Abstract
This chapter undertakes an empirical analysis by using the most recent data of 171 countries, from the 1960–2010 period. The author introduces some elaborate estimation methods, in order to cope with some of the estimation problems addressed in Chap. 2—that is, the author carries out panel unit root tests and panel cointegration tests, and then estimates a dynamic panel data model, to examine the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis with regard to carbon dioxide. The analytical results show that: (1) the EKC is N-shaped formally but inverted U-shaped substantively, (2) the income level of the turning point of the whole world sample is approximately USD30,000 (2005 constant prices), and (3) the level of the turning point is relatively lower in advanced countries and higher in developing countries. Finally, the author briefly discusses the role of the Kyoto Protocol, based on the estimation results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There are (1) cumulative emissions, and (2) concentration in the atmosphere to be considered as stock variables. Overall, (1) considers neither absorption nor decomposition, and (2) is not appropriate for EKC analysis, if the researcher considers it a constant everywhere worldwide. For these reasons, the analyses in this chapter use flow data series, as has been done in previous studies.
- 2.
Most previous studies classify countries in terms of OECD membership. This classification is appropriate, since the EKC is used to investigate the relationships in economic development. The author, however, adopts the classification of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, as the author is conscious of the political backgrounds of international negotiations on the global warming issue; these negotiations are held by the groups based on the Framework. This method does not differ much from those of previous studies, as most Annex I countries have joined the OECD.
- 3.
Standard individual unit root tests have less explanatory power than panel unit root tests, mainly because of the small number of time-series observations.
- 4.
- 5.
It has been pointed out that individual cointegration tests with a small sample have difficulties in detecting long-term and stable relations, due to the large deviation of statistics.
- 6.
- 7.
As for Eq. (3.1), the turning point is calculated according to
$$ \frac{-\beta _2-\sqrt{\beta _2^2-3\beta _3\beta _1}}{3\beta _3} \quad \text {(for }\,\beta _3>0\text {),} \quad \text { and} \quad \frac{-\beta _2+\sqrt{\beta _2^2-3\beta _3\beta _1}}{3\beta _3} \quad \text {(for }\,\beta _3<0\text {)}. $$ - 8.
Arellano and Bond [2] point out that the Sargan test has the tendency to reject the null hypothesis excessively when disturbance has heteroskedasticity.
- 9.
The formula used for this calculation is the same as that in Sect. 3.3.2.
- 10.
- 11.
The sample contains the following 118 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
- 12.
The calculated income level of the concave upward point of the inflection points is USD91,188.
References
Agras, J., & Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28, 267–277.
Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.
Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249–272.
Cole, M. A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: How robust is the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economics, 8, 557–580.
Dinda, S., & Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and emission: A panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57, 167–181.
Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometric Journal, 3, 148–161.
Halkos, G. E. (2003). Environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur: Evidence using GMM estimation and random coefficient panel data models. Environment and Development Economics, 8, 581–601.
Heston, A., Summers, R. & Aten, B. (2012). Penn world table version 7.1. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
Huang, B.-N., Hwang, M. J., & Yang, C. W. (2008). Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth revisited: A dynamic panel data approach. Ecological Economics, 67, 41–54.
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.
Levin, A., & Lin, C.-F. (1993). Unit root tests in panel data: New results. Discussion Paper No. 93-56, Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego.
Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–24.
Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631–652.
Neumayer, E. (2002). Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy, 30, 7–12.
Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 653–678.
Perman, R., & Stern, D. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47, 325–347.
Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56, 176–189.
Romero-Ávila, D. (2008). Questioning the empirical basis of the environmental Kuznets curve for CO\(_2\): New evidence from a panel stationarity test robust to multiple breaks and cross-dependence. Ecological Economics, 64, 559–574.
Stern, D. I. (1998). Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economics, 3, 173–196.
Stern, D. I., & Common, M. S. (2001). Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 162–178.
Wagner, M. (2008). The carbon Kuznets curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics? Resource and Energy Economics, 30, 388–408.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Development Bank of Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Uchiyama, K. (2016). Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. In: Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. SpringerBriefs in Economics(). Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55921-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55921-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55919-1
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55921-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)