Revisiting Natural Resources—Globalization-Environmental Quality Nexus: Fresh Insights from South Asian Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. A Snapshot of Environmental Situation in South Asia
3. Literature Review
4. Data and Methodology
5. Results and Discussion
Slope Homogeneity Test
6. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gao, J.; Tian, M. Analysis of over-consumption of natural resources and the ecological trade deficit in China based on ecological footprints. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, S.T.; Xia, E.; Khan, N.H.; Shah, S.M.A. Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: Evidence from Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 2929–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Shahbaz, M.; Roubaud, D.; Farhani, S. How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy 2018, 113, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, L.; Jiang, L.; Yang, D.-Y.; Liu, Y.-B. Quantifying the spatial heterogeneity influences of natural and socioeconomic factors and their interactions on air pollution using the geographical detector method: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Footprint Network. Obtenido de Global Footprint Network 2018. Available online: http://www.footprintnetwork.org (accessed on 5 April 2021).
- Ahmadov, A.K.; van der Borg, C. Do natural resources impede renewable energy production in the EU? A mixed-methods analysis. Energy Policy 2019, 126, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudolph, A.; Figge, L. Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization? Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 348–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figge, L.; Oebels, K.; Offermans, A. The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: An empirical analysis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2016, 19, 863–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- You, W.; Lv, Z. Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: A spatial panel approach. Energy Econ. 2018, 73, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.M.; Krueger, A.B. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J. Determining the trade–environment composition effect: The role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 46, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Yu, K.; Chen, Z. How does urbanization affect carbon dioxide emissions? A cross-country panel data analysis. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 678–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Shahzad, S.J.H.; Mahalik, M.K.; Sadorsky, P. How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis. Appl. Econ. 2018, 50, 1479–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaidi, S.A.H.; Zafar, M.W.; Shahbaz, M.; Hou, F. Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, M.H.; Law, S.H. Institutional quality and CO2 emission—Trade relations: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. S. Afr. J. Econ. 2016, 84, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, X.; Dogan, E.; Baek, J. Does corruption matter for the environment? Panel evidence from China. Econ. Open Access Open Assess. EJ. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, S.; Yusop, Z.; Kaliappan, S.R.; Chin, L. Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: Evidence from OIC countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 11671–11682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dasgupta, S.; De Cian, E.; Verdolini, E. The political economy of energy innovation. Political Econ. Clean Energy Transit. 2016, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Omri, A.; Hadj, T.B. Foreign investment and air pollution: Do good governance and technological innovation matter? Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frankel, J.A.; Rose, A.K. Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2005, 87, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zafar, M.W.; Zaidi, S.A.H.; Khan, N.R.; Mirza, F.M.; Hou, F.; Kirmani, S.A.A. The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: The case of the United States. Resour. Policy 2019, 63, 101428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Destek, M.A.; Ulucak, R.; Dogan, E. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 29387–29396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan, E.; Taspinar, N.; Gokmenoglu, K.K. Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy Environ. 2019, 30, 1065–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, G.A.; Salahuddin, M.; Alam, K.; Gow, J. Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H. Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Velayutham, E. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus: New evidence from South Asia. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohsin, M.; Zhang, J.; Saidur, R.; Sun, H.; Sait, S.M. Economic assessment and ranking of wind power potential using fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 22494–22511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, S.Z.; Kousar, A.; Razzaq, S.; Saeed, A.; Alam, M.; Mahmood, A. Energy management in South Asia. Energy Strat. Rev. 2018, 21, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunjra, A.I.; Tayachi, T.; Chani, M.I.; Verhoeven, P.; Mehmood, A. The moderating effect of institutional quality on the financial development and environmental quality nexus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mrabet, Z.; Alsamara, M. Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 1366–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, O.R. The politics of international regime formation: Managing natural resources and the environment. Int. Organ. 1989, 43, 349–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachs, J.; Warner, A. Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Auty, R.M. How natural resources affect economic development. Dev. Policy Rev. 2000, 18, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumayer, E. Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy 2002, 30, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dreher, A.; Gaston, N.; Martens, W.J.M. Measuring Globalisation—Gauging its Consequences; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Twerefou, D.K.; Danso-Mensah, K.; Bokpin, G.A. The environmental effects of economic growth and globalization in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel general method of moments approach. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2017, 42, 939–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharif, A.; Afshan, S.; Qureshi, M.A. Idolization and ramification between globalization and ecological footprints: Evidence from quantile-on-quantile approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 11191–11211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deacon, R. Dictatorship, Democracy, and the Provision of Public Goods; University of California: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Torras, M.; Boyce, J.K. Income, inequality, and pollution: A reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, M.A. Corruption, income and the environment: An empirical analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeinalzadeh, R.; Nekooei, M.H.; Sadeghi, Z. The effects of democracy on environment quality index in selected OIC countries. Iran. J. Econ. Stud. 2015, 4, 113–133. [Google Scholar]
- Charfeddine, L.; Mrabet, Z. The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 138–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhammad, S.; Long, X. Rule of law and CO2 emissions: A comparative analysis across 65 belt and road initiative(BRI) countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castiglione, C.; Infante, D.; Smirnova, J. Rule of law and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence for carbon emissions. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2012, 4, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gholipour, H.F.; Farzanegan, M.R. Institutions and the effectiveness of expenditures on environmental protection: Evidence from Middle Eastern countries. Const. Polit. Econ. 2017, 29, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A.; Fernandez, M.A. An environmental kuznets curve for N2O emissions in Germany: An ARDL approach. Nat. Resour. Forum 2017, 41, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copeland, B.R.; Taylor, M.S. Free trade and global warming: A trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005, 49, 205–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, N. The empirical relationship between openness and environmental pollution in China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 783–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.-L.; Cao, S.-P.; Wang, S.-H. The impact of knowledge trade on sustainable development and environment-biased technical progress. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehmood, U.; Tariq, S. Globalization and CO2 emissions nexus: Evidence from the EKC hypothesis in South Asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 37044–37056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattarai, M.; Hammig, M. Institutions and the environmental kuznets curve for deforestation: A cross country analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Dev. 2001, 29, 995–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, R.; Jiang, H.; Sotnyk, I.; Kubatko, O.; A., I.A.Y. The CO2 emissions drivers of post-communist economies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusuf, A.M.; Abubakar, A.B.; Mamman, S.O. Relationship between greenhouse gas emission, energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from some selected oil-producing African countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 15815–15823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aneja, V.P.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Li, Q.; Nahas, A.; Battye, W.H. Characterization of atmospheric nitrous oxide emissions from global agricultural soils. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dogan, E.; Seker, F.; Bulbul, S. Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: A panel study of OECD countries. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 20, 1701–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meo, M.S.; Sabir, S.A.; Arain, H.; Nazar, R. Water resources and tourism development in South Asia: An application of dynamic common correlated effect (DCCE) model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 19678–19687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latif, Z.; Mengke, Y.; Danish; Latif, S.; Ximei, L.; Pathan, Z.H.; Salam, S.; Jianqiu, Z. The dynamics of ICT, foreign direct investment, globalization and economic growth: Panel estimation robust to hetero-geneity and cross-sectional dependence. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chudik, A.; Pesaran, M.H. Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. J. Econom. 2015, 188, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pesaran, M.; Smith, R. Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J. Econom. 1995, 68, 79–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.J. Testing for the ‘Existence of a Long-Run Relationship’; Faculty of Economics—University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Pesaran, M.H. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 2006, 74, 967–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blackburne, E.F., III; Frank, M.W. Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels. Stata J. 2007, 7, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eberhardt, M. Estimating Panel Time-Series Models with Heterogeneous Slopes. Stata J. 2012, 12, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ditzen, J. Estimating Long Run Rffects in Models with Cross-Sectional Dependence Using xtdcce2; Centre for Energy Economics Research and Policy (CEERP): Edinburgh, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kapetanios, G.; Pesaran, M.H.; Yamagata, T. Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. J. Econom. 2011, 160, 326–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saha, S.; Yap, G. Corruption and tourism: An empirical investigation in a non-linear framework. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 17, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, F. The determinants of inbound tourism to Malaysia: A panel data analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 20, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilgin, M.H.; Gozgor, G.; Demir, E. The determinants of Turkey’s exports to Islamic countries: The impact of political risks. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 2018, 27, 486–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shtudiner, Z.; Klein, G.; Kantor, J. How religiosity affects the attitudes of communities towards tourism in a sacred city: The case of Jerusalem. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, S.H.; Tan, H.B.; Azman-Saini, W.N.W. Financial development and income inequality at different levels of institutional quality. Emerg. Mark. Finance Trade 2014, 50, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabir, S.; Rafique, A.; Abbas, K. Institutions and FDI: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Financ. Innov. 2019, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hosseini, H.M.; Kaneko, S. Causality between pillars of sustainable development: Global stylized facts or regional phenomena? Ecol. Indic. 2012, 14, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.A.; Abdulahi, M.E.; Liaqat, I.; Shah, S.S.H. Institutional quality and financial development: The United States perspective. J. Multinatl. Financ. Manag. 