Testing Stationarity of Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Low-Income Countries: Nonlinear Unit Root Analysis

Öz

CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions have been viewed as the main cause of climate change. An increasing number of studies investigate the stationarity and unit root properties of CO2 emissions series per capita using different techniques. In this study, the stationarity of CO2 emissions per capita in low-income countries is analyzed using structural breaks and nonlinear unit root tests. Zivot-Andrews (1992), Lumsdaine and Papell (1997), Lee and Strazicich (2003, 2004) (LM) unit root tests were applied for the period 1960-2016. Since the CO2 emissions series per capita showed nonlinearity condition, the analysis was performed by using Leybourne, Newbold and Vougas (1998) (LNV), Harvey and Mills (2002) (HM), Kapetanios, Shin and Snell (2003) (KSS), Sollis (2009), Kruse (2011), Hepsag (2019) methods. According to both Zivot-Andrews (1992), Lumsdaine and Papell (1997), Lee and Strazicich (2003, 2004) (LM) unit root tests with structural breaks and nonlinear Leybourne et al. (1998) (LNV), Harvey and Mills (2002) (HM), Kapetanios et al. (2003) (KSS), Sollis (2009), Kruse (2011), Hepsag (2019) unit root tests, mixed findings were obtained on the stationarity of CO2 emissions per capita. All findings provide environmental economic consequences for policy makers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emissions
• Low-Income Countries
• Nonlinear Unit Root Tests

Düşük Gelirli Ülkelerde Kişi Başına Karbondioksit Emisyonu Durağanlığının Test Edilmesi: Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Analizi

Öz

CO2 (karbondioksit) emisyonu, iklim değişikliğinin ana nedeni olarak görülmektedir. Artan sayıda çalışmada kişi başına düşen CO2 emisyon serilerinin durağanlığı ve birim kök özellikleri, farklı teknikler kullanılarak araştırılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada düşük-gelirli ülkelerde kişi başına düşen CO2 emisyonunun durağanlığı yapısal kırılmalı ve doğrusal olmayan birim kök testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. 1960-2016 dönemi için yapısal kırılmalı Zivot-Andrews (1992), Lumsdaine ve Papell (1997), Lee ve Strazicich (2003, 2004) (LM) birim kök testleri uygulanmıştır. Kişi başına CO2 emisyon serisi doğrusal olmama durumu gösterdiği için, analiz Leybourne, Newbold ve Vougas (1998) (LNV), Harvey ve Mills (2002) (HM), Kapetanios, Shin ve Snell (2003) (KSS), Sollis (2009), Kruse (2011), Hepsağ (2019) yöntemleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hem yapısal kırılmalı Zivot-Andrews (1992), Lumsdaine ve Papell (1997), Lee ve Strazicich (2003, 2004) (LM) birim kök testlerine göre hem de doğrusal olmayan Leybourne vd. (1998) (LNV), Harvey ve Mills (2002) (HM), Kapetanios vd. (2003), Sollis (2009), Kruse (2011), Hepsağ (2019) birim kök testlerine göre kişi başına CO2 emisyonunun durağanlığı konusunda karma bulgular elde edilmiştir. Tüm bulgular, politika yapıcılar için çevresel ekonomik sonuçlar sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emisyonu
• Düşük Gelirli Ülkeler
• Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleri

Kaynakça

1. Adhikari, D. and Chen, Y. (2013). Energy consumption and economic growth: A panel cointegration analysis for developing countries. Review of Economics & Finance, 3(2), 68-80. Retrieved from http://www.bapress.ca/
2. Akadiri, S. S. and Akadiri, A. C. (2020). Interaction between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in the Middle East: Panel causality evidence. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 16(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJETP.2020.105507
3. Ang, J. (2008). Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia. Journal of Policy Modelling, (30), 271-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2007.04.010
4. Apergis, N. and Payne, J. (2009). Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Economics, 31(2), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.09.002
5. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: Time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, 22, 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00050-5
6. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration and dynamic panels (pp. 161–177). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
7. Cevik, E. I., Yıldırım, D. Ç. and Dibooglu, S. (2020) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the US: A Markov-Switching VAR analysis. Energy & Environment, 1-23. doi:10.1177/0958305X20944035
8. Chaudhry, I., Sadfar, N. and Farooq, F. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 32(2), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9468-3

9. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
10. Demirel, Y. (2012). Energy: Production, conversion, storage, conservation, and coupling (Green energy and technology). London: Springer-Verlag.
11. Dogan, E. and Seker, F. (2016). Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renewable Energy, 94, 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.078
12. Dumitrescu, E. and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
13. Fatai, B. O. (2014). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus: Panel co-integration and causality tests for Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 25(4), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2014/v25i4a2242
14. Fuinhas, J. and Marques, A. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus in Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Turkey: An ARDL bounds test approach. Energy Economics, 34(2), 511-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.003
15. Gozgor G., Lau, C. and Lu, Z. (2018). Energy consumption and economic growth: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy, 153, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.158
16. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043
17. Harris, R. and Tzavalis, E. (1999). Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed. Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00076-1
18. Im, K., Lee, J. and Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit-root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 393-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00125.x
19. Im, K., Lee, J. and Tieslau, M. (2010). Panel LM unit root tests with trend shifts (FDIC Center for Financial Research Working Paper, No. 2010-1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1619918
20. Im, K., Pesaran, M. and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
21. Khan, M. T. I., Yaseen, M. R. and Ali, Q. (2018). The dependency analysis between energy consumption, sanitation, forest area, financial development, and greenhouse gas: A continent-wise comparison of lower middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(24), 24013-24040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2460-x
22. Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2003). Minimum LM unit root test with two structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1082-1089. https:// doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815961
23. Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break (Appalachian State University Working Papers). Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/
24. Levin, A., Lin, C. and Chu, C. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
25. Mehrara, M. (2007). Energy consumption and economic growth: The case of oil exporting countries. Energy Policy, 35, 2939-2945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.018
26. Muse, B. O. (2014). Energy consumption and economic growth in Nigeria: Correlation or causality?. Journal of Empirical Economics, 3(3), 108-120. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/
27. Ng, S. and Perron, P. (1995). Unit root tests in ARMA models with data-dependent methods for the selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476510
28. Ozturk, I., Aslan, A. and Kalyoncu, H. (2010). Energy consumption and economic growth relationship: Evidence from panel data for low- and middle-income countries. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4422-4428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.071
29. Pao, H., Li, Y. and Fu, H. (2014). Causality relationship between energy consumption and economic growth in Brazil. Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, 5, 198-205. https://doi.org/10.4236/sgre.2014.58019
30. Paul, S. and Bhattacharya, R. (2004). Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: A note on conflicting results. Energy Economics, 26(6), 977-983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.07.002
31. Perron, P. (1989). The great cash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
32. Pesaran, M. H. (2003). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0346). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.457280
33. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
34. Swamy, P. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
35. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Yaseen, M. R., and Makhdum, M. S. A. (2020). An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: A continent-wise comparison in upper-middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(31), 38995-39018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09772-3
36. Yu, Q. H. and Meng, W. D. (2008). The relationship between energy consumption and Chinese economic growth based on panel data. Systems Engineering, 26, 68–72. Retrieved from https://en.cnki.com.cn/
37. Zhang, X.-P. and Cheng, X.-M. (2009). Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2706-2712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.011
38. Zivot, E. and Andrews, D. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 11, 251-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391541