

′−−+

−−=Σ ∑

=

N

i

iiRkT

1

*)**)(*(1

1* µγµγ (10)

Σ+

Σ+

′= −

− **ˆ*1*

*1* 1

2

1

12

µγσσ

γ iii

i

ii

ii XXXX (11)

and

∑=

=N

i

iN

1

*1* γµ (12)

1

12

**1*][

Σ+

′= ii

ii XXV

σγ (13)

Page 18: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

17

Then Eqs. (9-13) should be solved iteratively, with the initial iteration using the OLS

estimator iγ̂ to compute *µ , *Σ and 2*iσ . The second iteration is based on the empirical

iterative Bayes’ estimator *iγ . The third and following iterations are identical to the second

one. The empirical Bayes’ estimator was proposed by Maddala et al. (1997). The only

difference with Smith’s estimator lies in the computation of the parameters 2*iσ and *Σ , that

is, we have:

*)(*)(1*2iiiiiii XyXy

kTγγσ −

′−

−= (14)

′−−+

−=Σ ∑

=

N

i

iiRN

1

*)**)(*(1

1* µγµγ (15)

4. Empirical results and their interpretations

Before we provide the estimation results, let us discuss very briefly the possible shapes that

the 2CO -GDP nexus can take. For this purpose, consider once again Eq. (2). The sign of the

parameter a determines whether the 2CO -GDP nexus has a concave, convex, or linear

relationship. More specifically, we have three possible cases:

• If a<0, we have an inverted U-shape relationship and the curve is concave. Depending

on the TP (i.e. a

b

2− ) the curve may be: increasing (the TP has not yet been reached);

increasing and decreasing (the TP has been reached and passed); or decreasing (the

TP has been passed and increases in per capita GDP decrease per capita emissions).

• If a>0, we have a U-shape relationship and the curve is convex. The curve may be

decreasing; decreasing and increasing; increasing for the three cases of TP given

above, respectively.

Page 19: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

18

• If a=0 the relationship is linear. Depending on the sign of the parameter b, the line may

be increasing (b>0); decreasing (b<0); or horizontal (b=0).

On the other hand, the parameter d measures environmental efficiency of energy use. Its

magnitude reflects whether, in a given country, energy consumption is more or less carbon-

intensive.

4.1. Different forms of the 2CO -GDP relationship

The estimated parameters using Bayesian shrinkage estimators for the model given in Eq. (2)

and the corresponding T-Statistics are reported in Table A.2 in Appendix A.

A first analysis of the results from Table A.2 allows us to make the following three

observations. First, we find a non-linear relationship between per capita 2CO emissions and

GDP for nearly half of the countries considered (24 out of 51 countries). We have a standard

inverted U-shape relationship only for China Hong Kong SAR and Denmark. Second, there is

no significant relationship between these two variables for 21 countries. Third, the variable

NRJ was found to be statistically significant for 95% of the countries.

To test the robustness of our results, we estimated two alternative specifications: in the first,

we introduced the cubic term for income in Eq (2) which is found to be statistically

insignificant (i.e. there is no evidence for an N-shaped relationship); in the second, we

excluded the variable NRJ from the model and the form of the 2CO -GDP relationship found

to be invariant for about 90% of the countries in our sample.5

In order to make the estimation results more readable and easier to interpret we also presented

them in a graphical form (see Figs. 2a and 2b).

Page 20: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

19

Fig. 2a. Countries with non-linear relationship based on shrinkage estimators

Fig. 2a should be interpreted as follows. The vertical axis reports the values of d̂ (i.e. the

coefficient associated with the variable of primary energy consumption, NRJ) which is always

positive. The two countries on the left hand side have a standard concave (inverted U-shape)

relationship, and countries on the right side are those that have a convex relationship. The

horizontal axis measures the increasing part of the curve as a percentage of the entire curve.

