| Literature DB >> 34483715 |
Tehreem Fatima1,2, Grzegorz Mentel3, Buhari Doğan4, Zeeshan Hashim5, Umer Shahzad6.
Abstract
This study explores the effects of renewable and nonrenewable energy demand on export product diversification, economic growth, natural resources, human capital, and trade in GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries using data of six countries from 1990 to 2019. The empirical analysis integrates the panel unit root tests (IPS and CIPS), panel quantile regression, and fully modified OLS models. The empirical results confirm that there exists a significant negative relationship between renewable energy and export diversification; signifying that diversification of products will reduce renewable energy. Similarly, when compared to the square of export product diversification, it shows a positive and significant correlation. The empirical findings highlighted the presence of Kuznets's hypothesis between export product diversification, renewable, and non-renewable energy consumption. Furthermore, the findings suggest that natural resources and economic growth may increase overall energy consumption in GCC countries. It implies an important policy suggestion that encouraging export diversification will reduce GCC countries' reliance on oil to meet energy demand.Entities:
Keywords: Export product diversification; GCC countries; Kuznets hypothesis; Panel cointegration analysis; Renewable energy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34483715 PMCID: PMC8403254 DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01789-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Dev Sustain ISSN: 1387-585X Impact factor: 4.080
Fig. 1Primary energy consumption and trade in GCC countries (2018)
Literature summary on export Product diversification, energy and growth
| Authors | Countries (year) | Variables | Method | Outcomes | EKC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munemo ( | 69 Developing countries (1983–2003) | Foreign aid, Export diversification | Fixed effects-instrumental technique | Foreign aid not exceeding 20% of a country’s GDP significantly promotes export diversification | No |
| Aditya and Acharyya, ( | 65 countries (1965–2005) | Export diversification, growth | Dynamic panel estimation | Exports Diversification affects GDP | No |
| Mudenda et al. ( | South Africa (1980–2010) | Product diversification, capital formation, human capital, real effective exchange rate, Trade openness | Cointegrating vector autoregressive (CVAR) | Export diversification affects economic growth | Yes |
| Gozgor and Can ( | Turkey (1971–2010) | Product diversification, Energy consumption, CO2 emissions | Cointegration analysis with multiple endogenous structural breaks | increase in export product diversification yields higher CO2 emissions in the long run | Yes |
| Liu et al. ( | Japan, Korea, China (1990–2013) | GDP, Export product diversification, export market diversification, ecological footprint | Augmented Dickey-Fuller test, Vector Auto –Regression (VAR), Error Correction Model | The positive relationship between GDP, diversification with Ecological footprint | Yes |
| Alvarado et al. ( | 151 countries as a global study (1980–2016) | Energy use, GDP, CO2 | Fixed effects and random effects | Energy consumption and manufacturing contribute to increasing CO2 emissions | No |
| Liu et al. ( | 125 OECD countries (2000–2014) | Export Product diversification International trade, CO2 emissions, | Driscoll and Kraay standard errors | Export Product diversification increase CO2 emissions | Yes |
| Lv et al. ( | Chinese cities (2005–2016) | Urbanization, Growth, energy intensity | Spatial Durbin models | Urbanization increase energy intensity | No |
| Shahbaz et al. ( | United States (1975–2016) | Export Product diversification Real GDP, Energy use, education, oil prices | Bootstrapping autoregressive-distributed lag (ARDL) | Education economic growth increased export Diversification Consumption while oil prices decrease energy demand | No |
| Arminen and Menegaki ( | Middle- and high-income countries (1985–2011) | Institutional quality, income, growth changes | System GMM methods | Institutional changes affect energy and environment | No |
| Dogan et al. ( | 55 Countries (1971–2014) | Urbanization, Energy Consumption, Economic complexity, Trade Openness | Quantile Regression | The results show that economic complexity has significant impacts on the environment | Yes |
| Le et al. ( | 90 countries (2002–2014) | Export product diversification, Human capital, globalization, industrial value-added | Panel Corrected Standard Errors model (PCSE) | The long-run relationship between export diversification, factors, and income inequality | Yes |
| Dogan et al. ( | 63 developed and developing countries (1971–2014) | Trade openness, Export quality, economic growth, urbanization, and total energy, CO2 emissions | Panel quantile estimators | Economic growth and total energy and Urbanization increase CO2 emissions | Yes |
| Gnangnon ( | 109 developing countries (1981–2014) | Diversification, income, industry, tax performance | Panel regression (Feasible Generalized Least Squares) | Export diversifications induce tax performance | No |
