SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 41

The analysıs of mutual relatıonshıp between electrıcıty consumptıon and economıc growth ın Mena countrıes

Mena ülkelerinde elektrik tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkinin analizi

Mehmet ŞENTÜRK
Yusuf Ekrem AKBAŞ
Pages
45–67
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Finally, as a result of panel VECM used to elucidate the causal relationship between the variables, it was concluded that there were bidirectional causality between electricity consumption and GDP both in the short term and long-term.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, nine MENA countries between the years of 1978-2009 were analyzed whether there is a relationship between electricity consumption and GDP.
📊
Key Findings & Data:First of all it was analyzed if electricity consumption and GDP series included unit root.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, as a result of panel VECM used to elucidate the causal relationship between the variables, it was concluded that there were bidirectional causality between electricity consumption and GDP both in the short term and long-term.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, nine MENA countries between the years of 1978-2009 were analyzed whether there is a relationship between electricity consumption and GDP. First of all it was analyzed if electricity consumption and GDP series included unit root. Then, in order to analyze whether the long-run relationship between the variables cointegration tests were used. As a result of cointegra- tion tests it was determined there was cointegration relationship between variables. After that, model electricity consumption as the dependent variable were estimated by Dynamic OLS, Fully Modified OLS, Average Group and Dynamic Fixed Effects Estimator methods. Finally, as a result of panel VECM used to elucidate the causal relationship between the variables, it was concluded that there were bidirectional causality between electricity consumption and GDP both in the short term and long-term.

Özet

Bu çalıĢmada 9 MENA ülkesinde 1978-2009 yılları arasında elektrik tüketimi ile GSYH arasında iliĢki olup olmadığı analiz edilmiĢtir. Ġlk olarak elektrik tüketimi ve GSYH serilerinde birim kök olup olmadığı analiz edilmiĢtir. Daha sonra değiĢkenler arasında uzun dönemli iliĢki olup olmadığını analiz etmek için eĢbütünleĢme testleri kullanılmıĢtır. EĢbütünleĢme testleri sonucunda değiĢkenler arasında eĢbütünleĢme iliĢkisi tespit edilmiĢtir. Daha sonra elektrik tüke- timinin bağımlı değiĢken olduğu model Dinamik EKK, Tam düzenlenmiĢ EKK, Ortalama Grup Tahmincisi ve Dinamik Sabit Etkiler Tahmincisi yöntemleriyle tahmin edilmiĢtir. Son olarak değiĢkenler arasında nedensellik iliĢkisini ortaya koyabilmek için kullanılan panel VECM modeli sonucunda hem kısa dönemde hem de uzun dönemde elektrik tüketimiyle GSYH arasında çift yönlü nedensellik iliĢkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaĢılmıĢtır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENTÜRK, M., AKBAŞ, Y. E. (2022). The analysıs of mutual relatıonshıp between electrıcıty consumptıon and economıc growth ın Mena countrıes. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 41, 45–67. https://ajindex.com/articles/503536

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. ABOSEDRA, Salah and Hamid BAGHESTANI; (1989), “New Evidence on the Causal Relationship Between United States Energy Consumption and Gross National Product”, Journal of Energy Development, 14(2), pp. 285-292.
  2. AĞIR, Hüseyin, Muhsin KAR and ġaban NAZLIOGLU; (2011), “Do Remit- tances Matter for Financial Development in the MENA Region? Panel Cointegration and Causality Analysis”, The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(5), pp. 449-456.
  3. ALTINAY, Galip and Erdal KARAGOL; (2005), “Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from Turkey” Energy Economics, 27, pp: 849-856.
  4. AQEEL, Anjum and Mohammad Sabihuddin BUTT; (2001), “The Relationship Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in Pakistan” Asia-Pacific Development Journal, (8)2, pp. 101-110.
  5. ASAFU-Adjaye, John; (2000), “The Relationship between Energy Consump- tion, Energy Prices and Economic Growth: Time Series Evidence from Asian Developing Countries”, Energy Economics, 22, pp. 615-625.
  6. BALTAGI, H. Baltagi and Chihwa KAO; (2000), “Nonstationary Panels, Coin- tegration in Panels and Dynamic Panels: A Survey”, Advances in Eco- nometrics, 15, pp. 7-51.
  7. CHENG, S. Benjamin; (1995), “An Investigation of Cointegration and Causa- lity between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth”, Journal of Energy Development, 21, pp. 73-84.
  8. CHUN, Yu Ho and Kam Wing SIU; (2007), “A Dynamic Equilibrium of Elect- ricity Consumption and GDP in Hong Kong: An Empirical Investiga- tion”, Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2507-2513.
  9. ERDEM, Ekrem; Saban NAZLIOGLU and Cumhur ERDEM; (2010), “Exchange Rate Uncertainty and Agricultural Trade: Panel Cointegra- tion Analysis for Turkey”, Agricultural Economics, 41, pp.537–543.
  10. FATAI, Koli; Les OXLEY and Frank G. SCRIMGEOUR; (2002), “Energy Consumption and Employment in New Zealand: Searching for Causa- lity”, Paper Presented at NZAE Conference, Wellington, June, pp. 26-28.
  11. GHALI, Khalifa H. and Muhammed. I.T. EL-SAKKA; (2004), “Energy Use and Output Growth in Canada: A Multivariate Cointegration Analysis”, Energy Economics, 26, pp. 225-238.
  12. GHOSH, Sajal; (2002), “Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in India” Energy Policy, 30, pp. 125-129.
  13. GLASURE, Young U. and Aie-Rie LEE; (1997), “Cointegration, Error Correc- tion and the Relationship between GDP and Energy: The Case of South Korea and Singapore”, Resource and Energy Economics, 20, pp. 17- 25. HADRI, Kaddour; (2000), “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data”, Econometric Journal, 3, pp. 148–161.
  14. HARRIS, Richard and Ro