For each country separately, this percentage is calculated in the following way: first, from the

estimated parameters a and b (see Table A.2) we calculate the TP; then, taking into account

the sign of the coefficients (in order to determine the form of the curve), we count the number

of per capita GDP data points before and after the TP, which is then used to compute the

proportion of increasing and decreasing parts of the curve.6 Fig. 2a therefore gives an

analytical description of the distribution of countries based on shrinkage estimators. A country

with a value of d̂ close to zero uses primary energy sources that are relatively less carbon

intensive. The countries lying on the vertical axis (BLG, CLB, ESP, FRA, POL, USA) also

have a convex relationship. In consequence, three types of countries can be identified from

Fig. 2a:

Page 21: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

20

1. On the left quadrant, we have the countries with a standard (concave) EKC. These

countries can be qualified as having a “carbon-saving growth”7.

2. On the right-central quadrant (close to 0) we have the countries with a decreasing

convex curve (i.e. “carbon-saving growth”).

3. On the right quadrant we have the countries with an exponentially increasing

(convex) relationship. These countries have a “carbon-intensive growth”.

Fig. 2b. Countries with a linear relationship based on shrinkage estimators

Let us now consider Fig. 2b. This time, the horizontal axis reports T-Statistics values (i.e. the

estimated coefficient divided by its standard deviation) of the coefficient associated with the

variable GDP per capita, b̂ . Thus, the sign of the T-Statistics is the same as the coefficient.

Therefore, the countries on the left hand side have a negative relationship and those on the

right hand side have a positive relationship. At a confidence interval of 5%, the tabulated

Student statistics value is equal to 1.96, and the countries positioned in the vertical band

between -1.96 and 1.96 are those for which this coefficient is not significant. This implies that

economic growth does not appear to be an explanatory variable for per capita 2CO emissions.

Page 22: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

21

Note that, as in Fig 2a, the vertical axis reports the value of the coefficient associated with the

variable of primary energy consumption. The visual information provided by Fig. 2b leads us

to suggest four types of countries:

1. On the left quadrant we have the countries with a linear negative relationship (i.e.

“carbon-saving growth”).

2. On the south-central quadrant (close to 0), we have the countries having no 2CO -

GDP relationship, but using relatively less polluting energy sources. In this case we have

“carbon-neutral growth” and the economies of these countries are more environmentally

friendly.

3. On the north-central quadrant (away from 0), we have once again the countries

without any 2CO -GDP relationship, but using relatively more carbon intensive energy

sources (i.e. “carbon-neutral growth” and less environmental friendliness).

4. On the right quadrant we have the countries having increasing 2CO emissions with

increasing GDP (i.e. “carbon-intensive growth”).

4.2. A tentative classification

Since the EKC hypothesis is investigated to determine whether environmental degradation

depends on the level of economic development, we reinterpreted the results reported above by

taking into account the development levels of each country. According to the standard

classification of countries by levels of economic development, countries fall into five different

categories: developed countries (group 1), transition economies (group 2), newly

industrialized countries of Asia (group 3), new emerging markets and oil exporting countries

(group 4) and least developed countries (group 5).

Page 23: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

22

First, let us consider the countries having a 2CO -GDP relationship indicating an “ecological

trend”. In fact, we cannot qualify these countries as “environmentally friendly” because of the

fact that we have a dynamic vision of the evolution of the 2CO -GDP nexus and that we group

countries according to this dynamic relationship irrespective of their 2CO emission levels.

Not very surprisingly, from our results it appears that the countries in group 1 are found to

have the most environmentally friendly dynamic relationship (i.e. the most ecological trend

independent of the scale of emissions). These countries either diversify their primary energy

sources (Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg,

Germany, Canada, France and United Kingdom), or they consume fossil fuels, but also reduce

their 2CO emissions (Denmark and USA). On the other hand, the transition economies (those

in group 2, i.e., Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania) are the countries

that faced a major transition after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, which lead to

a decrease in their 2CO emissions. Recently, Jobert et al. (2010) argued that during the

transformation of the economic structure, these countries reduced the industrial share of their

GDP and that therefore, they might be qualified as “ecologists despite themselves”. The

results of the present study give further support to this interpretation.