2019, 49, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maddala, G.S.; Wu, S. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1999, 61, 631–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, A.; Lin, C.-F.; Chu, C.-S.J. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J. Econom. 2002, 108, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Im, K.S.; Pesaran, M.; Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econom. 2003, 115, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, I.; Chue, T.K. Subsampling hypothesis tests for nonstationary panels with applications to exchange rates and stock prices. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 233–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 265–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Westerlund, J. Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2007, 69, 709–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Persyn, D.; Westerlund, J. Error-correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. Stata J. 2008, 8, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pesaran, M.H. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir. Econ. 2004, 60, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baltagi, B.H.; Feng, Q.; Kao, C. A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. J. Econom. 2012, 170, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, Y. Bootstrap unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. J. Econom. 2004, 120, 263–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Ullah, A.; Yamagata, T. A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econom. J. 2008, 11, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedroni, P. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1999, 61, 653–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danish; Ulucak, R.; Khan, S.U.-D. Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 54, 101996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antweiler, W.; Copeland, B.R.; Taylor, M.S. Is free trade good for the environment? Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 877–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, J.; Wang, M.; Yang, L.; Rahman, S.; Sriboonchitta, S. Agricultural productivity growth and its determinants in south and southeast asian countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, K.; Shahbaz, M.; Kyophilavong, P. Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: Evidence from the newly industrializing countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 7676–7691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, F. Trade openness and air pollution: City-level empirical evidence from China. China Econ. Rev. 2017, 45, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
India | Pakistan | Nepal | Bangladesh | Sri Lanka | Bhutan | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons Per Capita) | |||||
1990 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.24 |
2000 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.13 | 0.22 | 0.55 | 0.67 |
2010 | 1.39 | 0.94 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.71 |
2012 | 1.59 | 0.90 | 0.23 | 0.44 | 0.79 | 1.19 |
2015 | 1.78 | 0.94 | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.96 | 1.46 |
2018 | 1.92 | 0.99 | 0.35 | 0.58 | 1.23 | 1.90 |
Year | N2O Emissions (Thousand Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent) | |||||
1990 | 169,598.5 | 18,443.5 | 3591.3 | 16,201.4 | 1759.4 | 178.7 |
2000 | 207,700 | 26,350 | 4231.7 | 20,770 | 2044.5 | 281.1 |
2010 | 234,135.9 | 30,050.2 | 4508.1 | 26,159.6 | 2131.6 | 544.1 |
2012 | 239,755.1 | 30,651.2 | 4518.2 | 26,682.8 | 2174.2 | 555.1 |
2015 | 256,226.4 | 32,231.1 | 4532.8 | 30,574.7 | 2197.2 | 847.1 |
2018 | 271,058.5 | 33,680 | 4545.6 | 33,800.9 | 2241.3 | 1088.5 |
Year | CH4 Emissions (kt of CO2 Equivalent) | |||||
1990 | 513,704 | 90,807.8 | 20,285.7 | 87,092.7 | 11,514.1 | 918.9 |
2000 | 561,733 | 117,125 | 21,206.1 | 89,247.2 | 9606.1 | 1032.4 |
2010 | 621,480 | 155,232 | 23,512 | 103,080 | 11,630.9 | 1734.9 |
2012 | 636,395.8 | 158,336.6 | 23,982.2 | 105,141.6 | 11,863.52 | 1769.6 |
2015 | 659,538.5 | 165,716.9 | 24,732.7 | 111,341.8 | 12,389.14 | 2318.9 |
2018 | 681,817.2 | 172,265.2 | 25,443.6 | 116,950.8 | 12,912.47 | 2771.3 |
Year | Ecological Footprint (Per Capita Global Hectares) | |||||
1990 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.47 | 0.83 | 4.04 |
2000 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.54 | 1.18 | 4.38 |
2010 | 1.05 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.72 | 1.30 | 4.16 |
