Causality between income and emission: a country group-specific econometric analysis

Abstract Empirical studies of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) examine the presence or otherwise of an inverted U-shaped relationship between the level of pollution and the level of income. Customarily, in the diagram of EKC the level of income is shown on the horizontal axis and that of pollution on the vertical axis. Thus, it is presumed that the relationship between income and pollution is one of unidirectional causality with income causing environmental changes and not vice versa. The validity of this presumption is now being questioned. It is being asserted that the nature and direction of causality may vary from one country to the other. In this paper, we present the results of a study of income–CO 2 emission causality based on a Granger causality test to cross-country panel data on per capita income and the corresponding per capita CO 2 emission data. Briefly, our results indicate three different types of causality relationship holding for different country groups. For the developed country groups of North America and Western Europe (and also for Eastern Europe) the causality is found to run from emission to income. For the country groups of Central and South America, Oceania and Japan causality from income to emission is obtained. Finally, for the country groups of Asia and Africa the causality is found to be bi-directional. The regression equations estimated as part of the Granger causality test further suggest that for the country groups of North America and Western Europe the growth rate of emission has become stationary around a zero mean, and a shock in the growth rate of emission tends to generate a corresponding shock in the growth rate of income. In contrast, for the country groups of Central and South America, Oceania and Japan a shock in the income growth rate is likely to result in a corresponding shock in the growth rate of emission. Finally, causality being bi-directional for the country groups of Asia and Africa, the income and the emission growth rates seemed to reinforce each other.

[1]  N. Shafik.  Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis , 1994 .

[2]  T. Panayotou,et al.  Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[3]  T. Selden,et al.  Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions? , 1994 .

[4]  Aie-Rie Lee,et al.  Cointegration, error-correction, and the relationship between GDP and energy:: The case of South Korea and Singapore , 1998 .

[5]  J. Boyce,et al.  Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve , 1998 .

[6]  K. McConnell.  Income and the demand for environmental quality , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[7]  Tobias N. Rasmussen,et al.  Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments , 2000 .

[8]  D. Holtz-eakin,et al.  Stoking the Fires? Co2 Emissions and Economic Growth , 1992 .

[9]  G. Grossman,et al.  Economic Growth and the Environment , 1994 .

[10]  Adam Rose,et al.  The efficiency and equity of marketable permits for CO2 emissions , 1993 .

[11]  Duane Chapman,et al.  A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis , 1999 .

[12]  Matthew E. Kahn.  A household level environmental Kuznets curve , 1998 .

[13]  Donald R. McCubbin,et al.  The relationship between air pollution emissions and income: US Data , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[14]  Benjamin S. Cheng,et al.  Causality Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in India : An Application of Cointegration and Error-Correction Modeling , 1999 .

[15]  G. Koop,et al.  Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation , 1999 .

[16]  Hao-Yen Yang,et al.  A note on the causal relationship between energy and GDP in Taiwan , 2000 .

[17]  Osman Zaim,et al.  Searching for a Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency using kernel estimation , 2000 .

[18]  Duane Chapman,et al.  Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve , 1998 .

[19]  Gregory C. Unruh,et al.  An alternative analysis of apparent EKC-type transitions , 1998 .

[20]  Matthew A. Cole,et al.  The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[21]  James D. Hamilton.  Time Series Analysis , 1994 .

[22]  Stephen H. Schneider,et al.  Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies , 1999 .

[23]  C. Granger.  Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[24]  Gregory C. Unruh,et al.  Are environmental Kuznets curves misleading us? The case of CO2 emissions , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[25]  B. Baltagi,et al.  Econometric Analysis of Panel Data , 2020, Springer Texts in Business and Economics.

[26]  J. C. van den Bergh,et al.  Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves , 1998 .

[27]  J. List,et al.  The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all? , 1999 .

[28]  Michael Tucker,et al.  Carbon dioxide emissions and global GDP , 1995 .