The countries in group 3 (China Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan), having similar economic

growth paths as those of some European countries in the catch up process (such as Republic

of Ireland and Spain), may be considered as having an “ecological trend” since these countries

have directed their development towards low-polluting industries (high technology, service,

finance and tourism).

Diversification of energy sources allowed the countries of group 4 (Argentina, Venezuela and

Colombia) to be more environmentally friendly. In addition, an unexpected result has been

Page 24: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

23

obtained for the case of Pakistan. For this group 5 country, per capita 2CO emissions

decrease linearly with an increasing GDP.

Let us now look at the countries having a “polluting trend”. Those in group 1 have neither

diversified their energy sources nor decreased their 2CO emissions (Netherlands, Australia,

New Zealand, Greece, Portugal and Italy). In group 3, South Korea can be considered as a

polluting country because the steel industry and automobile industry are among the country’s

main economic activities.

In other countries from both group 4 (Saudi Arabia, Chile, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey,

South Africa, Algeria, Thailand, Iran, Peru, China and Ecuador) and group 5 (the Philippines

and India), it seems that the energy mix has been somewhat stable over time. Therefore these

countries appear in our analysis as “pollution trend” countries.8 Finally, for other countries,

such as Japan and Indonesia, the results are somewhat inconclusive as to whether these

countries would be qualified as having an “ecological” or “polluting” trend.

5. Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have revisited the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis taking into

account heterogeneity in countries’ energy efficiencies and cross-country differences in the

emissions trajectories. To do this, we have employed Bayesian shrinkage estimators, for the

first time in this literature. We hope to have clarified how to interpret the fact that the EKC

hypothesis does not hold for individual countries, but emerges from the overall picture (see

Fig. 1). Keeping in mind the results reported and discussed so far, to make the point concrete,

consider as a final illustration, Fig. 3 which provides per capita 2CO emission trends with

respect to per capita GDP in some selected countries with different levels of development.

Page 25: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

24

Fig. 3. Selected countries having different trends in both per capita 2CO emissions

(vertical axis; in thousand tones of 2CO ) and per capita GDP (horizontal axis; in

constant 1990 US dollars). Data sources: See Fig. 1.

From Fig. 3 it is quite clear that depending on the development stage, countries have various

per capita 2CO paths, and that chaining individual paths together shows the emergence of

different EKCs in different per capita 2CO and GDP levels, and combining those provides an

overall EKC. This again confirms what we have obtained from the results depicted in Figs. 2a

and 2b.

We conclude with some potential policy implications of our results. Very recently, during the

United Nations Climate Change Conference (Durban, December, 2011), Ban Ki-Moon,

Secretary-General of the United Nations, stated that “we are nearing the "point of no return"”

and that “we must not forsake our collective vision of a comprehensive, binding climate

Page 26: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

25

change agreement that is both effective and fair for all” (Ki-moon, 2011). It is evident that

this notion of fairness cannot be discussed without considering differences among countries in

their relative energy and environmental efficiencies. Considering the heterogeneity in the

coefficients of the long-term relationship between per capita emissions and income, our

analysis has led us to the conclusion that both the dynamics of the relationship between these

two variables and the turning point income of the EKC differ from country to country and that

this divergence may limit the efficiency and fairness of global environmental policies. This

finding is consistent with the generally accepted view that policies and measures that help

mitigate climate change should not apply evenly to all countries as national circumstances

may dictate their relative effectiveness (Groenenberg et al., 2001; Philibert and Pershing,

2001). The same opinion was also expressed in the Copenhagen Accord (Copenhagen,

December, 2009), which reminds in Article 1 that global environmental policies should be

designed by taking into account “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities

and respective capabilities” (UNFCCC, 2009). Furthermore, recognizing the fact that

adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is a challenging issue for all countries, the

United Nation’s Framework indicates that developed countries should support developing

countries by providing adequate and sustainable financial resources and technology transfer.

Such a cooperation can facilitate the sustainable development of developing countries (i.e. in

our terminology “carbon-saving growth”).

Another issue stems from the fact that some policies and regulations can affect the

competitiveness of States, by encouraging free-riders when other States chose not to adopt

similar climate change policies in order to obtain a competitive advantage. Consequently, the

differentiated efforts may stimulate discussions about unfair competition and carbon leakage

(Azar, 2005; Oikonomou et al., 2006). Finally, turning back to Figs. 2a, 2b and 3, the question

arises whether or not high-income countries reduce their 2CO emissions solely via

Page 27: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

26

environmental policies, measures and practices (such as regulations, more efficient use of

energy, investments in abatement technologies, fuel switching or renewable energy facilities)

or by also changing the composition of domestic economic activities by producing high-value

added green products and moving their polluting industries to low-income countries, by

means of pollution haven based investment relocations. To address this question, more focus

is needed on the State level. We hope that further research will continue to explore factors

influencing the shape of the 2CO -GDP relationship as well as climate and energy policy

issues arising from it.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Olivia Lauren Dubreuil and two anonymous referees of this journal

for many insightful suggestions that greatly improved the paper.

References

Acaravci, A., Ozturk, I., 2010. On the relationship between energy consumption, 2CO

emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35, 5412-5420.

Ang, J.B., 2CO emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy

35, 4772-4778.

Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., 2010. The emissions, energy consumption and growth nexus:

Evidence from the Common wealth of independent states. Energy Policy 38, 650-655.

Auci, S., Becchetti, L., 2006. The instability of the adjusted and unadjusted

environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics 60, 282-298.

Page 28: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

27

Azar, C., 2005. Post-Kyoto climate policy targets: costs and competitiveness

implications. Climate Policy 5, 309-328.

Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., Van, P.N., 2006. Economic development and 2CO

emissions: A nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics 90, 1347-1363.

Baltagi, B.H., Bresson, G. and Pirotte, A., 2008. To pool or not to pool? in The

Econometrics of Panel Data: Fundamentals and Recent Developments in Theory and Practice,

(L. Mátyás and P. Sevestre eds.). Series: Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied

Econometrics 33. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Baltagi, B.H., Kao, C., 2000. Nonstationary Panels, Cointegration in Panels and

Dynamic Panels: a Survey. In: Baltagi, B.H. (Eds.), Advances in Econometrics 15, Elsevier

Science, 7-51.

BP, 2010. Statistical Review of World Energy 2010.http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview

Begun, J., Eicher, T.S., 2008. In search of an environmental Kuznets curve in sulphur

dioxide concentrations: a Bayesian model averaging approach. Environment and

Development Economics 13, 795-822.

Bimonte, S., 2002. Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental

Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 41, 145-156.

Cole, M.A., 2003. Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the

Environmental Kuznets Curve? Environment and Development Economics 8, 557-580.

Cole, M.A., 2004. Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets

curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics 48, 71-81.

Copeland, B.R., Taylor, M.S., 2004. Trade, Growth, and the Environment. Journal of

Economic Literature 42, 7-71.

Page 29: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

28

Dijkgraaf, E., Vollebergh, H.R.J., 2005. A Test for Parameter Homogeneity in 2CO

Panel EKC Estimations, Environmental and Resource Economics 32, 229-239.

Galeotti, M., Manera, M., Lanza, A., 2009. On the Robustness Checks of the

Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 42, 551-

574.

Gangadharan, L., Valenzuela, M.R., 2001. Interrelationships between income, health

and the environment: extending the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecological

Economics 36, 513-531.

Gerlagh, R., 2008. A climate-change policy induced shift from innovations in carbon-

energy production to carbon-energy savings. Energy Economics 30, 425-448.

Grossmann, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American

free trade agreement. NBER Working paper No. 3914.

Groenenberg, H., Phylipsen, D., Blok, K., 2001. Differentiating commitments world

wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach-a

preliminary assessment. Energy Policy 29, 1007-1030.

Halkos, G.E., Tsionas, E.G., 2001. Environmental Kuznets curves: Bayesian evidence

from switching regime models. Energy Economics 23. 191-210.