2012 | 1.09 | 0.78 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 1.38 | 4.56 |
2015 | 1.13 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.79 | 1.54 | 4.47 |
2018 | 1.21 | 0.87 | 1.09 | 0.85 | 1.60 | 4.53 |
Author(s) | Sample Period/Countries | Methodology | Dependent Variable | Findings/Relationship of Independent Variables with Dependent Variable |
---|---|---|---|---|
Neumayer [34] | 1968–1988/106 countries | Ordinary least squares (OLS) | CO2 emissions per capita | Natural resources explained the cross-country differences in CO2 emissions |
Balsalobre-Lorente et al. [3] | 1985–2016/EU countries | Panel least squares (PLS) | CO2 emissions | Natural resources (−), electricity consumption (−) |
Ahmadov and Borg [6] | 1997–2015/28 EU countries | OLS/Fixed effect model | Renewable energy production | Petroleum rents (−), total resource rents (+), GDP growth (+) |
Zafar et al. [21] | 1970–2015/United States | ARDL | Ecological footprint | Natural resources (−), human capital (−), economic growth (−), energy consumption (−) |
Hassan et al. [2] | 1970–2014/Pakistan | ARDL | Ecological footprint | Natural resources (+), GDP growth (+) urbanization (−) |
Twerefou et al. [36] | 1990–2013/Sub-Saharan African countries | System-GMM | CO2 emissions per capita | Globalization (+), GDP growth (+), trade openness (+), FDI (+), EKC exists |
Zaidi [14] | 1990–2016/Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Countries | CUP-BC and CUP-FM methods | CO2 emissions | Globalization (−), financial development (−), energy intensity (+), EKC exists |
Figge et al. [8] | 1990–2014/183 countries | multivariate regression model | Ecological footprint | Overall globalization (+), economic globalization (+), GDP per capita (+, −) |
Rudolph and Figge [7] | 1981–2009/146 countries | Extreme bounds analysis (EBA) | Ecological footprint | Overall Globalization (+), political globalization (+), Social globalization (−) |
You and Lv [9] | 1985–2013/83 developed and developing countries | Spatial panel method | CO2 emissions | Globalization (+), GDP (+), population (+), industrialization (+), urbanization (+), EKC hypothesis exists |
Bhattari and Hammig [51] | 1972–1991/66 countries of Latin America, Africa, and Asia | OLS, FGLS | Deforestation | For Latin America and Africa: Political institutions (−), GDP growth (+), Population growth (−), For Asia: − Political institutions (+), GDP growth (−), Population growth (+) |
Ibrahim and Law [15] | 2000–2010/40 Sub-Sahara African countries | GMM estimation | CO2 emissions | Institutional quality (−), trade openness (+), urbanization (+) |
Liao et al. [16] | 1999–2012/29 Chinese provinces | FMOLS, DOLS, Fixed effects | SO2 emissions | Anti-corruption cases (−), Real income (+), Energy consumption (+), EKC exists |
Muhammad and Long [43] | 2000–2016/65 belt and road initiative countries | GMM estimation | CO2 estimations | Political stability (−), corruption control (−), rule of law (−), GDP per capita (+), Energy consumption (+), FDI (+) |
Variables | Description | Unit of Measurement | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
LNCO2 | log of per capita CO2 emissions | Kilo ton (kt) | World Bank |
LNCH4 | log of Methane emissions | kt of CO2 equivalent | World Bank |
LNN2O | log of Nitrous oxide emissions | thousand metric tons of CO2 equivalent | World Bank |
LNECF | log of per capita ecological footprint | Global hectares (gha) | Global Footprint Network |
LNTNR | log of the amount of total natural resources per capita | Composite index of per capita rents of natural gas, oil, coal, minerals, and forests(constant2010 US$) | World Bank |
LNENC | log of per capita energy consumption | kg of oil equivalent per capita | World Bank |
LNGDP | log of GDP per capita | constant 2010 US$ | World Bank |
LNINP | Log of institutional performance index | calculated through panel principal component analysis (PCA) | International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) |
LNKOF | Log of globalization | KOF globalization index | KOF Swiss Economic Institute |
LNCO2 | LNCH4 | LNN2O | LNECF | LNTNR | LNKOF | LNINP | LNENC | GDP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | −0.29 | 3.95 | 3.33 | −0.04 | 1.08 | 1.72 | 0.54 | 2.53 | 3.01 |
Median | −0.21 | 4.32 | 3.62 | −0.07 | 0.96 | 1.73 | 0.51 | 2.58 | 2.97 |
Minimum | −1.55 | 1.13 | 0.32 | −0.11 | 0.25 | 1.44 | −3.76 | 2.07 | 2.56 |
Maximum | 0.48 | 5.83 | 5.43 | 0.08 | 2.12 | 1.90 | 3.94 | 2.80 | 3.59 |
Skewness | −0.65 | −0.67 | −0.55 | 0.48 | 0.37 | −0.43 | −0.10 | −1.16 | 0.41 |
Std.Dev. | 0.42 | 1.46 | 1.46 | 0.07 | 0.48 | 0.09 | 1.63 | 0.17 | 0.25 |
Kurtosis | 3.18 | 2.22 | 2.27 | 1.69 | 2.09 | 2.79 | 2.23 | 3.32 | 2.40 |
Observations | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 |
LNCO2 | 1 | 0.28* | 0.15 * | 0.15 * | 0.62 * | −0.10 * | −0.62 * | 0.69 * | 0.74 * |
LNCH4 | 1 | 0.38 * | 0.24 * | 0.70 * | −0.46 * | −0.70 * | 0.67 * | 0.65 * | |
LNN2O | 1 | 0.34 * | 0.78 * | −0.39 * | 0.78 * | 0.52 * | 0.68 * | ||
LNECF | 1 | −0.60 * | −0.33 * | −0.60 * | 0.80 * | 0.84 * | |||
LNTNR | 1 | 0.47 * | 0.42 * | 0.57 * | 0.20 | ||||
LNKOF | 1 | 0.45 * | 0.45 * | 0.15 | |||||
LNINP | 1 | 0.32 * | 0.34 * | ||||||
LNENC | 1 | 0.52 * | |||||||
LNGDP | 1 |
Variables | Pesaran-CD | Pesaran-Scaled LM | Bias-Adjusted Scaled LM | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statistic | Probability | Statistic | Probability | Statistic | Probability | |
LNCO2 | 31.83 | 0.00 * | 129.39 * | 0.00 * | 128.40 | 0.00 * |
LNCH4 | 80.72 | 0.00 * | 221.21 * | 0.00 * | 220.14 | 0.00 * |
LNN2O | 27.85 | 0.00 * | 130.30 * | 0.00 * | 129.23 | 0.00 * |
LNECF | 130.64 | 0.00 * | 381.03 | 0.00 * | 380.13 | 0.00 * |
LNTNR | 54.14 | 0.00 * | 144.47 | 0.00 * | 143.61 | 0.00 * |
LNKOF | 87.99 | 0.00 * | 272.57 | 0.00 * | 271.67 | 0.00 * |
LNINP | 45.53 | 0.01 * | 108.25 | 0.00 * | 107.39 | 0.00 * |
LNENC | 67.86 | 0.00 * | 196.54 | 0.00 * | 195.91 | 0.00 * |
LNGDP | 129.32 | 0.01 * | 400.37 | 0.01 * | 399.51 | 0.02 ** |
Level | 1st Difference | |
---|---|---|
LNCO2 | −1.89 | −6.14 * |
LNCH4 | −2.58 ** | −5.10 * |
LNN2O | −2.30 * | −4.09 * |
LNECF | −2.96 * | −5.52 * |
LNTNR | −2.30 ** | −4.09 * |
LNKOF | −2.58 * | −5.10 * |
LNINP | −2.76 * | −5.22 * |
LNENC | −2.36 ** | −5.06 * |
LNGDP | −2.50 * | −4.56 * |
adj | ||
---|---|---|
Model 1 | 6.63 * | 7.12 * |
Model 2 | 7.17 * | 8.13 * |
Model 3 | 5.40 * | 5.97 * |
Model 4 | 5.38 * | 6.19 * |
H0: No Cointegration | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statistic | Value | Robust p-Value | Value | Robust p-Value | Value | Robust p-Value | Value | Robust p-Value |
Group-Ʈ | −3.04 ** | 0.01 | −3.65 * | 0.00 | −3.92 * | 0.00 | −4.19 * | 0.00 |
Group-α | −3.05 * | 0.00 | −3.29 * | 0.00 | −2.48 | 0.00 | −4.37 * | 0.00 |
Panel-Ʈ | −7.40 * | 0.00 | −5.80 ** | 0.02 | −8.04 * | 0.00 | −3.68 * | 0.00 |
Panel-α | −3.18 * | 0.00 | −2.64 | 0.00 | −3.04 * | 0.00 | −3.96 ** | 0.02 |
Model 1 (LNCO2) | Model 2 (LNCH4) | Model 3 (LNN2O) | Model 4 (LNECF) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regressors | Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | |
Short-run Estimates | D.LNTNR | 0.37 * | 0.30 * | 0.35 * | −0.30 * |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.01) | ||
D.LNKOF | −1.90 * | −2.2 | −1.10 * | 1.17 * | |
(0.01) | (0.15) | (0.00) | (0.00) | ||
D.LNINP | −0.10 ** | −0.18 ** | 0.08 | −0.05 * | |
(0.02) | (0.03) | (0.11) | (0.00) | ||
D.LNENC | 0.58 ** | 0.60 * | 0.52 ** | 0.45 | |
(0.02) | (0.00) | (0.02) | (0.12) | ||
D.LNGDP | 0.32 ** | 0.30 * | 0.23 ** | 0.28 * | |
(0.03) | (0.01) | (0.03) | (0.01) | ||
Long-run Estimates | L.LNCO2 | −0.60 ** | ---- | ---- | ---- |
(0.03) | |||||
L.LNCH4 | ----- | −0.78 * | . | ---- | |
(0.01) | ---- | ||||
L.LNN2O | ----- | ---- | −0.70 * | ---- | |
(0.00) | |||||
L.LNECF | ---- | ---- | ---- | −0.65 * | |
(0.01) | |||||
LNTNR | 0.32 * | 0.28 * | 0.25 * | −0.32 * | |
(0.01) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | ||
LNKOF | −1.50 ** | −2.10 | −0.98 * | 1.20 * | |
(0.02) | (0.20) | (0.00) | (0.01) | ||
LNINP | −0.09 * | −0.15 *** | 0.06 * | −0.07 * | |
(0.00) | (0.06) | (0.00) | (0.01) | ||
LNENC | 0.50 ** | 0.65 * | 0.55 ** | 0.48 * | |
(0.02) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.00) | ||
LNGDP | 0.30 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.20 ** | −0.32 *** | |
(0.02) | (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.07) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xue, J.; Rasool, Z.; Nazar, R.; Khan, A.I.; Bhatti, S.H.; Ali, S. Revisiting Natural Resources—Globalization-Environmental Quality Nexus: Fresh Insights from South Asian Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084224
Xue J, Rasool Z, Nazar R, Khan AI, Bhatti SH, Ali S. Revisiting Natural Resources—Globalization-Environmental Quality Nexus: Fresh Insights from South Asian Countries. Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084224
Chicago/Turabian StyleXue, Jian, Zeeshan Rasool, Raima Nazar, Ahmad Imran Khan, Shaukat Hussain Bhatti, and Sajid Ali. 2021. "Revisiting Natural Resources—Globalization-Environmental Quality Nexus: Fresh Insights from South Asian Countries" Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084224