SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

Endogeneity Problem in Augmented Environmental Kuznets Curve Model: Approach of Panel Quantile with Instrumental Variables

Genişletilmiş Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Modelinde İçsellik Problemi: Panel Kantil Araç Değişken Yaklaşımı

Sinem Güler Kangallı Uyar(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3694-150X
Zekiye Betül Karahan(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-9418-7472
Pages
773–804
Publication Date
2020-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Although the findings obtained from the study are consistent with theoretical expectations, the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis is not valid for any country group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis was investigated with the approach of panel quantile regression with non-additive fixed effects using instrumental variables for different country groups (Annex II, Non-Annex I, Total) defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for the period of 1995-2010.
📊
Key Findings & Data:An augmented environmental Kuznets curve model was estimated and, in this model, CO2 emission per capita was determined as an indicator of environmental pollution and besides economic development as well as the trade volume, the share of the service sector, fossil fuel consumption and urbanization variables were taken as explanatory variables.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although the findings obtained from the study are consistent with theoretical expectations, the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis is not valid for any country group.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi · İçsellik Problemi · Panel Kantil Araç Değişken Yaklaşımı

Abstract

In this study, the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis was investigated with the approach of panel quantile regression with non-additive fixed effects using instrumental variables for different country groups (Annex II, Non-Annex I, Total) defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for the period of 1995-2010. An augmented environmental Kuznets curve model was estimated and, in this model, CO2 emission per capita was determined as an indicator of environmental pollution and besides economic development as well as the trade volume, the share of the service sector, fossil fuel consumption and urbanization variables were taken as explanatory variables. The endogeneity problem that may arise due to possible bilateral relationships between CO2 emission-economic development and CO2 emission-trade and the heteroscedasticity problem because of the structure of the panel data are also taken into consideration with this approach. Moreover, the heterogeneous effects of explanatory variables on CO2 emissions were observed in the country groups as well as within-country groups. Although the findings obtained from the study are consistent with theoretical expectations, the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis is not valid for any country group.

Özet

Çalışmada çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği 1995-2010 döneminde İklim Değişikliği Sözleşmesi’nde tanımlanan farklı ülke grupları (Annex II, Non-Annex I, Tüm ülkeler) için toplamsal olmayan sabit etkili panel kantil araç değişken yaklaşımı ile incelenmiştir. Çevresel kirlilik göstergesi olarak kişi başına CO2 emisyonu ve açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak ekonomik gelişmişlik değişkeninin yanı sıra ticaret hacmi, hizmet sektörünün payı, fosil yakıt tüketimi ve kentleşme değişkenleri belirlenerek genişletilmiş çevresel Kuznets eğrisi modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan yaklaşım ile modelde CO2 emisyonu-gelir ve CO2 emisyonu-ticaret arasındaki muhtemel çift yönlü ilişkiler nedeniyle ortaya çıkabilecek içsellik problemi ve panel verinin yapısı nedeniyle ortaya çıkabilecek değişen varyans problemi de dikkate alınmıştır. Dahası, çalışmada kullanılan yaklaşım ile açıklayıcı değişkenlerin CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki heterojen etkileri ülke grupları arasında olduğu gibi ülke grupları içinde de gözlemlenmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular teorik beklentilerle uyumlu olmakla birlikte, çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi hiçbir ülke grubu için geçerli değildir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uyar, S. G. K., Karahan, Z. B. (2020). Endogeneity Problem in Augmented Environmental Kuznets Curve Model: Approach of Panel Quantile with Instrumental Variables. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 773–804. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.727984