| Mania, ( | 98 developed and developing countries (1995–2013) | Export diversification CO2 emissions | Generalized Method of Moments) and long‐run Pooled Mean Group (PMG) | Effects of export diversification on CO2 emissions is positive | Yes |
| Can et al. ( | 84 Developing countries (1971–2014) | Export Product Diversification, Population, CO2 emissions, GDP, Foreign Direct Investment, Energy Consumption | Autoregressive distributed lag method (ARDL) | Export diversification, extensive margin, and intensive margin have a positive effect on CO2 emissions | Yes |
Descriptive statistics
| Variables | Obs | Mean | SD | Min | Max | p1 | p99 | Skew | Kurt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renewable energy | 168 | 8.182 | 10.472 | 0 | 23.079 | 0 | 23.052 | .497 | 1.256 |
| Non-renewable | 168 | 23.861 | 1.022 | 21.276 | 26.35 | 22.163 | 26.267 | .414 | 2.565 |
| Diversification | 168 | 4.573 | .839 | 2.691 | 5.82 | 2.809 | 5.814 | -.617 | 2.301 |
| Economic growth | 168 | 25.15 | 1.123 | 22.909 | 27.26 | 23.015 | 27.253 | .171 | 2.021 |
| Natural resources | 168 | 1.683 | 1.667 | .052 | 8.426 | .124 | 8.421 | 1.888 | 6.832 |
| Human capital | 168 | 2.29 | .249 | 1.964 | 3.092 | 1.986 | 3.016 | 1.005 | 3.066 |
| Trade | 168 | 1.021 | .336 | .426 | 2.102 | .516 | 1.919 | 1.02 | 3.331 |
| Diversification2 | 168 | 21.614 | 7.268 | 7.243 | 33.87 | 7.889 | 33.807 | -.349 | 2.082 |
Panel unit root tests
| Variables | CIPS unit root test | IPS unit root test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | First difference | Level | First difference | |
| Renewable energy | −4.498 | −1.951*** | −2.181 | −493*** |
| Non-renewable | −2.363 | 6.027*** | −0.543 | −6.679*** |
| Diversification | −2.294 | −5.275*** | −2.23 | −5.45*** |
| Economic growth | −1.614 | −4.674*** | −1.386 | −4.161*** |
| Natural resources | −2.226 | −4.804*** | −1.49 | −4.655*** |
| Human capital | −2.405 | −2.770* | −1.022 | −2.078*** |
| Trade | −3.139 | −5.347*** | −2.303 | −5.401*** |
| Diversification2 | −2.403 | −5.410*** | −2.334** | −5.4831*** |
Superscripts ***, **, *denote statistical significance at the 1 and 5% and 10% levels, respectively
Panel cointegration analysis
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedroni cointegration | ||||
| Panel modified phillips-perron statistics | 1.492* | 0.06 | 0.697 | 0.243 |
| Panel phillips-perron statistics | −1.7068*** | 0.04 | −3.297 | 0.000*** |
| Panel ADF-statistic | −3.098*** | 0.001 | −3.421 | 0.000*** |
| Kao cointegration | ||||
| Modified Dickey-fuller | −3.73*** | 0.000 | −1.304* | 0.09 |
| Dickey-fuller | −2.79*** | 0.002 | −4.066*** | 0.000 |
| Augmented dickey-fuller | −1.34*** | 0.008 | −0.495 | 0.310 |
| Unadjusted modified dickey Fuller | −3.72*** | 0.000 | −5.122*** | 0.000 |
| Unadjusted Dickey-Fuller | −2.792*** | 0.002 | −5.831*** | 0.000 |
Model 1 shows the cointegration of renewable energy and model-2 illustrates non-renewable energy. Cointegration is checked without the square of export diversification. *** Significant value at 5% level
Quantile regression and FMOLS empirics for renewable energy
| Variables | Quantile regression | FMOLS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eq-1 | Eq-2 | Eq-1 | Eq-2 | |
| Diversification | −3.34*** | 12.106*** | −2.461*** | 16.89* |
| (0.58) | (5.720) | (0.985) | (9.05) | |
| Economic growth | 7.253*** | 7.239*** | 6.884*** | 6.952*** |
| (0.483) | (0.606) | (0.825) | (0.957) | |
| Natural resources | −1.65*** | −1.523*** | −1.945*** | −2.209*** |
| (0.257) | (0.327) | (0.439) | (0.516) | |
| Human capital | 5.46*** | 3.137 | 4.91*** | 4.451 |
| (2.08) | (2.637) | (3.557) | (4.159) | |
| Trade | −1.53 | −1.348 | 1.914 | 1.818 |
| (1.33) | (1.737) | (2.345) | (2.82) | |
| Diversification2 | – | 12.11*** | – | 2.298 |
| Constant | −167.08*** | −192.14*** | −164.06*** | −203*** |
| (9.344) | (16.08) | (15.966) | (25.32) | |
| Observations | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 |
| R2 | 0.5626 | 0.5706 | 0.425 | 0.475 |
| Neweywest test | – | – | 51.023 | 14.635 |
| Standard error (Long run) | – | – | 7.013 | 8.121 |
Standard errors shown in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
Quantile regression and FMOLS empirics for non-renewable energy
| Variables | Quantile regression | FMOLS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eq-1 | Eq-2 | Eq-1 | Eq-2 | |
| Diversification | −0.096 | −2.115*** | −0.09 | −2.537*** |
| (0.08) | (0.564) | (0.06) | (0.654) | |
| Economic growth | 0.970*** | 0.945*** | 0.930*** | 0.995*** |
| (0.07) | (0.060) | (0.05) | (0.06) | |
| Natural resources | 0.119*** | 0.185*** | 0.148*** | 0.187*** |
| (0.03) | (0.032) | (0.03) | (0.037) | |
| Human capital | 0.119* | −0.321 | 0.03* | 0.107* |
| (0.302) | (0.260) | (0.25) | (0.301) | |
| Trade | 0.272 | 0.015*** | 0.01 | −0.267 |
| (0.193) | (0.171) | (0.16) | (0.204) | |
| Diversification2 | – | 0.229*** | – | 0.273*** |
| Constant | −.8071 | 5.201 | 0.519 | 4.237*** |
| (1.356) | (1.585) | (1.122) | (1.833) | |
| Observations | 168 | 168 | 168 | 168 |
| R2 | 0.6966 | 0.7313 | 0.446 | 0.74 |
| Neweywest test | – | – | 56.389 | 14.350 |
| standard error (Long run) | – | – | 1.188 | 0.589 |
Standard errors shown in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1