Empirical evaluation of the pollution haven hypothesis for seven largest emerging economies within the framework of the new global climate agreements

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHavenH), which suggests the negative impact of the FDI on environmental quality (EQ), is valid in seven selected emerging market economies for the period 1990-2020. To achieve this goal, the CO2 emission (CE) model includes renewable energy consumption (REC) in addition to the FDI variable. The elasticity coefficients of the model, in which cross-sectional dependence (CSD) and slope heterogeneity were determined, were estimated by the Augmented Mean Group (AMG) method. The study found that FDI and REC positively influenced the EQ of the countries examined. The Dumitrescu-Hurlin (D-H) test results indicated a bidirectional causality relationship between FDI and CE. Additionally, a unidirectional causality was observed from REC to CE. These results suggest that both FDI and REC play a role in improving EQ. The results of the analysis show that the PHavenH, which expresses the view that FDI in the relevant countries causes environmental degradation (ED) in developing countries, is not valid. In other words, it confirms the Pollution Halo Hypothesis (PHaloH), which points to the finding that FDI improves EQ in the countries concerned. In this context, it has been concluded that REC has an important contribution to determining the validity of this hypothesis. The findings of the study suggest that it is essential to formulate policy recommendations aimed at boosting the production and utilization of renewable energy in the seven emerging market economies under investigation. Such initiatives can help enhance environmental sustainability and contribute to a cleaner and greener future for these countries.

Keywords

• FDI
• Renewable Energy Consumption
• CO2 Emission
• PHavenH
• AMG Estimation
• Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test

References

1. Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., & Wu, Y. (2021). Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces, Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124898, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124898
2. Alvarado, R. et al. (2022). Impact of the informal economy on the ecological footprint: the role of urban concentration and globalization. Economic Analysis and Policy, 75, 750-767.
3. Alvarez-Herranz, A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., & Cantos, J. M. (2017). Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels. Energy Policy, 105, 386-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.009
4. An, H., Razzaq, A., Haseeb, M., and Mihardjo, L.W.W. (2021). The role of technology innovation and people’s connectivity in testing Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Heaven Hypotheses across the Belt and Road host countries: New evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(5), 5254-5270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10775-3
5. Apergis, N., Pinar, M., & Unlu, E. (2023). How do foreign direct investment flows affect carbon emissions in BRICS countries? Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis using bilateral FDI flows from OECD to BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 14680-14692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23185-4
6. Avcı, P., Sarıgül, S.S., Karataser, B., Cetin, M., & Aslan, A. (2024). Analysis of the relationship between tourism, green technological innovation and environmental quality in the top 15 most visited countries: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 26, 2337-2355, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02708-8
7. Balcılar, M. Usman, O., & Ike, G.N. (2023). Operational behaviours of multinational corporations, renewable energy transition, and environmental sustainability in Africa: Does the level of natural resource rents matter? Resources Policy, 81, 103344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103344
8. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K.K., Taspinar, N., & Cantos-Cantos, J.M. (2019). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 23010-23026

9. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M., & Shahbaz, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries. Renewable Energy, 185, 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.059
10. Baltagi, B.H. (2013). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Fifth Edition, England: John Wiley& Sons, Ltd. Bashir, T., Mansha, A., Zulfiqar, R., & Riaz, R. (2014). Impact of FDI on economy growth: a comparison of Southasian states & China, European Scientific Journal, 10(1), 446-469.
11. Benzerrouk, Z., Abid, M., & Sekrafi, H. (2021). Pollution haven or halo effect? A comparative analysis of developing and developed countries, Energy Reports, 7, 4862-4871, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.076 Blomquist, J. & Westerlund, J. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121(3), 374-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.012
12. Bulut, U., Ucler, G., & Inglesi_Lotz, R. (2021). Does the pollution haven hypothesis prevail in Turkey? Empirical evidence from nonlinear smooth transition models, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 38563-38572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13476-7
13. Cetin, M., & Ecevit, E. (2015). Urbanization, Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Sub-Saharan Countries: A Panel Cointegration and Causality Analysis, Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 3(2), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.15640/jeds.v3n2a7
14. Cetin, M., & Yuksel, Ö. (2018). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Enerji Tüketiminin Karbon Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi, Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 5(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.409119
15. Çetin, M., et al. (2023a). The impact of natural resources, economic growth, savings, and current account balance on financial sector development: Theory and empirical evidence. Resources Policy, 81, 103300.
16. Cetin, M., Sarıgul, S.S., Topcu, B.A., Alvarado, R.& Karataser, B. (2023b). Does globalization mitigate environmental degradation in selected emerging economies? assessment of the role of financial development, economic growth, renewable energy consumption and urbanization, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 100340-100359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29467-9
17. Cetin, M., Ozturk, I., Sarigul, S.S., Murshed, M., & Kilavuz, E. (2024). Nexus between technological innovation and environmental pollution in selected OECD countries. Natural Resources Forum. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12458
18. Chandra, R. (2004). Adam Smith and Competitive Equilibrium. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1, 57-83, https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.1.57
19. Chen, X.H., Tee, K., Elnahass, M., & Ahmed, R. (2023). Assessing the environmental impacts of renewable energy sources: A case study on air pollution and carbon emissions in China, Journal of Environmental Management, 345(1), 118525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118525
20. Danish, & Ulucak, R. (2022). Analyzing energy innovation-emissions nexus in China: A novel dynamic simulation method, Energy, 244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.123010
21. Danish, Khan, SUD, & Ahmad, A. (2021). Testing the pollution haven hypothesis on the pathway of sustainable development: Accounting the role of nuclear energy consumption, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 53(8), 2746-2752, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.008
22. Destek, M.A., & Okumus, I. (2019). Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(23), 23689-23695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05614-z
23. Diaconu, L. (2014). The foreign direct investments in South East Asia in the context of the 1997 and 2007 crises, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 109, 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.437
24. Dumitrescu, E.-I. and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
25. Eberhardt M., & Bond, S.R. (2009). Cross-sectional dependence in non-stationary panel models: A novel estimator. Nordic Econometric Meetings, Sweeden.
26. Eberhardt, M., & Teal F. (2010). Productivity analysis in the global manufacturing production. Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
27. Goh, S.K., Sam, C.Y., & McNown, R. (2017). Re-examining foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in asian economies using a bootstrap ARDL test for cointegration, Journal of Asian Economics, 51, 12-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2017.06.001
28. Han, J. et al. (2023). The construction of green finance and high-quality economic development under China’s SDGs target. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(52), 111891-111902
29. Ibhagui, O. (2020). How does foreign direct investment affect growth in sub-Saharan Africa? New evidence from threshold analysis, Journal of Economic Studies, 47(1), 149-181. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-06-2018-0198
30. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for co-integration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
31. Karimi Alavijeh, N., Ahmadi Shadmehri, M.., Nazeer, N., Zangoei, S., & Dehdar, F. (2023). The role of renewable energy consumption on environmental degradation in EU countries: do institutional quality, technological innovation, and GDP matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 44607-44624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25428-4
32. Koksal, C. & Cetin, G. (2021). The International Trade Analysis of Turkey’s Polluting Industries, Journal of Economic Policy Researches 8(2), 257-275. DOI: 10.26650/JEPR.930212
33. Li, X., and Liu, X. (2005). Foreign direct ınvestment and economic growth: An ıncreasingly endogenous relationship, World Development, 33, 393-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.11.001
34. Magazzino, C., Toma, P., Fusco,G., Valente, D., & Petrosillo, I. (2022). Renewable energy consumption, environmental degradation and economic growth: the greener the richer? Ecological Indicators, 139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108912.
35. Merican, Y., Yusop, Z., Noor, Z.M.& Hook, L.S. (2007). Foreign Direct Investment and the Pollution in Five ASEAN Nations, Int. Journal of Economics and Management, 1(2), 245-261.
36. Mert, M., Bölük, G., & Caglar, A.E. (2019). Interrelationships among foreign direct investments, renewable energy, and CO2 emissions for different European country groups: a panel ARDL approach, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(21), 21495-21510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05415-4
37. Ozkan, O., Coban, M.N., Iortile, I.B., and Usman, O. (2023). Reconsidering the environmental Kuznets curve, pollution haven, and pollution halo hypotheses with carbon efficiency in China: A dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 68163-68176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26671-5
38. Pedroni, (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an applicaton to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20, 597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073
39. Persyn, D., & Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-Correction-Based Cointegration Tests for Panel Data. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 232-241
40. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, Discussion Paper No. 1240, 1-42.
41. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
42. Sahin, G., Gokdemir, L. & Ayyıldız, F.V. (2019). Türkiye Örneğinde Kirlilik Sığınağı ve Kirlenme Hale Hipotezleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(33), 104-140.
43. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I., Usman, M., Sharif, A., & Razzaq, A. (2023). Pollution Haven or Halo? How European countries leverage FDI, energy, and human capital to alleviate their ecological footprint, Gondwana Research, 116, 136-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.12.018
44. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Faisal Abbas, F., & Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Economics, 51, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.01
45. Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Sinha, A. (2019). Foreign direct Investment-CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 603-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.282
46. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H.T., Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 73518-73533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27573-2
47. Shao, Q., Wang, X., Zhou, Q., & Balogh, L. (2019). Pollution haven hypothesis revisited: A comparison of the BRICS and MINT countries based on VECM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 724-738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.206
48. Sijabat, R. (2023). The Association between Foreign Investment and Gross Domestic Product in Ten ASEAN Countries, Economies, 11(7), 188, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11070188
49. Singhania M, Saini N (2021) Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: role of FDI. J Bus Res 123:516–528
50. Solarin, S.A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., & Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation, Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), 706-719. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.089
51. Sun C, Zhang F, Xu M (2017) Investigation of pollution haven hypothesis for China: an ARDL approach with breakpoint unit root tests. J Clean Prod 161:153–164
52. Temurlenk, M.S., & Logun, A. (2022). An analysis of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the context of Turkey: A nonlinear approach, Economics and Business Review, 8(22), 5-23, https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2022.1.2
53. Ullah, A., Dogan, M., Topcu, B.A., & Saadaoui, H. (2023). Modeling the impacts of technological innovation and financial development on environmental sustainability: New evidence from the world’s top 14 financially developed countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101229.
54. United Nations (UN), (2024). https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. United Nations Climate Change (UNCC), (2024). What is the Kyoto Protocol? https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf
55. Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019
56. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
57. World Bank, World Development Indicator-WDI.
58. Zeibote, Z., Volkova, T., & Todorov, K. (2019). The impact of globalization on regional development and competitiveness: cases of selected regions. Insights into Regional Development, 1 (1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(3)
59. Zeren, F. (2015). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların CO2 Emisyonuna Etkisi: Kirlilik Hale Hipotezi mi Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi mi? 10(37), 6442-6448. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.97848
60. Zhang, K.H. (2010). How does globalization affect industrial competitiveness?, Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(4), 502-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00153.x