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Akbostancı, E., Türüt-Aşık, S. ve Tunç, G. İ. (2009). The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy Policy, 37(3), 861-867. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.088
  2. Allard, A., Takman, J., Uddin, G. S. and Ahmed, A. (2018). The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(6), 5848-5861. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0907-0
  3. Albayrak, E. N. ve Gökçe, A. (2015). Ekonomik büyüme ve çevresel kirlilik ilişkisi: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi ve Türkiye Örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 4(2), 279-301. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ssrj
  4. Ang, J. B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772-4778. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.032
  5. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R. and Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment?. American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908. doi:10.1257/aer.91.4.877
  6. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3. Ed.). England: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  7. Başar, S. ve Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Çevreye uyarlanmış Kuznets eğrisi: Türkiye üzerine bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 1-12. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/atauniiibd
  8. Bertinelli, L. and Strobl, E. (2005). The environmental Kuznets curve semi-parametrically revisited. Economics Letters, 88(3), 350-357. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.004
  9. Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 14(3), 368-386. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2011.00349.x
  10. Chernozhukov, V. and Hansen, C. (2006). Instrumental quantile regression inference for structural and treatment effect models. Journal of Econometrics, 132(2), 491-525. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.02.009
  11. Chernozhukov, V. and Hansen, C. (2008). Instrumental variable quantile regression: A robust inference approach. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 379-398. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.06.005
  12. Cole, M. A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: How robust is the Environmental Kuznets Curve?. Environment and Development Economics, 8(4), 557-580. doi:10.1017/S1355770X0300305
  13. Çağlayan Akay, E. and Kangallı Uyar, S. G. (2019). Endogeneity and nonlinearity in the environmental Kuznets curve: A control function approach. Panoeconomicus, 1-26. doi:10.2298/PAN171009012C
  14. Davidson, R. and Mackinnon, J. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  15. Dinda, S., Coondoo, D. and Pal, M. (2000). Air quality and economic growth: an empirical study. Ecological Economics, 34(3), 409-423. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00179-8
  16. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431- 455. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  17. Dinda, S. and Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and emission: a panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 167-181. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.028
  18. Doksum, K. (1974). Empirical probability plots and statistical inference for nonlinear models in the twosample case. The Annals of Statistics, 2(2), 267-277. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/journal/annalsstatistics
  19. Dougherty, C. (2011). Introduction to econometrics. USA: Oxford University Press.
  20. Egli, H. (2004). The environmental Kuznets curve-evidence from time series data for Germany (Economics Working Paper Series No. 03/28). Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/171472/1/wp-03-028_rev.pdf
  21. Frankel, J. A. and Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85-91. doi:10.1162/0034653053327577
  22. Galvao Jr, A. F. (2011). Quantile regression for dynamic panel data with fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 164(1), 142-157. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.02.016
  23. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (National Bureau of Economic Research No. w3914). doi:10.3386/w3914
  24. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. doi:10.2307/2118443
  25. Gujarati, D. N. and Porter, D. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th Ed.). Irwin: Mc Graw-Hill International Edition.
  26. Güriş, S. ve Sak, N. (2019). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin toplamsal olmayan sabit etkili panel kantil yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 10(2), 327-340. doi:10.20409/berj.2019.171
  27. Günsoy, G. (2007). Çevresel bozulma ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi üzerine bir inceleme. Mevzuat Dergisi, 113. Erişim adresi: https://www.mevzuatdergisi.com/
  28. Harding, M. and Lamarche, C. (2009). A quantile regression approach for estimating panel data models using instrumental variables. Economics Letters, 104(3), 133-135. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.04.025
  29. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1251-1271. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/journal/econometrica
  30. Hayashi, F. (2000). Econometrics. NJ: Princeton University Press.
  31. Jalil, A. and Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.044
  32. Javid, M. and Sharif, F. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 406-414. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.019
  33. Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B. and Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031
  34. Jin, T. and Kim, J. (2020). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve for Annex I countries using heterogeneous panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-07668-w
  35. Kang, Y. Q., Zhao, T. and Yang, Y. Y. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions in China: A spatial panel data approach. Ecological Indicators, 63, 231-239. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.011
  36. Koenker, R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91(1), 74- 89. doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2004.05.006
  37. Koenker, R. and Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 33-50. doi:10.2307/1913643
  38. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1- 28. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/aer
  39. Lamarche, C. (2010). Robust penalized quantile regression estimation for panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 157(2), 396-408. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.03.042
  40. Mania, E. (2020). Export diversification and CO2 emissions: An augmented environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of International Development, 32(2), 168-185. doi:10.1002/jid.3441
  41. Moomaw, W. R. and Unruh, G. C. (1997). Are environmental Kuznets curves misleading us? The case of CO2 emissions. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 451-463. doi:10.1017/S1355770X97000247
  42. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (International Labour Organization No. 992927783402676). Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm
  43. Panayotou, T. (2003). Economic growth and the environment. In N. Haenn, R. R. Wilk and A. Harnish (Eds.), The environment in anthropology (pp. 140-148). New York: New York University Press.
  44. Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770-779. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.236
  45. Perman, R. and Stern, D. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3), 325-347. doi:10.1111/1467-8489.00216
  46. Ponomareva, M. (2011). Identification in quantile regression panel data models with fixed effects and small T. Job Market Paper, University of Western Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.niu.edu/ponomareva/
  47. Powell, D. (2014). Did the economic stimulus payments of 2008 reduce labor supply? Evidence from quantile panel data estimation (RAND Labor & Population Working Papers No. WR-710-3). Retrieved from https://parc.pop.upenn.edu/resource/rand-labor-population-working-papers
  48. Powell, D. (2016). Quantile regression with non-additive fixed effects. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/
  49. Powell, D. (2020). Does labor supply respond to transitory income? Evidence from the economic stimulus payments of 2008. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(1), 1-38. doi:10.1086/704494
  50. Richmond, A. K. and Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions?. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 176-189. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.011
  51. Rosen, A. M. (2012). Set identification via quantile restrictions in short panels. Journal of Econometrics, 166(1), 127-137. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.06.011
  52. Sargan, J. D. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 393-415. doi:10.2307/1907619
  53. Sarıdoğan, E., Güriş, B. and Uçak, A. (2016). An analysis of environmental Kuznets curve for Japanese economy. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 5(2), 151-165. Erişim adresi: http://iibfedergi.trakya.edu.tr/
  54. Sarkodie, S. A. and Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 862-871. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.365
  55. Selden, T. M. and Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
  56. Shafik, N. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time-series and cross-country evidence (World Bank Publications Vol. 904). Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/833431468739515725
  57. Torras, M. and Boyce, J. K. (1998). Income, inequality, and pollution: A reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147-160. doi:10.1016/S0921- 8009(97)00177-8
  58. Torres-Reyna, O. (2007). Panel data analysis fixed and random effects using Stata (v. 4.2). Data & Statistical Services, Priceton University, 1-40. Retrieved from https://dss.princeton.edu/
  59. Uchiyama, K. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. In Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and carbon dioxide emissions (pp. 11-29). Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55921-4_2
  60. Wang, S. and Liu, X. (2017). China’s city-level energy-related CO2 emissions: spatiotemporal patterns and driving forces. Applied Energy, 200, 204-214. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.085
  61. Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y. and Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.003