Environmental sustainability in South Africa: Understanding the criticality of economic policy uncertainty, fiscal decentralization, and green innovation

[1]  N. Ngepah,et al.  The asymmetric effect of technological innovation on CO2 emissions in South Africa: New evidence from the QARDL approach , 2022, Frontiers in Environmental Science.

[2]  A. Alola,et al.  Are green resource productivity and environmental technologies the face of environmental sustainability in the Nordic region? , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[3]  M. Ramzan,et al.  Do green innovation and financial globalization contribute to the ecological sustainability and energy transition in the United Kingdom? Policy insights from a bootstrap rolling window approach , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[4]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Striving towards environmental sustainability in the BRICS economies: the combined influence of fiscal decentralization and environmental innovation , 2022, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology.

[5]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Dynamic ARDL Simulations Effects of Fiscal Decentralization, Green Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, and Institutional Quality on Environmental Sustainability: Evidence from South Africa , 2022, Sustainability.

[6]  F. Bekun,et al.  How do technological innovation and renewables shape environmental quality advancement in emerging economies: An exploration of the E7 bloc? , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[7]  Kangyin Dong,et al.  Nexus between green technology innovation, green financing, and CO 2 emissions in the G7 countries: The moderating role of social globalisation , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[8]  E. Muchapondwa,et al.  Investigating the moderating role of economic policy uncertainty in environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa: Evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach , 2022, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[9]  Ramez Abubakr Badeeb,et al.  On the sustainable trade development: Do Financial inclusion and eco‐innovation matter? Evidence from method of moments quantile regression , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[10]  Yunpeng Sun,et al.  Composite fiscal decentralisation and green innovation: Imperative strategy for institutional reforms and sustainable development in OECD countries , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[11]  Recep Ulucak,et al.  Green innovation and ecological footprint relationship for a sustainable development: Evidence from top 20 green innovator countries , 2022, Sustainable Development.

[12]  Wanich Suksatan,et al.  Investigating the asymmetric linkages between infrastructure development, green innovation, and consumption-based material footprint: Novel empirical estimations from highly resource-consuming economies , 2021 .

[13]  K. Ajide,et al.  The dynamic heterogeneous impacts of nonrenewable energy, trade openness, total natural resource rents, financial development and regulatory quality on environmental quality: Evidence from BRICS economies , 2021 .

[14]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Disaggregating the environmental effects of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in South Africa: fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach , 2021, Economic Change and Restructuring.

[15]  Boqiang Lin,et al.  Does fiscal decentralization improve energy and environmental performance? New perspective on vertical fiscal imbalance , 2021 .

[16]  Manzoor Ahmad,et al.  Do innovation in environmental-related technologies asymmetrically affect carbon dioxide emissions in the United States? , 2021, Technology in Society.

[17]  R. Li,et al.  The role of energy prices and non-linear fiscal decentralization in limiting carbon emissions: Tracking environmental sustainability , 2021 .

[18]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Does trade openness mitigate the environmental degradation in South Africa? , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[19]  Yunpeng Sun,et al.  The asymmetric effect eco-innovation and tourism towards carbon neutrality target in Turkey. , 2021, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  Feng Dong,et al.  How economic policy uncertainty processes impact on inclusive green growth in emerging industrialized countries: A case study of China , 2021, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[21]  Zhang Xiaosan,et al.  Achieving sustainability and energy efficiency goals: Assessing the impact of hydroelectric and renewable electricity generation on carbon dioxide emission in China , 2021 .

[22]  E. Purnomo,et al.  Controlling environmental pollution: dynamic role of fiscal decentralization in CO2 emission in Asian economies , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[23]  Muntasir Murshed,et al.  Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: Does financial globalization matter? , 2021, Sustainable Cities and Society.

[24]  I. Ozturk,et al.  Examining the direct and indirect effects of financial development on CO2 emissions for 88 developing countries. , 2021, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  Eyup Dogan,et al.  The role of economic policy uncertainty in the energy-environment nexus for China: Evidence from the novel dynamic simulations method. , 2021, Journal of environmental management.

[26]  Yudong Wang,et al.  Investor attention and oil market volatility: Does economic policy uncertainty matter? , 2021 .

[27]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Do fiscal decentralization and natural resources rent curb carbon emissions? Evidence from developed countries , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[28]  Boqiong Yang,et al.  Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Fiscal Decentralization and Environmental Decentralization on Carbon Emissions under the Pressure of Officials’ Promotion , 2021 .

[29]  Yunfeng Wang,et al.  Economic policy uncertainty and corporate innovation: Evidence from China , 2021, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal.

[30]  I. Ozturk,et al.  The implications of renewable and non-renewable energy generating in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of economic policy uncertainties , 2021 .

[31]  X. Vo,et al.  Exploring the relationships among innovation, financial sector development and environmental pollution in selected industrialized countries. , 2021, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  M. Destek,et al.  Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: evidence from BEM economies , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[33]  Manzoor Ahmad,et al.  Towards sustainable production and consumption: Assessing the impact of energy productivity and eco-innovation on consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions (CCO2) in G-7 nations , 2020, Sustainable Production and Consumption.

[34]  C. Mensah,et al.  Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa , 2021 .

[35]  Usama Awan,et al.  How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth , 2021 .

[36]  Kangyin Dong,et al.  How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital , 2020 .

[37]  Jian Yu,et al.  Economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and firm carbon emissions: Evidence using a China provincial EPU index , 2020, Energy Economics.

[38]  Eyup Dogan,et al.  International trade and environmental performance in top ten‐emitters countries: The role of eco‐innovation and renewable energy consumption , 2020 .

[39]  M. Usman,et al.  Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[40]  K. Jermsittiparsert,et al.  The role of natural resources, globalization, and renewable energy in testing the EKC hypothesis in MINT countries: new evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression approach , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[41]  A. Caglar,et al.  Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break , 2020 .

[42]  Ender Demir,et al.  Economic policy uncertainty and bank credit growth: Evidence from European banks , 2020, Journal of Multinational Financial Management.

[43]  Zubaria Andlib,et al.  Examining the asymmetric effects of Pakistan’s fiscal decentralization on economic growth and environmental quality , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[44]  Kuo Zhou,et al.  The impacts of fiscal decentralization on environmental innovation in China , 2020 .

[45]  K. Tang,et al.  Does fiscal decentralization and eco‐innovation promote sustainable environment? A case study of selected fiscally decentralized countries , 2020 .

[46]  Chi-Wei Su,et al.  How China is fostering sustainable growth: the interplay of green investment and production-based emission , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[47]  N. Ngepah,et al.  The asymmetric effect of trade openness on economic growth in South Africa: a nonlinear ARDL approach , 2020, Economic Change and Restructuring.

[48]  Derviş Kırıkkaleli,et al.  The impact of technological innovation and public‐private partnership investment on sustainable environment in China: Consumption‐based carbon emissions analysis , 2020, Sustainable Development.

[49]  A. Zakari,et al.  Energy consumption, economic expansion, and CO2 emission in the UK: The role of economic policy uncertainty. , 2020, The Science of the total environment.

[50]  Chun-ping Chang,et al.  Fiscal decentralization, environmental regulation, and pollution: a spatial investigation , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[51]  Nguyen Van Tran.  The environmental effects of trade openness in developing countries: conflict or cooperation? , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[52]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Trade liberalization and the geography of industries in South Africa: fresh evidence from a new measure , 2020 .

[53]  A. Alola,et al.  The nexus of environmental quality with renewable consumption, immigration, and healthcare in the US: wavelet and gradual-shift causality approaches , 2019, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[54]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Revisiting trade and environment nexus in South Africa: fresh evidence from new measure , 2019, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[55]  Zhongbao Zhou,et al.  Does economic policy uncertainty matter for carbon emission? Evidence from US sector level data , 2019, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[56]  Xi Cheng.  The Impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty on the Efficiency of Corporate Working Capital Management—The Evidence from China , 2019, Modern Economy.

[57]  N. Ngepah,et al.  Supplementary Trade Benefits of Multi-Memberships in African Regional Trade Agreements , 2019, Journal of African Business.

[58]  Dilem Yıldırım,et al.  The Feldstein–Horioka puzzle in the presence of structural breaks: evidence from China , 2018 .

[59]  N. Ngepah,et al.  African Regional Trade Agreements and Intra-African Trade , 2018 .

[60]  M. Bahmani‐Oskooee,et al.  Revisiting purchasing power parity in G6 countries: an application of smooth time-varying cointegration approach , 2018 .

[61]  Bo Shen,et al.  Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China , 2017 .

[62]  V. Murthy,et al.  Is technology still a major driver of health expenditure in the United States? Evidence from cointegration analysis with multiple structural breaks , 2017, International Journal of Health Economics and Management.

[63]  Rawshan Ara Begum,et al.  Dynamics of energy use, technological innovation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia , 2015 .

[64]  Hilary A. Sigman.  Decentralization and Environmental Quality: An International Analysis of Water Pollution Levels and Variation , 2007, Land Economics.

[65]  Daiki Maki.  Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks , 2012 .

[66]  P. Narayan,et al.  A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time , 2010 .

[67]  C. Bayer,et al.  Combining non‐cointegration tests , 2013 .

[68]  Bruce E. Hansen,et al.  Tests for Cointegration in Models with Regime and Trend Shifts , 2009 .

[69]  Abdulnasser Hatemi-J,et al.  Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration , 2008 .

[70]  Jörg Breitung,et al.  Testing for short- and long-run causality: A frequency-domain approach , 2006 .

[71]  M. S. Taylor,et al.  Unbundling the Pollution Haven Hypothesis , 2005 .

[72]  Anindya Banerjee,et al.  Error‐correction Mechanism Tests for Cointegration in a Single‐equation Framework , 1998 .

[73]  Ramon Lopez,et al.  The Environment as a Factor of Production: The Effects of Economic Growth and Trade Liberalization , 1994 .

[74]  Mark W. Watson,et al.  A SIMPLE ESTIMATOR OF COINTEGRATING VECTORS IN HIGHER ORDER INTEGRATED SYSTEMS , 1993 .

[75]  H. P. Boswijk,et al.  Testing for an unstable root in conditional and structural error correction models , 1994 .

[76]  Joon Y. Park.  Canonical Cointegrating Regressions , 1992 .

[77]  S. Johansen.  Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models , 1991 .

[78]  Peter C. B. Phillips,et al.  Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes , 1990 .

[79]  C. Granger,et al.  Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing , 1987 .

[80]  J. Geweke,et al.  Measurement of Linear Dependence and Feedback between Multiple Time Series , 1982 .