| Literature DB >> 29782534 |
Junsheng Ha1, Pei-Pei Tan1, Kim-Leng Goh1.
Abstract
The energy-growth nexus has important policy implications for economic development. The results from many past studies that investigated the causality direction of this nexus can lead to misleading policy guidance. Using data on China from 1953 to 2013, this study shows that an application of causality test on the time series of energy consumption and national output has masked a lot of information. The Toda-Yamamoto test with bootstrapped critical values and the newly proposed non-linear causality test reveal no causal relationship. However, a further application of these tests using series in different time-frequency domain obtained from wavelet decomposition indicates that while energy consumption Granger causes economic growth in the short run, the reverse is true in the medium term. A bidirectional causal relationship is found for the long run. This approach has proven to be superior in unveiling information on the energy-growth nexus that are useful for policy planning over different time horizons.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29782534 PMCID: PMC5962055 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Energy consumption per capita and real GDP per capita (1953–2011) of China.
“SCE” stands for standard coal equivalent.
Selected literature and findings on energy-growth nexus in China.
| Authors | Period | Methodology | Causality relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shiu and Lam [ | 1971–2000 | Bivariate model (ECM) | Energy (electricity)→GDP in both short and long run |
| Soytas and Sari [ | 1971–2002 | Multivariate model (T-Y) | Energy---GDP (no cointegration) |
| Zou and Chau [ | 1953–2002 | Bivariate model (ECM) |
Energy (oil)→GDP in the short run; Energy (oil)↔GDP in the long run |
| Chen, Kuo [ | 1971–2001 | Bivariate model (ECM) | GDP---Energy (electricity) |
| Yuan, Zhao [ | 1978–2004 | Bivariate model (ECM) | Energy (electricity)→GDP in both short and long run |
| Zhang and Cheng [ | 1960–2007 | Multivariate model (T-Y) | GDP→Energy in the long run |
| Wang, Wang [ | 1972–2006 | Multivariate (ARDL) | Energy→GDP in both long and short run |
| Yalta and Cakar [ | 1971–2007 | Meboot with bootstrap | Energy---GDP |
| Zhang and Yang [ | 1978–2009 | Multivariate (T-Y) | Energy↔GDP in the long run |
| Bloch, Rafiq [ | 1977–2013 | Multivariate (ARDL and VECM) | In the long run: |
| Ouyang and Li [ | 1996Q1–2015Q4 | Multivariate (GMM panel VAR approach) |
For Full sample, Central and Eastern Regions: Energy→GDP For Western region: Energy↔GDP |
“→” stands for “unidirectional Granger causality” from the left to the right hand-side variable, “---” stands for “no Granger causality” and “↔” stands for “bidirectional Granger causality”. ECM is error correction model, VECM is vector error correction model. T-Y is Toda-Yamamoto, and ARDL is auto-regressive distributed lag model. GMM is Generalized Method of Moments. VAR is Vector Autoregressive.
Selected recent literatures and their findings on energy-growth nexus in various countries.
| Authors | Period | Country | Causality relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esseghir and Khouni [ | 1980–2010 | Mediterranean | Energy↔GDP |
| Salahuddin and Gow [ | 1980–2012 | GCC | GDP→Energy |
| Iyke [ | 1971–2011 | Nigeria | Energy (electricity)→GDP in both short and long run |
| Bastola and Sapkota [ | 1980–2011 | Nepal | GDP→Energy |
| Rahman, Ha [ | 1971–2012 | Malaysia | Energy→GDP |
| Naser [ | 1965–2010 | 4 countries |
Energy(oil)↔GDP for Russia, China and South Korea: Energy(Nuclear)↔GDP for India |
| Balaguer and Ripollés [ | 1900–2008 | Spain |
Preceding the development policy: GDP→Energy After the development policy: Energy→GDP |
| Chiou-Wei, Zhu [ | 1965–2010 | 5 countries |
Energy↔GDP for Philippines GDP→Energy for Singapore GDP---Energy for other countries |
| Destek [ | 1991–2013 | 26 countries |
For panel: Energy (gas)↔GDP in short run; Energy(gas)↔GDP in long run For Austria, Belgium, France, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Turkey, and the Unites States: Energy(gas)→GDP For Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain: GDP→Energy (gas) For Finland, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom: GDP↔Energy (gas) For Chile, Germany, Greece and Mexico: GDP---Energy (gas) |
| Fang and Chang [ | 1970–2011 | 16 countries |
For panel: GDP→Energy For India: Energy↔GDP For Korea, Pakistan and Taiwan: Energy→GDP For Australia: GDP→Energy |
| Tang, Tan [ | 1971–2011 | Vietnam | Energy→GDP |
| Esso and Keho [ | 1971–2010 | 12 countries |
For Congo and Gabon: Energy→GDP For Ghana: GDP→Energy |
| Bah and Azam [ | 1971–2012 | South Africa | GDP---Energy (electricity) |
| Bildirici and Ozaksoy [ | 1980–2012 | 20 countries |
For Botswana, Cameroon, Uganda, and Zambia: GDP→Energy (biomass) For Burkina Faso, Malawi, Central African Republic, Namibia, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon and Zimbabwe: Energy (biomass) →GDP For Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar and Togo: GDP↔ Energy (biomass) |
| Goh, Yong [ | 1966–2013 | OECD countries |
For Denmark, Germany, Greece and the United States: Energy→GDP For Iceland: GDP→Energy For Japan, Austria, Ireland, Portugal and Spain: Energy↔GDP For Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the UK: GDP---Energy |
| Kahouli [ | 1995–2015 | 6 South Mediterranean Countries |
For Tunisia: GDP↔ Energy For Israel: Energy→GDP For Lebanon: GDP→Energy For Algeria, Egypt and Morocco: GDP---Energy |
| Kourtzidis, Tzeremes [ | January 1991 to May 2016 (Monthly) | the United States |
For all sectors (Industry, Residential, Electric Power and Transportation): GDP---Energy For the whole country: Energy→GDP |
“→” stands for “unidirectional Granger causality” from the left to the right hand-side variable, “---” stands for “no Granger causality” and “↔” stands for “bidirectional Granger causality”.
Unit root test results for the original time series.
| Variable | Specification | ADF test | PP test | KPSS test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPC | Intercept | 1.908 | 3.365 | 0.957 |
| Intercept & trend | -1.435 | -1.14 | 0.241 | |
| ΔGPC | Intercept | -5.490 | -4.888 | 0.578 |
| EC | Intercept | -1.394 | -1.508 | 0.982 |
| Intercept & trend | -3.210 | -3.359 | 0.068 | |
| ΔEC | Intercept | -4.449 | -4.634 | 0.104 |
| K | Intercept | 0.827 | 0.345 | 0.979 |
| Intercept & trend | -1.609 | -1.197 | 0.195 | |
| ΔK | Intercept | -4.070 | -2.878 | 0.186 |
| L | Intercept | -1.759 | -2.229 | 0.962 |
| Intercept & trend | -0.788 | 0.302 | 0.175 | |
| ΔL | Intercept | -3.678 | -3.502 | 0.453 |
The optimal number of lags for ADF tests was selected based on Schwarz information criterion (SIC). The bandwidths for KPSS and PP tests were chosen based on Newey-West selection procedure using Bartlett kernel. “Δ” stands for “first differencing”.
“*”, “**” and “***” denote significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.
Zivot and Andrews unit root test for original time series.
| Variable | Specification | Test statistic | Break point |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPC | Intercept | -1.856 | 1971 |
| Intercept & trend | -3.548 | 1976 | |
| ΔGPC | Intercept | -5.176 | 1982 |
| Intercept & trend | -7.004 | 1963 |
“**” and “***” denote significance at 5% and 1% respectively. “Δ” stands for “first differencing”. The optimal number of lags was selected based on Akaike information criterion (AIC).
The bootstrapped Toda-Yamamoto causality test results.
| Null Hypothesis | MWALD statistic | 1% bootstrap critical value | 5% bootstrap critical value | 10% bootstrap critical value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC ⇏ GPC | 2.356 | 0.502 | 13.716 | 9.103 | 7.088 |
| GPC ⇏ EC | 2.13 | 0.546 | 13.897 | 9.056 | 7.107 |
The optimal number of lags was selected based on HJC criteria. “⇏” stands for “does not Granger cause”.
Nonlinear causality test results.
| Null Hypothesis | Test statistic | Null Hypothesis | Test statistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Δ | 8.467 | Δ | 7.405 |
“Δ” stands for “first differencing”. “⇏” stands for “does not Granger cause”.
Unit root test results for wavelet decomposed series.
| Variable | Specification | ADF test | PP test | KPSS test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPC | Intercept | -11.299 | -6.104 | 0.181 |
| EC | Intercept | -6.799 | -6.983 | 0.166 |
| GPC | Intercept | -3.192 | -3.906 | 0.026 |
| EC | Intercept | -5.807 | -3.639 | 0.029 |
| GPC | Intercept | -9.465 | 0.731 | 0.222 |
| ΔGPC | Intercept | -0.385 | -1.394 | 0.551 |
| EC | Intercept | -3.362 | -2.445 | 0.127 |
| ΔEC | Intercept | -1.889 | -2.052 | 0.187 |
The optimal numbers of lags for ADF tests were selected based on SIC. The bandwidths for KPSS and PP tests were chosen based on Newey-West selection procedure using Bartlett kernel. “Δ” stands for “first differencing”.
“**” and “***” denote significance at 5% and 1% respectively.
Zivot and Andrews unit root test for decomposed series.
| Variable | Specification | T statistic | Break point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long run (d4+d5) | |||
| GPC | Intercept | -5.366 | 1997 |
| EC | Intercept | -7.112 | 1971 |
“***” denotes significance at 1%. The optimal number of lags was selected based on Akaike information criterion.
Bootstrapped Toda-Yamamoto causality test results for the decomposed time series.
| Null Hypothesis | MWALD | Lag | 1% bootstrap critical value | 5% bootstrap critical value | 10% bootstrap critical value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC ⇏ GPC | ||||||
| Short run | 11.680 | 3 | 0.009 (-0.679) | 13.089 | 8.486 | 6.745 |
| Medium run | 7.838 | 3 | 0.05 | 17.083 | 11.257 | 8.569 |
| Long run | 25.246 | 3 | 0.000 (0.212) | 23.956 | 15.554 | 12.372 |
| GPC ⇏ EC | ||||||
| Short run | 7.318 | 3 | 0.062 | 13.07 | 8.643 | 6.88 |
| Medium run | 5.211 | 3 | 0.000 (-0.046) | 17.907 | 11.872 | 9.265 |
| Long run | 13.501 | 3 | 0.003 (0.212) | 17.568 | 11.574 | 9.503 |
“**” and “***” denote significance at the 5% and 1% level respectively according to the bootstrap critical values. The optimal number of lags was selected based on HJC criteria. ⇏ stands for “does not Granger cause”. The numbers in parentheses are the sum of the lagged coefficients.
Nonlinear causality test results for the decomposed time series.
| Null Hypothesis | Test statistic | Null Hypothesis | Test statistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| EC ⇏ GPC | GPC ⇏ EC | ||
| Short run | 7.438 | Short | 5.237 |
| Medium run | 8.511 | Medium | 9.962 |
| Long run | 22.586 | Long | 24.910 |
“*” denote significance level 1%. “⇏” stands for “does not Granger cause”.
Fig 2The causal relationship between energy consumption and economic output.
“EC” indicates energy consumption per capita. “GPC” indicates GDP per capita. “Original” indicates the results using original time series. “Wavelet” indicates that the original time series are decomposed by wavelet transform. “→” stands for “unidirectional Granger cause from left to right”, “←” stands for “unidirectional Granger cause from right to left”, “- - -” stands for “does not Grander cause” and “↔” stands for “bidirectional Granger relationship”.