Hohne, N., Den Elzen, M.G.J., Weiss, M., 2006. Common but differentiated

convergence (CDC), a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy. Climate Policy

6, 181-199

Hsiao, C., Pesaran, M.H. and Tahmiscioglu, A.K., 1999. Bayes Estimation of Short-Run

Coefficients in Dynamic Panel Data Models, in C. Hsiao, K. Lahiri, L.-F. Lee, and M.H.

Page 30: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

29

Pesaran (eds.), Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variables: A Volume in Honour of

G. S. Maddala, Cambridge University Press, pp. 268-296.

Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. and Shin, Y. 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous

panels. Journal of Econometrics 115, 53-74.

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2010a. Energy Balances of OECD Countries, 2010

Edition, Paris.

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2010b. Energy Balances of non-OECD Countries,

2010 Edition, Paris.

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2010c. 2CO emissions from fuel combustion, 2010

Edition, Paris.

Janicke, M., Binder, M., Monch, H., 1997. ‘Dirty industries’: patterns of change in

industrial countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 9, 467-491.

Jobert, T., Karanfil, F., Tykhonenko, A., 2010. Convergence of per capita carbon

dioxide emissions in the EU: Legend or reality? Energy Economics 32, 1364-1373.

Johansson, P.-O., Kriström, B., 2007. On a clear day you might see an environmental

Kuznets curve. Environmental and Resource Economics 37, 77-90.

Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A., 2010. Economic models for the environmental

Kuznets curve: A survey. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, 1187-1201.

Ki-moon, B., 2011. Statement made at the opening of the High-Level Segment at COP

17/CMP 7. United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban, South Africa. Available at:

http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/statements/items/6584.php.

Leitao, A., 2010. Corruption and the environmental Kuznets Curve: Empirical evidence

for sulfur. Ecological Economics 69, 2191-2201.

Page 31: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

30

Luzzati, T., Orsini, M., 2009. Investigating the energy-environmental Kuznets curve.

Energy 34, 291-300.

Maddala, G. S., Hu, W., 1996. The Pooling Problem. In: Matyas, L., Sevestre, P. (Eds.),

The Econometrics of Panel Data: a Handbook of Theory with Applications, Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 2nd Ed., Boston, 307-322.

Maddala, G. S, Trost, R. P., Li, H., Joutz, F., 1997. Estimation of Short-Run and Long-

Run Elasticities of Energy Demand From Panel Data Using Shrinkage Estimators. Journal of

Business and Economic Statistics 15, 90-100.

Oikonomou, V., Patel, M., Worrell, E., 2006. Climate policy: Bucket or drainer? Energy

Policy 34, 3656-3668.

Pao, H.-T., Tsai, C.-M., 2010. 2CO emissions, energy consumption and economic

growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy 38, 7850-7860.

Philibert, C., Pershing, J., 2001. Considering the Options: Climate Targets for All

Countries. Climate Policy 1, 211-227.

Smith, A. F., 1973. A General Bayesian Linear Model. Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society, Ser. B, 35, 67-75.

Stern, D.I., 2002. Explaining changes in global sulphur emissions: an econometric

decomposition approach. Ecological Economics 42, 201-220.

Stern, D.I., 2004. The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World

Development 32,1419-1439.

Stern, D.I., 2010. Between estimates of the emissions-income elasticity. Ecological

Economics 69, 2173-2182.

Page 32: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

31

Suri, V., Chapman, D., 1998. Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the

environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics 25, 195-208.

United Nations Conference on trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2009. Handbook of

Statistics. http://stats.unctad.org/Handbook/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2009.

Copenhagen accord. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf.

Vollebergh, H.R.J., Melenberg, B., Dijkgraaf, E., 2009. Identifying reduced-form

relations with panel data: The case of pollution and income. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management 58, 27-42.

Wagner, M., 2008. The carbon Kuznets curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad

econometrics? Resource and Energy Economics 30, 388-408.

