| Literature DB >> 32123762 |
Hamisu Sadi Ali1, Solomon Prince Nathaniel2, Gizem Uzuner3, Festus Victor Bekun4,5, Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie6.
Abstract
In this era of intensive electricity utilization for economic development, the role of urbanization remains inconclusive, especially in developing economies. Here, this study examined the electricity consumption and economic growth nexus in a trivariate framework by incorporating urbanization as an additional variable. Using the recent novel Maki cointegration test, Ng-Perron, Zivot-Andrews, and Kwiatkowski unit root tests along with FMOLS, DOLS and the CCR estimation methods, we relied on an annual frequency data from 1971-2014. Results from FMOLS, DOLS and the CCR regression confirms the electricity consumption-driven economic growth. This is desirable as Nigeria is heavily dependent on energy (electricity) consumption. A unidirectional causality from urbanization to electricity consumption and economic growth was found but the long-run empirical findings revealed urbanization impedes growth - a situation that has policy implications. The study highlights that though urbanization is a good predictor of Nigeria's economic growth, however, the adjustment of the energy portfolio to meet the growing urban demand will curtail the adverse and far-reaching impact of urbanization on the economy.Entities:
Keywords: Dynamic causality; Economic growth; Economics; Electricity consumption; Energy; Maki cointegration; Urbanization
Year: 2020 PMID: 32123762 PMCID: PMC7036522 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Compilation of selected literature on electricity consumption and economic growth.
| Author(s) | Year | Methodology | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yoo and Kwak | Hsiao causality Test | EG → ELC in Ecuador, Columbia Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Conversely, GDP ↔ ELC for Venezuela, while a neutral effect is confirmed in Peru. | |
| Apergis and Payne | Panel error correction model | EG ↔ ELC for upper-middle-income and high-income countries is proven. | |
| Ozturk and Acaravci | Panel cointegration method | EG and ELC have a long-run relationship. | |
| Das et al. | System-GMM | ELC triggers EG. | |
| Solarin and Shahbaz | ARDL | EG ↔ Urbanization exists for Angola. | |
| Nazlioglu et al. | ARDL | EG ↔ ELC. The evidence of non-linearity is however found between the series. | |
| Belaid and Abderrahmani | Zivot–Andrews test; Gregory–Hansen cointegration test | EG ↔ ELC exists in both time periods. | |
| Willie | Granger causality test | EG → ELC in Zimbabwe. | |
| Wolde-Rufael | Panel bootstrap cointegration approach | For the case of Belarus and Bulgaria, ELC drives EG. EG → ELC in the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania. Although, EG ↔ ELC is found for Ukraine and Russian. | |
| Hamdi et al. | ARDL | ELC, FDI and capital impact EG positively. | |
| Aslan | ARDL | ELC drives EG in Turkey. EG ↔ ELC also exists. | |
| Karanfil and Li | ARDL | The link between ELG and EG is sensitive to regional differences, level of incomes and degree of urbanization as well as supply risk factors. | |
| Abdoli and Dastan | FMOLS | Trade and ELC impact EG positively. EG ↔ ELC is also established. | |
| Salahuddin et al. | Panel data analysis | ELC → EG in GCC member countries over the study period. | |
| Kayikci and Bildirici | ARDL | The causality between EG and ELC is conditioned upon the level of natural resources of the sampled countries. | |
| Dogan | VECM Granger causality | ELC → EG. Higher investment in the power sector is sacrosanct. | |
| Belloumi and Alshehry | ARDL, FMOLS, DOLS and Toda-Yamamoto causality | Urbanization → EG and energy. They resolved that sustainable development in Saudi Arabia is determined by reducing energy inefficiency. | |
