Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental impacts of FDI: evidence from heterogeneous panel methods

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) on environmental quality for 123 nations over the period 1996 to 2018. The study also conducts a comparative analysis for 45 developing and 78 developed nations to better understand the environmental impacts of foreign direct investment. The study employs pooled mean group (PMG) and mean group (MG) estimation techniques for investigating the impacts of FDI on environmental quality as the slope heterogeneity test rejects the null hypothesis of homogenous slope coefficients for the cross-sectional units in all country groupings. In addition, the study employs common correlated effect pooled mean group (CCEPMG) and common correlated effect mean group (CCEMG) estimation methods to tackle cross-sectional dependence in all country groupings. The results indicate that the impact of FDI on environmental emission is negative and significant for the global sample. Furthermore, the comparative analysis for developed and developing countries indicates that FDI improves environmental quality in developed nations as it leads to a lower level of CO2 emissions whereas it leads to adverse environmental impacts in the developing nations as it leads to a higher level of CO2 emissions. The empirical findings for developed and developing countries confirm pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) for developing countries while pollution halo hypothesis for developed countries. This study may help the policy makers to better understand the attributes of FDI and to devise such type of policies and regulatory framework which encourages environmentally friendly FDI or the FDI that take care of environmental quality.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Complete dataset is available in World Development Indicator (WDI) 2018.

Notes

  1. Hausman test P value is less than 0.05 for all country groupings.

  2. Hausman test P value is less than 0.05 for all country groupings.

References

  • Akbostancı E, Tunc GI, Türüt-Aşık S (2007) Pollution haven hypothesis and the role of dirty industries in Turkey’s exports. Environment Development Economics 12(2):297–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkhathlan K, Javid M (2013) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: An aggregate and disaggregate analysis. Energy Policy 62:1525–1532

  • Arif A, An P, Qi Y, Li H, An H, Hussain M, Wang Y (2021a) The influence factors of the national roles in the FDI network: a combined methods of complex networks and panel data analysis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 563:125311

    Google Scholar 

  • Arif U, Usman M, Khan F (2021b) Natural resource rents and internal conflict: the role of institutional quality. Singapore Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590821500430

  • Balsalobre-Lorente D, Gokmenoglu KK, Taspinar N, Cantos-Cantos JM (2019) An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Sciences Pollution Research 26:23010–23026

    Google Scholar 

  • Beladi H, Oladi R (2005) Foreign investment policies and environment. Nat Resour Model 18(2):113–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Borensztein EJ, De Gregorio J, Lee JW (1998) How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? J Int Econ 45:115–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Caglar AE (2020) The importance of renewable energy consumption and FDI inflows in reducing environmental degradation: bootstrap ARDL bound test in selected 9 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 264:121663

    Google Scholar 

  • Camarero M, Gómez-Herrera E, Tamarit C (2018) New evidence on trade and FDI: how large is the euro effect? Open Econ Rev 29(2):451–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole MA, Elliott RJ, Zhang J (2011) Growth, foreign direct investment, and the environment: evidence from Chinese cities. J Reg Sci 51(1):121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland B, Taylor M (2003) Trade and the Environment Princeton University Press Princeton: NJ

  • Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1994) North-South trade and the environment. Q J Econ 109(3):755–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic literature 42(1):7–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Demena BA, van Bergeijk PA (2019) Observing FDI spillover transmission channels: evidence from firms in Uganda. Third World Quarterly 40(9):1708–1729

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49:431–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskeland GS, Harrison AE (2003) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. J Dev Econ 70(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Golub SS, Kauffmann C, Yeres P (2011) Defining and measuring green FDI: an exploratory review of existing work and evidence. OECD

  • Gorus MS, Aslan M (2019) Impacts of economic indicators on environmental degradation: evidence from MENA countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 103:259–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Guo M, Lu L, Sheng L, Yu M (2018) The day after tomorrow: evaluating the burden of Trump’s trade war. Asian Economic Papers 17(1):101–120. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao Y, Liu YM (2015) Has the development of FDI and foreign trade contributed to China’s CO2 emissions? An empirical study with provincial panel data. Nat Hazards 76(2):1079–1091