Footnotes

1 The emphasis in this review is on understanding how the EKC literature triggered a chain of analysis during the

last two decades. A number of excellent surveys have appeared on the subject in the last years and they provided

useful overviews of the wide range of methods and modeling techniques used in this field. For example, Stern

(2004) and Kijima et al. (2010) should be considered for a more complete review.

2 To keep the review brief, we do not discuss in detail the reasons why these variables are chosen to be

controlled for in the EKC analysis. The reader is referred to the studies cited here for further discussion.

3 BP (2010) uses standard global average conversion factors to estimate carbon emissions. The International

Energy Agency (IEA) provides also data for 2CO emissions from fuel combustion, which are calculated using

the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) method. Consequently, these two data sets have very

similar trends and magnitudes; therefore, working with either BP or IEA data set does not have a significant

impact on the estimation results of this study.

Page 33: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

32

4 In our study the individual dimension (N=51) is more important than the time dimension (T=39).

5 For the purpose of brevity, these estimation results are not reported in this paper, but they are available upon

request from the authors.

6 At this point we note that this method works well for all countries but one, Egypt, for which the TP is found to

be negative. Since such a result is inconsistent with the nature of the relationship, Egypt is excluded from the

later analysis.

7 We employ the terminology used in the literature on technical change (for instance, see Gerlagh, 2008): by the

term “carbon-saving growth” (“carbon-intensive growth”) it is meant that increases in GDP are associated with

decreases (increases) in 2CO emissions; the term “carbon-neutral growth” is used to indicate that GDP growth

has not a significant impact on the carbon intensity of the economy.

8 The reports of the International Energy Agency constitute a very useful source of information about energy

indicators and emission trends. For detailed statistics and further analysis see IEA (2010a, b, c).

Page 34: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

33

Appendix A.

Table A.1. Summary statistics of the full sample of 55 countries

Years 1970 1990 2008

Percentage of the world population 76.8 75.6 73.8

Percentage of the world GDP 92.6 94.1 97.6

Percentage of global 2CO emissions 80.8 78.9 87.5

Percentage of global primary energy consumption 81.5 78.6 86.3

Data sources: BP (2010), UNCTAD (2009)

Variable Country Coeff. T-Stat Country Coeff. T-Stat Country Coeff. T-Stat

Const ALG 169.09 0.98 FIN 9654.79 7.29 PER -448.40 -1.74 GDP -126.56 -0.88 -953.38 -5.53 -95.78 -0.34 GDP^2 35.24 1.22 13.68 5.28 -39.07 -0.55 NRJ 2.54 165.86 3.47 7.10 3.90 7.31 Const ARG 2189.53 2.27 FRA 15331.47 6.24 PHI -37.48 -1.05 GDP 182.88 0.57 -1212.55 -4.85 -116.75 -1.26 GDP^2 16.07 0.57 18.95 3.29 54.86 0.95 NRJ -0.08 -0.41 2.42 4.00 3.29 69.70 Const AUS -2362.51 -2.19 DEU 13585.95 5.74 POL 355.49 3.78 GDP 153.68 1.00 -1580.19 -6.24 -660.05 -8.20 GDP^2 -2.50 -0.80 29.74 5.23 79.32 4.49 NRJ 3.26 20.81 4.60 19.65 3.88 289.51 Const AUT 5454.15 7.54 GRC 380.00 0.75 PRT -1197.87 -2.54 GDP -580.42 -6.49 -110.89 -1.00 278.84 1.84 GDP^2 11.73 6.56 -1.39 -0.31 -9.83 -1.03 NRJ 2.59 8.32 3.58 41.48 2.57 7.53 Const BEL 11573.89 5.89 HUN 2325.32 2.54 IRL 26.41 0.19 GDP -1141.59 -9.16 -1164.19 -2.34 -63.75 -2.07 GDP^2 20.03 5.80 57.79 0.91 0.64 1.13 NRJ 3.24 13.31 3.21 7.77 3.31 22.99 Const BRZ -19.54 -0.10 ICL 5075.51 1.69 ROM -603.72 -3.65 GDP 327.64 2.43 -136.36 -0.66 -380.27 -1.94 GDP^2 -36.29 -1.61 6.04 1.35 64.21 1.07 NRJ 1.23 8.23 0.48 3.29 3.16 84.93 Const BLG 1712.44 4.97 IND -6.79 -0.85 SAR -1928.97 -2.38 GDP -2564.81 -9.28 -27.69 -0.33 704.56 4.24 GDP^2 365.30 6.08 6.41 0.14 -33.62 -4.08 NRJ 3.55 31.95 3.31 33.57 2.55 84.40 Const CND 17368.41 6.80 INA 98.94 5.83 AFR 146.29 0.19 GDP -1553.96 -4.29 -481.03 -6.99 -20.10 -0.04 GDP^2 32.22 4.38 247.42 8.38 20.40 0.28 NRJ 2.08 4.75 3.22 40.89 3.57 90.20