| Osman et al. | Pool Mean Group technique among others. | Capitalization and electricity consumption promote GDP. EG ↔ ELC is established. Capitalization → EG, and EG → capitalization. | |
| Ameyaw et al. | Vector Error Correction Model | Energy is not a determinant factor in the growth of the Ghanaian economy. | |
| Shahbaz et al. | Panel cointegration | Variables have long-run relationships. Moreover, EG ↔ ELC. Also, oil prices ↔ GDP is found to be valid. | |
| Wang et al. | Alternate to the bootstrap Granger causality | The finding reflects a significant positive impact of ELC on EG. In the short run, GDP → ELC. | |
| Bilgili et al. | Panel causality test | Urbanization reduces energy intensity. | |
| Shahbaz et al. | ARDL | The ARDL result suggests that urbanization drives ELC in Pakistan. Also, urbanization → ELC. | |
| Shahbaz et al. | Non-Linear ARDL | The causality result reveals that ELC → EG in the Portuguese economy. | |
| Tatlı | ARDL | The findings reveal that urbanization and economic growth negatively and significantly affect residential electricity consumption. | |
| Mezghani and Ben Haddad | Time-Varying Parameters Vector Autoregressive Model | Electricity consumption is considered a determinant factor of carbon dioxide emissions in Saudi Arabia. | |
| Kahouli | Seemingly unrelated regression. | ELC → R&D stocks, however, R&D → CO2 emissions also exist. | |
| Bakirtas and Akpolat | Panel causality test | The bivariate analysis revealed EG → energy consumption, and from urbanization → EG and energy consumption. The trivariate analysis, however, suggests that urbanization → EG and energy consumption. | |
| Kumari & Sharma | Granger causality | ELC → EG in India. | |
| Balsalobre-Lorente et al. | Panel least squares model | Renewable electricity consumption enhances the quality of the environment in 5 European Union nations. | |
| Elfaki et al. | ARDL | Energy consumption inhibits growth in Sudan. | |
| Chen & Fang | Panel Granger non-causality test | ELC → EG in all cities considered. | |
| Akadiri et al. | Panel Granger causality test | EG → ELC in Middle Eastern countries. | |
| Kahouli | GMM, 3SLS, and SUR techniques | Electricity consumption promotes economic growth in Mediterranean countries. | |
| Akadiri et al. | ARDL and Toda-Yamamoto for Granger causality. | EG → ELC. | |
| Balcilar et al. | Maki cointegration test and Toda-Yamamoto causality test | Maki cointegration test validates long-run associations among the variables. Furthermore, EG ↔ ELC. Also, there is unidirectional causality ELC → CO2. | |
| Bekun and Agboola | Maki cointegration test, DOLS and FMOLS techniques | The main finding documented that electricity-induced growth in Nigeria. Also, in the short run ELC → EG. |
Note: ↔ and → denote the bidirectional and unidirectional causality respectively. ELC, EG and CO2 represent electricity consumption, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions respectively.
Summary Statistics of the variables for Nigeria.
| Y | EC | URB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observations | 44 | 44 | 44 |
| Mean | 7.403 | 4.407 | 30.999 |
| Median | 7.393 | 4.467 | 30.930 |
| Maximum | 7.849 | 5.055 | 46.982 |
| Minimum | 7.048 | 3.352 | 18.151 |
| Std. Dev. | 0.239 | 0.424 | 8.643 |
| Skewness | 0.224 | -0.724 | 0.187 |
| Kurtosis | 1.657 | 3.091 | 1.883 |
| Jarque-Bera | 3.676 | 3.864 | 2.544 |
| Probability | 0.159 | 0.145 | 0.280 |
| Sum | 325.733 | 193.921 | 1363.934 |
| Sum Sq. Dev. | 2.455 | 7.738 | 3212.529 |
Pearson correlation estimates.
| 1.000 | |||
| T- statistic | ----- | ||
| P- value | ----- | ||
| 0.122 | 1.000 | ||
| T- statistic | 0.799 | ----- | |
| P- value | 0.429 | ----- | |
| 0.259 | 0.884 | 1.000 | |
| T- statistic | 1.735 | 12.260 | ----- |
| P-value | 0.090*** | 0.000* | ----- |
Note: Correlation is statistically significant at *** 10% and * 1%, respectively.
Figure 1Visual plot of study variables (a) real income level (b) Urbanization (c) energy consumption.
Unit root tests.
| Ng-Perron | KPSS | Zivot-Andrews | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | MZa | MZt | MSB | MPT | nτ | ZAτ | |
| -0.852 | -0.438 | 0.514 | 55.964 | 0.235* | -3.126 (0) [1994] | ||
| Δ | -20.830* | -3.227 | 0.155 | 4.375 | 0.108 | -7.151* (0) [1988] | |
| -8.949 | -2.093 | 0.233 | 10.264 | 0.745* | -4.139 (0) [1994] | ||
| Δ | -18.587* | -3.048 | 0.164 | 4.906 | 0.093 | -5.541** (3) [2002] | |
| -31.394* | -3.832 | 0.122 | 3.628 | 0.840* | -3.874 (1) [1997] | ||
| Δ | -6.774 | -1.837 | 0.271 | 13.454 | 0.075 | -5.136** (0) [1991] | |
Note: **, * indicate 5% and 1% statistical significance level. ( ) represents the optimum lag length. All tests were conducted with the model of both intercept and trend orientation.
Maki (2012) Cointegration test.
| Number of Breaks | Test Statistics | |
|---|---|---|
| Model 0 | -5.418 [-5.760] | 1979,1982,1991,1994,1997 |
| Model 1 | -6.498 [-5.993]** | 1979,1984,1989,1991,2003 |
| Model 2 | -7.887 [-7.288]** | 1984,1987,1991,1999,2003 |
| Model 3 | -6.605 [-8.129]** | 1984,1989,1995,2003,2010 |
Note: [ ] shows critical values at 5 percent significance level.
** indicates significance at 5 percent.
FMOLS-DOLS-CCR Long-run coefficient estimates.
| Dependent variable | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMOLS | DOLS | CCR | ||||
| Series name | Coefficient | t-stat. | Coefficient | t-stat. | Coefficient | t-stat. |
| 0.161** | 2.222 | 0.585** | 4.221 | 0.182** | 2.163 | |
| -4.860* | 11.842 | -4.645* | -11.313 | -5.031* | -12.871 | |
| -0.064 | 0.568 | -1.743** | -6.594 | -0.252*** | -1.816 | |
| -0.263** | -3.090 | -2.050** | -3.708 | -0.300** | -2.278 | |
| -0.011 | 0.926 | -0.211 | -2.028 | -0.021 | -00.137 | |
| -0.120 | -1.057 | -0.258 | -1.749 | -0.192 | -1.321 | |
| 0.039 | 0.336 | -0.772** | -3.775 | 0.103 | 0.526 | |
| -66.798* | -10.647 | -64.771* | -10.901 | -69.397* | -11.615 | |
| -0.121 | -10.980 | -0.114** | -10.015 | -0.126* | -12.067 | |
Note: *, ** and ***indicate significance at 1,5 and 10 percent, respectively.
The Toda-Yamamoto Granger causality analysis.
| Hypothesis | Chi-square | P-value | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.571 | 0.210 | No causality relationship | |
| 3.517*** | 0.060 | Causality relationship | |
| 0.082 | 0.775 | No causality relationship | |
| 5.410** | 0.020 | Causality relationship | |
| 0.019 | 0.901 | No causality relationship | |
| 0.702 | 0.402 | No causality relationship |
Notes: (1) The symbol ‘’’’ represents no causality between the selected variables and ** indicates 0.05 statistical significance level. (2) Optimum lag length is selected as 1 by using SIC (See Appendix A).
| Endogenous variables: LEC LURB LY D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lag | LogL | LR | FPE | AIC | SC | HQ |
| 0 | 18.48744 | NA | 9.07e-05 | -0.794228 | -0.666262 | -0.748315 |
| 1 | 243.2534 | 403.4261* | 1.42e-09 | -11.85915 | -11.34729* | -11.67550* |
| 2 | 252.8079 | 15.67910 | 1.40e-09* | -11.88758* | -10.99182 | -11.56619 |
| 3 | 260.7449 | 11.80383 | 1.51e-09 | -11.83307 | -10.55341 | -11.37394 |
| 4 | 268.9541 | 10.94553 | 1.64e-09 | -11.79252 | -10.12896 | -11.19565 |
| 5 | 277.4534 | 10.02483 | 1.82e-09 | -11.76684 | -9.719381 | -11.03223 |
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion.
FPE: Final prediction error.
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level).
AIC: Akaike information criterion.
SC: Schwarz information criterion.
HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion.