Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Research Methodology
3. Data and Empirical Analysis
3.1. Data Measurement and Sources
3.2. Panel Framework Tests
3.3. Model Specification and Empirical Test
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Country | Variable | Mean | SD | MIN | MAX | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque–Bera |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AU | EX | 6.330 | 0.476 | 5.730 | 7.153 | 0.326 | 1.596 | 1.679 |
ECOE | 0.468 | 0.422 | 0.000 | 1.134 | 0.092 | 1.522 | 1.571 | |
GDP | 13.327 | 0.367 | 12.735 | 13.849 | −0.121 | 1.755 | 1.139 | |
AUT | EX | 5.990 | 0.903 | 4.362 | 7.020 | −0.429 | 1.956 | 1.294 |
ECOE | 0.420 | 0.457 | 0.000 | 1.350 | 0.520 | 2.002 | 1.472 | |
GDP | 12.489 | 0.241 | 12.124 | 12.878 | 0.554 | 1.792 | 1.041 | |
CAN | EX | 6.501 | 0.624 | 5.110 | 7.284 | −0.775 | 2.828 | 1.727 |
ECOE | 0.443 | 0.414 | 0.000 | 1.508 | 0.740 | 3.517 | 1.744 | |
GDP | 13.806 | 0.294 | 13.308 | 14.227 | −0.200 | 1.799 | 1.135 | |
DEN | EX | 5.625 | 0.850 | 4.273 | 7.311 | 0.123 | 2.216 | 0.478 |
ECOE | 0.777 | 0.163 | 0.554 | 1.250 | 1.340 | 5.520 | 6.682 ** | |
GDP | 12.050 | 0.257 | 11.624 | 12.433 | −0.090 | 1.857 | 0.947 | |
FIN | EX | 4.832 | 0.604 | 4.078 | 5.862 | 0.470 | 1.632 | 1.953 |
ECOE | 0.446 | 0.453 | 0.000 | 1.449 | 0.502 | 2.252 | 1.112 | |
GDP | 11.945 | 0.269 | 11.448 | 12.324 | −0.277 | 2.011 | 0.910 | |
FRA | EX | 7.713 | 0.575 | 6.524 | 8.410 | −0.476 | 2.294 | 0.995 |
ECOE | 0.583 | 0.351 | 0.000 | 1.042 | −0.891 | 2.316 | 2.581 | |
GDP | 14.379 | 0.241 | 13.992 | 14.732 | −0.075 | 1.766 | 1.094 | |
GER | EX | 8.530 | 0.695 | 7.259 | 9.386 | −0.595 | 2.230 | 1.423 |
ECOE | 0.758 | 0.092 | 0.575 | 0.875 | 0.141 | 2.180 | 1.233 | |
GDP | 14.736 | 0.206 | 14.434 | 15.071 | −0.358 | 1.765 | 2.135 | |
ITA | EX | 7.527 | 0.444 | 6.833 | 8.129 | 0.026 | 1.430 | 1.748 |
ECOE | 0.624 | 0.377 | 0.000 | 1.390 | −0.156 | 2.833 | 0.089 | |
GDP | 14.292 | 0.217 | 13.924 | 14.601 | −0.184 | 1.851 | 1.030 | |
JPN | EX | 8.440 | 0.380 | 7.588 | 8.907 | −0.863 | 2.958 | 2.115 |
DGE | 0.511 | 0.357 | 0.000 | 0.943 | −0.601 | 1.750 | 2.131 | |
GDP | 15.217 | 0.049 | 15.139 | 15.299 | 0.216 | 1.790 | 1.168 | |
NED | EX | 7.4682 | 1.055 | 4.909 | 8.176 | −1.090 | 3.642 | 3.661 |
ECOE | 0.681 | 0.431 | 0.000 | 1.499 | −0.205 | 2.401 | 0.373 | |
GDP | 13.188 | 0.294 | 12.664 | 13.596 | −0.270 | 1.950 | 0.973 | |
NOR | EX | 4.807 | 1.103 | 2.276 | 6.392 | −0.914 | 3.177 | 2.392 |
ECOE | 0.530 | 0.420 | 0.000 | 1.332 | 0.060 | 2.019 | 0.692 | |
GDP | 12.165 | 0.395 | 11.515 | 12.736 | −0.205 | 1.788 | 1.159 | |
ESP | EX | 6.140 | 0.822 | 4.434 | 7.369 | −0.243 | 2.347 | 0.469 |
ECOE | 0.527 | 0.371 | 0.000 | 0.915 | −0.648 | 1.612 | 2.556 | |
GDP | 14.838 | 0.369 | 13.222 | 14.272 | −0.276 | 1.665 | 1.477 | |
SUI | EX | 5.993 | 0.650 | 4.529 | 6.797 | −0.738 | 2.587 | 1.665 |
ECOE | 0.732 | 0.464 | 0.000 | 1.822 | 0.499 | 3.225 | 0.742 | |
GDP | 12.573 | 0.253 | 12.180 | 12.964 | 0.031 | 1.829 | 0.973 | |
SWI | EX | 6.413 | 0.387 | 5.566 | 6.992 | −0.878 | 3.323 | 2.261 |
ECOE | 0.670 | 0.421 | 0.000 | 1.532 | −0.307 | 2.350 | 0.473 | |
GDP | 12.560 | 0.247 | 12.220 | 12.977 | −0.362 | 1.875 | 1.126 | |
UK | EX | 7.492 | 0.436 | 6.438 | 8.052 | −1.126 | 3.808 | 4.062 |
ECOE | 0.664 | 0.417 | 0.000 | 1.566 | 0.189 | 3.248 | 0.146 | |
GDP | 14.362 | 0.277 | 13.884 | 14.786 | −0.144 | 1.910 | 0.899 | |
USA | EX | 8.529 | 0.642 | 7.354 | 9.497 | −0.016 | 1.950 | 0.781 |
ECOE | 0.744 | 0.126 | 0.511 | 1.005 | −0.093 | 2.850 | 0.040 | |
GDP | 16.217 | 0.284 | 15.723 | 16.632 | −0.236 | 1.865 | 1.069 |
References
- Jeffers, R.F.; Jacob, J.J.; Search, E.M. Dynamic analysis of policy drives for bioenergy commodity markets. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Río, P. The dynamic efficiency of feed-in tariffs: The impact of different design elements. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menanteau, P. Can negotiated agreements replace efficiency standards as an instrument for transforming the electrical appliance market? Energy Policy 2003, 31, 827–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Held, A.; Hass, R.; Ragwitz, M. On the success of policy strategies for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the EU. Energy Environ. 2006, 17, 849–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hass, R.; Resh, G.; Panzer, C.; Busch, S.; Ragwitz, M.; Held, A. Efficiency and effectiveness of promotion systems for electricity generation from renewable energy sources: Lessons from EU countries. Energy 2011, 36, 2186–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klessmann, C. Status and perspectives of renewable energy policy and deployment in the European Union: What is needed to reach the 2020 targets? Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7631–7657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, J.; Groba, F. Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy Innovation and Markets; Discussion Papers No. 1263; German Institute for Economic Research: Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Costantini, V.; Mazzanti, M. On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU Exports. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 132–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junginger, M.; Bolkesjø, T.; Bradley, D.; Dolzan, P.; Faaij, A.; Heinimö, J.; Hektor, B.; Leistad, Ø.; Ling, E.; Perry, M.; et al. Developments in international bioenergy trade. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, V. Trade Flows, Barriers and Market Drivers in Renewable Energy Supply Goods: The Need to Level the Playing Field; ICTSD Trade and Environment Issue Paper 10; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Larmers, P. Developments in international solid biofuel trade: An analysis of volumes, policies, and Market Factors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 6, 3176–3199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, B. Public policy supports and export performance of bioenergy technologies: A dynamic approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 24, 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, L.; Neuhoff, K. Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 1854–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finon, D.; Menanteau, P. The static dynamic efficiency of instruments of promotion of renewables. Energy Stud. Rev. 2003, 12, 53–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menanteau, P.; Finon, D.; Lamy, M.-L. Prices versus quantities: Choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Energy Policy 2003, 31, 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toke, D. Renewable financial support systems and cost-effectiveness. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, P.D. Effectiveness of policy measures in transforming the energy system. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 627–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bürer, M.J.; Wüsternhagen, R. Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist’s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech investors. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4997–5006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbruggen, A.; Lauber, V. Assessing the performance of renewable electricity support instruments. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ericsson, K.; Huttunen, S.; Nilsoon, L.J.; Svenningsson, P. Bioenergy policy and market development in Finland and Sweden. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 1707–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junginger, M. International bioenergy trade in the Netherlands. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 672–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larmers, P. International bioenergy trade—A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2655–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, B.; Song, W.-Y. Causality between public policies and exports of renewable energy technologies. Energy Policy 2013, 55, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Algieri, B.; Aquino, A.; Succurro, M. Going ‘green’: Trade specialization dynamics in the solar photovoltaic sector. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7275–7283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantini, V.; Crespi, F. Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantini, V.; Crespi, F.; Martini, C.; Pennacchio, L. Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 577–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnstone, N.; Haščič, I.; Popp, D. Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: Evidence-based on patent counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 5, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.M.; Levin, R.C. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In Handbook of Industrial Organization Volume 2; Schmalensee, R., Willig, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; pp. 1059–1107. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, W. Empirical studies of innovative activity. In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change; Stoneman, P., Ed.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1995; pp. 182–264. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, B.H.; Oriani, R. Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2006, 24, 971–993. [Google Scholar]
- Duqi, A.; Torluccio, G. Can R&D expenditures affect firm market value? An empirical analysis of a panel of European listed firms. In Bank Performance Risk and Firm Financing; Molyneux, P.M., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: England, UK, 2011; pp. 215–241. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Dynamic Efficiencies in Merger Analysis; OECD: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Baily, M.N.; Chakrabarti, A.K. Innovation and the Productivity Crisis; The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Jayamaha, A.; Mula, J.M. Productivity and efficiency measurement technologies: Identifying the efficiency of techniques for financial institutions in developing countries. J. Emerg. Trends Econ. Manag. Sci. 2011, 2, 454–460. [Google Scholar]
- Mandl, U.; Dierx, A.; Ilzkovitz, F. The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Public Spending; Economics Paper 301; Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, M. The Definition and Measurement of Productivity; Working Paper 9/98; Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research: Melbourne, Australia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, A.B.; Jensen, J.B.; Redding, S.J.; Schott, P.K. Firms in international trade. J. Econ. Perspect. 2007, 21, 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantini, J.; Melitz, M. The dynamics of firm-level adjustment to trade liberalization. In The Organization of Firms in a Global Economy; Helpman, E., Marin, D., Verdier, T., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 15–36. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, T.; Melitz, M.J.; Ottaviano, G.I.P. Market size, competition, and the product mix of exporters. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 495–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melitz, M.J. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 2003, 71, 1695–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debreu, E. The coefficient of resource utilization. Econometrica 1951, 19, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koopmans, T.C. Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation; Koopmans, T.C., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1951; pp. 33–97. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1957, 120, 253–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamond, P. National debt in a neoclassical growth model. Am. Econ. Rev. 1965, 55, 1126–1150. [Google Scholar]
- Kirzner, I. How Markets Work: Disequilibrium, Entrepreneurship and Discovery; Hobart Paper, No. 133; Institute of Economic Affairs: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- North, D.C. Understanding the Process of Economic Change; Institute of Economic Affairs: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- De Soto, J. The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lewin, P. Entrepreneurial opportunity as the potential to create value. Rev. Austrian. Econ. 2015, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahouli-Brahmi, S. Testing for the presence of some features of increasing returns to adoption for factors in energy system dynamics: An analysis via the learning curve approach. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1195–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corsatea, T.D.; Giaccaria, S.; Arántegui, R.L. The role of sources of finance on the development of wind energy. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zang, D.; Cao, H.; Zou, D. Exuberance in China’s renewable energy investment: Rationality, capital structure and implications with firm level evidence. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abhyankar, R. The government of India’s role in promoting innovation through policy initiatives for entrepreneurship development. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2014, 4, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
- Del Río, G.P. Policy implications of potential conflicts between short-term and long-term efficiency in CO2 emissions abatement. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Andersen, M.M. Strategies for eco-efficiency innovation. In Strategy Paper for the EU Informed Environmental Council Meeting; Ministry for Social Building, Resional Planning, and Environmental Administration: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Christiansen, A.C. Technological Change and the Role of Public Policy: An Analytical Framework for Dynamic Efficiency Assessments; FIN Report 4/2001; The Fridtjof Nansen Institute: Lysaker, Norway, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenberg, N. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Ferroukhi, R.; Khalid, A.; García-Baños, C.; Renner, M. Renewable Energy and Jobs—Annual Review 2015; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Norris, M.; Zhang, Z. Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 66–83. [Google Scholar]
- Chung, Y.; Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. J. Environ. Manag. 1997, 51, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Model undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 157, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyckhoff, H.; Allen, K. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 132, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramli, N.A.; Munisamy, S. Eco-efficiency in greenhouse emissions among manufacturing industries: A Range Adjusted Measure. Econ. Model. 2015, 47, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, P.C.; Street, A. Measuring the efficiency of public services: The limits of analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. 2005, 168, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirshleifer, D.; Hsu, P.-H.; Li, D. Innovative efficiency and stock returns. J. Financ. Econ. 2013, 107, 632–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadorsky, P. Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4021–4028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, A.C.; Fuinhas, J.A. Drivers promoting renewable energy: A dynamic panel approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1601–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, J.; Wiser, R. Fostering a renewable energy technology industry: An international comparison of wind industry policy support mechanisms. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1844–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breusch, T.S.; Pagan, A.R. The LM test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1980, 47, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihaiu, D.M.; Opreana, A.; Cristescu, M.P. Efficiency, effectiveness and performance of the public sector. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2010, 4, 132–147. [Google Scholar]
- Ek, K.; Söderholm, P. Technology learning in the presence of public R&D: The Case of European Wind Power. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2356–2362. [Google Scholar]
- Ayari, N.; Blazsek, S.; Mendi, P. Renewable energy innovations in Europe: Dynamic panel data approach. Appl. Econ. 2012, 44, 3135–3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bointner, R. Innovation in the energy sector: Lessons learnt from R&D expenditures and patents in selected IEA countries. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 733–747. [Google Scholar]
- Bosetti, V.; Carrao, C.; Massetti, E.; Sgobbi, A.; Tavoni, M. Optimal energy investment and R&D strategies to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Resour. Energy Econ. 2009, 31, 123–137. [Google Scholar]
- Jeon, C.; Shin, J. Long-term renewable energy technology valuation using system dynamic and Monte Carlo simulation: Photovoltaic technology case. Energy 2014, 66, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobos, P.H.; Erickson, J.D.; Drennen, T.E. Technological learning and renewable energy costs: Implications for US renewable energy policy. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 1645–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, D.; Hascic, I.; Medhi, N. Technology and the diffusion of renewable energy. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 648–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderholm, P.; Klaassen, G. Wind power in Europe: A simultaneous innovation-diffusion model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 36, 163–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, H.M. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econ. 2017, 22, 265–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westerlund, J. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2007, 69, 709–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engle, R.; Granger, C.W.J. Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedroni, P. Fully modified OLS for the heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Adv. Econ. 2000, 15, 93–130. [Google Scholar]