Table A.2. Shrinkage estimators state by state (number of iterations: 5)

Page 35: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

34

Variable Country Coeff. T-Stat Country Coeff. T-Stat Country Coeff. T-Stat

Const CHL 173.45 0.63 IRN 415.51 2.11 KOR 458.81 4.07 GDP -161.64 -0.63 -64.65 -0.34 -49.50 -0.63 GDP^2 8.19 0.29 18.69 0.43 -2.95 -1.45 NRJ 2.67 5.91 2.50 153.73 2.90 20.22 Const CHN -16.94 -1.31 ITL -172.27 -0.32 ESP 2528.60 4.50 GDP -165.65 -6.07 49.82 1.44 -499.39 -4.43 GDP^2 -49.32 -4.74 -1.88 -1.72 10.55 3.53 NRJ 3.75 102.90 2.74 18.48 3.55 13.00 Const CHK -739.65 -2.86 JPN 5177.09 6.29 SWE 34241.49 13.07 GDP 148.96 3.52 -380.17 -6.83 -1901.88 -7.24 GDP^2 -4.57 -2.91 7.30 5.05 27.29 6.15 NRJ 3.14 13.75 2.59 14.08 0.89 2.02 Const CLB 804.36 6.72 MLS -54.31 -0.57 SWZ 6548.44 1.99 GDP -1009.19 -4.91 185.48 1.81 -26.39 -0.12 GDP^2 130.35 1.99 -2.78 -0.26 -0.80 -0.25 NRJ 2.86 19.41 2.38 24.29 0.41 1.82 Const CZE -859.07 -0.97 MEX -735.46 -3.05 TWN 323.73 3.63 GDP -1206.07 -3.29 430.94 2.53 -414.54 -8.46 GDP^2 -2.36 -0.05 -75.36 -3.48 13.88 12.33 NRJ 4.44 48.36 2.84 30.79 3.63 22.50 Const DNK -5381.28 -5.26 NLD 2415.15 3.10 TAI -53.11 -2.55 GDP 505.78 7.25 -126.35 -1.92 112.99 3.28 GDP^2 -9.83 -7.63 4.09 2.58 -5.17 -0.45 NRJ 3.01 26.69 2.52 26.08 2.75 43.33 Const ECD -69.92 -0.75 NZL 5556.06 1.83 TRK 200.90 0.71 GDP 291.69 1.86 -721.12 -1.53 -26.67 -0.11 GDP^2 18.23 0.30 32.09 2.05 -10.14 -0.37 NRJ 1.98 24.52 1.51 8.95 2.88 11.27 Const EGP -29.35 -1.50 NRW 5101.85 6.50 GBR 7570.06 6.25 GDP -92.56 -0.70 173.21 1.88 -769.75 -8.62 GDP^2 -148.24 -3.15 -1.41 -1.05 16.64 6.73 NRJ 2.97 25.42 -0.08 -0.53 3.04 11.94 Const USA 2882.47 3.27 PKS 59.39 2.75 VEN 1297.52 1.64 GDP -185.04 -3.77 -385.80 -2.86 405.13 0.91 GDP^2 3.06 2.81 88.76 1.58 34.74 0.43 NRJ 2.76 35.15 2.85 17.07 1.15 7.47