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding T, Javorcik BS (2011) Roll out the red carpet and they will come: investment promotion and FDI inflows. Econ J 121(557):1445–1476

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison AE, Eskeland G (1997) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution-haven hypothesis: The World Bank

  • Higón DA, Gholami R, Shirazi F (2017) ICT and environmental quality: a global perspective. Telematics Inform 34(4):85–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115(1):53–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Javid M, Sharif F (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in  Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54: 406–414

  • Kearsley A, Riddel M (2010) A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 69(4):905–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan FN, Sana A, Arif U (2020) Information and communication technology (ICT) and environmental quality: a panel data analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(29):36718–36731

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kivyiro P, Arminen H (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for sub-Saharan Africa. Energy 74:595–606

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lean HH, Smyth R (2010) CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Appl Energy 87(6):1858–1864

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liddle B, Lung S (2014) The long run causal relationship between transport energy consumption and GDP: evidence from heterogeneous panel methods robust to cross sectional dependence. Econ Lett 121:524–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Mert M, Bölük G (2016) Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to Kyoto Annex countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(21):21669–21681

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pao H-T, Tsai C-M (2011) 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 36(1):685–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74:967–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Econ 22:265–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran HM, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J. Econ. 68:79–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Yamagata T (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics 142:50–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, amp; Smith, R. P. (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper No. 1229

  • Phillips PC, Moon HR (2000) Nonstationary panel data analysis: an overview of some recent developments. Economet Rev 19:263–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafindadi AA, Muye IM, Kaita RA (2018) The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 25:126–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasool Y, Zaidi SAH, Zafar MW (2019) Determinants of carbon emissions in Pakistan’s transport sector. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(22):22907–22921

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo D (1817) Principles of political economy and taxation

  • Sapkota P, Bastola U (2017) Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics 64:206–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab K (2012) World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report (2012–2013). WEF, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Seker F, Ertugrul HM, Cetin M (2015) The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 52:347–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nation. Metalibri, New York

  • Sohag K, Al Mamun M, Uddin GS, Ahmed AM (2017) Sectoral output, energy use, and CO2 emission in middle-income countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(10):9754–9764

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Musah I, Ozturk I (2017) Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy 124:706–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy PAV (1970) Efficient inference in a random coefficientt regression model. Econometrica 38:311–323

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2018) World Investment Report. [online] United Nations. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2018_overview_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2020

  • Wang CM, Jiayu C (2019) Analyzing on the impact mechanism of foreign direct investment (FDI) to energy consumption. Energy Procedia 159:515–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Wang X (2015) Benefits of foreign ownership: evidence from foreign direct investment in China. J Int Econ 97(2):325–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69:709–748

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Zafar MW, Zaidi SAH, Khan, Naveed R, Mirza FM, Hou F, Kirmani SA (2019) The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States. Resources Policy 63(C) 1-1.101428

  • Zeng K, Eastin J (2012) Do developing countries invest up? The environmental effects of foreign direct investment from less-developed countries. World Dev 40(11):2221–2233

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y-J (2011) The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: an empirical analysis in China. Energy Policy 39(4):2197–2203

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu H, Duan L, Guo Y, Yu K (2016) The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Econ Model 58:237–248

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Umaima Arif & Farzana Naheed Khan

  2. Department of Economics, University of Wah, Quaid Avenue, 47040, Wah Cantt, Pakistan

    Asma Arif

Authors
  1. Umaima Arif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asma Arif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farzana Naheed Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

U.A., A.A., and F.N.K. contributed equally to this manuscript at all stages and worked extensively on the theoretical framework, data, empirical model, results, and implications.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umaima Arif.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis.

Publisher's note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arif, U., Arif, A. & Khan, F.N. Environmental impacts of FDI: evidence from heterogeneous panel methods. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 23639–23649 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17629-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17629-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation