Oil Consumption and Growth: Panel Data Analysis on OECD Countries

Year 2018, , 1574 - 1585, 27.09.2018

Tuncer Gövdeli , Tuba Direkçi

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.422685

Cited By: 3

Abstract

In this study, the
relationship between oil consumption and economic growth has been analyzed for
28 OECD countries which is covering the years 1980 to 2013. Firstly, cross section
dependence among countries is examined. Due to the findings in the cross
section dependency unit root test and cointegration test must be the second
generation tests. For this reason, we used second generation unit root test (Pesaran
CADF (2007)) and cointegration test (Westerlund Durbin-H (2008)). The result
was found long run relationship between oil consumption and economic growth. At
the end of the study, the long term cointegration coefficients were estimated with
Common Correlated Effect (CCE). In the results obtained, the coefficient of
elasticity is found to be 0.279, so that oil consumption affects economic
growth positively.

Keywords

Oil consumption, Economic growth, Panel data analysis, OECD

Petrol Tüketimi ve Büyüme: OECD Ülkelerine İlişkin Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

Çalışmada petrol tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki 1980 ile 2013 yıllarını
kapsayacak şekilde 28 OECD ülke için analiz edilmiştir. Öncelikle ülkeler
arasında yatay kesit bağımlılığı incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgularda yatay
kesit bağımlılığı olmasından dolayı birim kök testi ve eşbütünleşme testlerinin
ikinci nesil test olması gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle ikinci
nesil birim kök testiyle (Pesaran CADF (2007)) eşbütünleşme testi (Westerlund
Durbin-H (2008)) kullanılmıştır. Ortaya çıkan sonuçlarda petrol tüketimi ile
ekonomik büyüme arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın son
aşamasında ise uzun dönem eşbütünleşme katsayılarının tahmini Common Correlated
Effect (CCE) yardımıyla tahmin edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlarda, esneklik
katsayısı 0.279 olarak bulunmuştur, böylece petrol tüketimi ekonomik büyümeyi
olumlu yönde etkilemektedir.

Keywords

Petrol tüketimi, Ekonomik büyüme, Panel veri analizi, OECD

References

• Alam, M. S. & Paramati, S. R. (2015). Do Oil Consumption and Economic Growth Intensify Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Developing Economies. Applied Economics, 47(48), 5186-5203.
• Al-mulali, U. (2011). Oil consumption, CO 2 Emission and Economic Growth in MENA Countries. Energy, 36(10), 6165-6171.
• Behmiri, N. B. ve Manso, J. R. P. (2012). Crude Oil Conservation Policy Hypothesis in OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Countries: A Multivariate Panel Granger Causality Test. Energy, 43(1), 253-260.
• Behmiri, N. B. & Manso, J. R. P. (2013). How Crude Oil Consumption İmpacts on Economic Growth of Sub-Saharan Africa?. Energy, 54, 74-83.
• Bildirici, M. E. & Bakirtas, T. (2014). The Relationship Among Oil, Natural Gas and Coal Consumption and Economic Growth in BRICTS (Brazil, Russian, India, China, Turkey and South Africa) Countries. Energy, 65, 134-144.
• Bildirici, M. E. & Kayıkçı, F. (2013). Effects of Oil Production on Economic Growth in Eurasian Countries: Panel ARDL Approach. Energy, 49, 156-161.
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 239-253.
• Chu, H. P. (2012). Oil Consumption and Output: What Causes What? Bootstrap Panel Causality for 49 Countries. Energy Policy, 51, 907-915.
• Chu, H. P. & Chang, T. (2012). Nuclear Energy Consumption, Oil Consumption and Economic Growth in G-6 Countries: Bootstrap Panel Causality Test. Energy Policy, 48, 762-769.
• Direkci, T. B., & Govdeli, T. (2015). The Relationship Between Electricity Consumption And Economic Growth In Oecd Countries: Panel Cointegration Analysis Under Cross-Sectional Dependence. Medzinarodne vztahy (Journal of International Relations), 13(4), 382-398.
• Fanchi, J. R. & Fanchi, C. J. (2005). Energy in the 21st century. Hackensack, NJ: World scientific.
• Halkos, G. E. & Tzeremes, N. G. (2011). Oil Consumption and Economic Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced, Developing and Emerging Economies. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1354-1362.
• Herzer, D. (2014). Unions and income inequality: a heterogeneous panel cointegration and causality analysis (No. 146). Diskussionspapier, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Fächergruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre.
• Im, K. S.,Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unitroots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Kaya, M. ve Ercan, H. (2002). Türkiye'de ve Dünya'da bir LPG İncelemesi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 101-105.
• Naser, H. (2015). Analysing the Long-Run Relationship among Oil Market, Nuclear Energy Consumption, and Economic Growth: An Evidence from Emerging Economies. Energy, 89, 421-434.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unitroot test in the presence of cross‐sectiondependence. Journal of AppliedEconometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, M. H. & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1),50-93.
• Pesaran, M. H., (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics no. 435. University of Cambridge.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
• Secretariat, E. C. (2007). Putting a price on energy: International pricing mechanisms for oil and gas. Brussels: Energy Charter Secretariat.
• Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 311-323.
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2),193-233.