- Kao, C.; Chiang, M.-H. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Adv. Econom. 2000, 15, 179–222. [Google Scholar]
- Pesaran, H.M.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.P. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999, 94, 621–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, A. Panel data unit roots and co-integration: An overview. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1999, 61, 607–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roodman, D. How to extabond 2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata J. 2009, 9, 86–136. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, M.; Bond, S. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1991, 58, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sargan, J. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica 1958, 26, 393–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, L.P. Large sample properties of generalized method of moment estimators. Econometrica 1982, 50, 1029–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauen, A.; Berndes, G.; Junginger, M.; Londo, M.; Vuille, F.; Ball, R.; Bole, T.; Chudziak, C.; Faaij, A.; Mozaffarian, H. Bioenergy: A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source. A Review of Status and Prospects; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Al-mulali, U. Examining the bi-directional long run relationship between renewable energy consumption and GDP growth. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2003, 22, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.; Kim, Y. Role of policy innovation and international trade of renewable energy technology: Empirical study of solar PV and wind power technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freixanet, J. Export promotion programs: Their impact on companies’ internationalization performance and competitiveness. Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 21, 1065–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domac, J. Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKay, H. Environmental, economic, social and political drivers for increasing use of wood fuel as a renewable resource in Britain. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | EX | ECOE | GDP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pesaran CADF test (z[t-bar] statistic) | (A) | 0.52 | −3.63 *** | 1.15 | −4.21 *** | 2.71 | −6.25 *** |
(B) | −1.16 | −4.31 *** | 0.49 | −6.73 *** | 1.25 | −7.29 *** |
Statistics | With Trend | Without Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | z-Value | Robust p-Value | Value | z-Value | Robust p-Value | |
Gt | −3.633 | −5.253 | 0.010 | −3.667 | −7.134 | 0.001 |
Ga | −4.646 | 4.903 | 0.825 | −7.681 | 0.961 | 0.050 |
Pt | −10.917 | −1.958 | 0.063 | −11.955 | −4.942 | 0.002 |
Pa | −3.315 | 4.341 | 0.871 | −6.100 | −0.168 | 0.096 |
Panel A: Arellano–Bond One-Step Difference GMM Estimation | ||||
Independent Variables | Dependent Variables | |||
0.476 (0.058) *** | −0.005 (0.054) | 0.008 (0.006) | ||
0.006 (0.044) | −0.050 (0.082) | 0.020 (0.012) * | ||
0.963 (0.154) *** | 0.149 (0.203) | 0.922 (0.018) *** | ||
−0.101 (0.032) *** | 0.213 (0.080) *** | 0.033 (0.011) *** | ||
Sargan test | 131.76 [0.166] | 110.33 [0.680] | 173.39 [0.001] | |
Hansen test | 14.81 [1.000] | 13.15 [1.000] | 15.87 [1.000] | |
−2.14 [0.032] | −2.86 [0.004] | −3.46 [0.001] | ||
1.24 [0.215] | 0.61 [0.545] | 0.85 [0.395] | ||
Panel B: Statistic Values for the Panel Causality Tests | ||||
Sources of Causation (Independent Variables) | Dependent Variables | |||
Short run | 0.001 | 2.070 | ||
0.020 | 2.710 * | |||
38.780 *** | 0.037 | |||
Long run | ECT | 9.600 *** | 7.100 *** | 8.520 *** |
Strong (Joint) | ECT | 5.100 ** | 24.870 *** | |
ECT | 2.740 * | 0.430 | ||
ECT | 27.630 *** | 3.170 * |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sung, B.; Yeom, M.-B.; Kim, H.-G. Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091549
Sung B, Yeom M-B, Kim H-G. Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091549
Chicago/Turabian StyleSung, Bongsuk, Myung-Bae Yeom, and Hong-Gi Kim. 2017. "Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091549