Table A.2. (Continued) Shrinkage estimators state by state (number of iterations: 5)

Page 36: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL GREDEG PARUS EN 2012GREDEG Working Papers Released in 2012

2012-01 Frédéric Marty Les clauses environnementales dans les marchés publics : perspectives économiques2012-02 Christophe Charlier Distrust and Barriers to International Trade in Food Products: An Analysis of the US- Poultry Dispute2012-03 Gérard Mondello The Equivalence of Strict Liability and Negligence Rule: A Trompe-l’Œil Perspective2012-04 Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste Somebody May Scold You! A Dictator Experiment2012-05 Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois A Probabilistic Ghost in the Experimental Machine2012-06 Gérard Mondello Ambiguity, Agency Relationships, and Adverse Selection2012-07 Flora Bellone, Kozo Kiyota, Toshiyuki Matsuura, Patrick Musso & Lionel Nesta Comparative Advantage, Trade Costs, and International Productivity Gap: Evidence Built from French and Japanese Firm-level Data2012-08 Tiziana Assenza & Domenico Delli Gatti E. Pluribus Unum: Macroeconomic Modelling for Multi-Agent Economies2012-09 Catherine Guillemineau Financial Reforms, International Financial Flows, and Growth in Advanced Economies2012-10 Dino Borie Social Decision Theory and Non-Strategic Behaviour2012-11 Edward Lorenz Social Capital and Enterprise Innovative Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis of Developing Nations2012-12 Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste The ‘Economics of Attention’: A New Avenue of Research in Cognitive Economics2012-13 Harald Hagemann Capitalist Development, Innovations, Business Cycles and Unemployment: Joseph Alois Schumpeter and Emil Hans Lederer2012-14 Sophie Pommet The Survival of Venture Capital Backed Companies: An Analysis of the French Case2012-15 Thomas Jobert, Fatih Karanfil & Anna Tykhonenko The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the Perspective of Heterogeneity: Insights for Climate Change and Energy Policy2012-16 Francesco Quatraro The Co-Evolution of Knowledge and Economic Structure: Evidence from European Regions

Page 37: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the ... · 1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve reconsidered from the perspective of heterogeneity: insights for climate change and

DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL GREDEG PARUS EN 2012GREDEG Working Papers Released in 2012

2012-01 Frédéric Marty Les clauses environnementales dans les marchés publics : perspectives économiques2012-02 Christophe Charlier Distrust and Barriers to International Trade in Food Products: An Analysis of the US- Poultry Dispute2012-03 Gérard Mondello The Equivalence of Strict Liability and Negligence Rule: A Trompe-l’Œil Perspective2012-04 Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste Somebody May Scold You! A Dictator Experiment2012-05 Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois A Probabilistic Ghost in the Experimental Machine2012-06 Gérard Mondello Ambiguity, Agency Relationships, and Adverse Selection2012-07 Flora Bellone, Kozo Kiyota, Toshiyuki Matsuura, Patrick Musso & Lionel Nesta International Productivity Gaps and the Export Status of Firms: Evidence from France and Japan2012-08 Tiziana Assenza & Domenico Delli Gatti E. Pluribus Unum: Macroeconomic Modelling for Multi-Agent Economies2012-09 Catherine Guillemineau Financial Reforms, International Financial Flows, and Growth in Advanced Economies2012-10 Dino Borie Social Decision Theory and Non-Strategic Behaviour2012-11 Edward Lorenz Social Capital and Enterprise Innovative Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis of Developing Nations2012-12 Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste The ‘Economics of Attention’: A New Avenue of Research in Cognitive Economics2012-13 Harald Hagemann Capitalist Development, Innovations, Business Cycles and Unemployment: Joseph Alois Schumpeter and Emil Hans Lederer2012-14 Sophie Pommet The Survival of Venture Capital Backed Companies: An Analysis of the French Case2012-15 Thomas Jobert, Fatih Karanfil & Anna Tykhonenko The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered from the Perspective of Heterogeneity: Insights for Climate Change and Energy Policy