| Literature DB >> 35419682 |
Lucy Davou Philip1, Firat Emir2, Edmund Ntom Udemba3.
Abstract
This study is anchored on the global best practice policies for achieving sustainable goals for Malaysia. Malaysia is among the countries that made commitment at 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to reduce its carbon emissions by 2030. This is expected to contribute to the country's sustainable development. Malaysian quarterly data of 1992Q1-2019Q4 with relevant policy-based instruments (renewable energy policy, technological innovations, financial development, and entrepreneur activities) are adopted in our study for explicit and clear insight on the subject. Different scientific and analytical methods are equally applied in this study, but the focus and emphasis are laid on the findings from linear (dynamic ordinary least square, DOLS) and non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) and Granger causality. Findings from both NARDL and DOLS confirmed the positive shocks of renewable energy policy, technological innovations, financial development, and entrepreneur activities are mitigating carbon emissions. Also, inverted U shape of EKC hypothesis is found for Malaysia. Findings from Granger causality support the findings from both estimates by establishing both feedback and unidirectional causal nexus among the instruments. From the finding myms, policy-based instruments are mitigating carbon emissions in Malaysia; thus, it will be a very good idea to frame policies around these instruments.Entities:
Keywords: Entrepreneur; Financial development; Malaysian sustainable development goals; Renewable energy policy; Symmetric and asymmetric methods; Technological innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35419682 PMCID: PMC9007255 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20099-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Stationarity test results
| Variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| − 0.81 | 3.72** | − 0.04 | − 5.29*** | |
| − 1.86 | − 9.10*** | − 1.84 | − 4.85*** | |
| − 0.57 | − 3.01** | − 1.51 | − 4.93*** | |
| − 1.26 | − 4.15*** | − 1.72 | − 5.11*** | |
| − 1.66 | − 3.52** | − 1.63 | − 4.66*** | |
| − 1.73 | − 3.68** | − 2.18 | − 4.81*** | |
(1) All variables were tested with only intercept. (2)*** and ** depict for the significance level at 1% and 5%, respectively. Source: authors’ computation
Bounds test results
| K | Calculated | 1% | 5% | 10% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5.27 | 3.41 | 4.68 | 2.62 | 3.79 | 2.26 | 3.35 |
Source: authors’ computation
L upper critical bound, L lower critical bound
Estimation output
| Var | Coeff | Std. error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-run coefficients | ||||
| D(lnET +) | − 0.034*** | 0.013 | − 2.636 | 0.0098 |
| D(lnET −) | 0.042** | 0.029 | 2.427 | 0.0159 |
| D(lnF +) | − 0.190* | 0.098 | − 1.930 | 0.0566 |
| D(lnF −) | − 0.136** | 0.057 | − 2.350 | 0.0209 |
| D(lnTI +) | − 0.042** | 0.018 | − 2.317 | 0.0226 |
| D(lnTI −) | − 0.012* | 0.006 | − 1.795 | 0.0758 |
| D(lnR +) | − 0.083** | 0.034 | − 2.408 | 0.0180 |
| D(lnR −) | − 0.067* | 0.035 | − 1.905 | 0.0598 |
| D(lnY +) | 0.309** | 0.169 | 1.826 | 0.0310 |
| D(lnY −) | 0.069** | 0.225 | 2.310 | 0.0257 |
| ECT(− 1) | − 0.109*** | 0.027 | − 3.976 | 0.0001 |
| Long-run coefficients | ||||
| lnET + | − 0.313** | 0.128 | − 2.441 | 0.0165 |
| lnET − | 0.069* | 0.172 | 3.403 | 0.0687 |
| lnF + | 1.708*** | 0.527 | 3.240 | 0.0017 |
| lnF − | − 1.240** | 0.486 | − 2.548 | 0.0125 |
| lnTI + | − 0.158* | 0.080 | − 1.958 | 0.0532 |
| lnTI − | − 0.112* | 0.062 | − 1.792 | 0.0763 |
| lnR + | − 0.762** | 0.338 | − 2.256 | 0.0264 |
| lnR − | − 0.610** | 0.342 | − 3.782 | 0.0479 |
| lnY + | 0.828** | 0.459 | 3.800 | 0.0350 |
| lnY − | 0.636** | 0.017 | 4.315 | 0.0159 |
| C | − 0.390*** | 0.066 | − 5.896 | 0.0000 |
Source: authors’ computation
***, **, and * stand for the significance levels at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively
DOLS estimation output
| Var | Coeff | Std. error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnET | − 0.079** | 0.035 | − 2.247 | 0.0267 |
| lnF | − 0.164*** | 0.046 | − 3.570 | 0.0005 |
| lnTI | − 0.031*** | 0.008 | − 3.621 | 0.0005 |
| lnR | − 0.163* | 0.083 | − 1.959 | 0.0528 |
| lnY | 1.810*** | 0.120 | 4.288 | 0.0000 |
| lnY2 | − 0.349*** | 0.079 | − 4.375 | 0.0000 |
| C | − 2.324*** | 0.124 | − 4.179 | 0.0001 |
| 0.819 | Adjusted | 0.809 | ||
Source: authors’ computation
***, **, and * indicate 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 significance levels, respectively
Diagnostic test results
| Tests | Statistics | |
|---|---|---|
| BG-LM test | 1.498 | 0.2288 |
| BPG | 1.675 | 0.0787 |
| RESET | 1.003 | 0.3182 |
| ARCH | 0.355 | 0.6946 |
| Jarque–Bera test | 1.385 | 0.4561 |
Source: authors’ computation
Fig. 1CUSUM test result.
Source: authors’ computation
Fig. 2CUSUMSQ test result.
Source: authors’ computation
Granger causality test
| Null hypothesis: | Prob | |
|---|---|---|
| lnET ≠ > LN CO2 | 2.97007 | 0.0450 |
| LN CO2 ≠ > lnET | 2.52214 | 0.0263 |
| LNF ≠ > LN CO2 | 3.18641 | 0.0069 |
| LN CO2 ≠ > LNF | 1.66240 | 0.1390 |
| LNTI ≠ > LN CO2 | 3.12245 | 0.0255 |
| LN CO2 ≠ > LNTI | 0.80824 | 0.5661 |
| LNR ≠ > LN CO2 | 3.94587 | 0.0464 |
| LN CO2 ≠ > LNR | 3.97905 | 0.0440 |
| LNY ≠ > LN CO2 | 3.53715 | 0.0174 |
| LN CO2 ≠ > LNY | 0.49118 | 0.8135 |
| LNF ≠ > lnET | 3.77904 | 0.0141 |
| lnET ≠ > LNF | 3.91794 | 0.0128 |
| LNTI ≠ > lnET | 0.12299 | 0.9933 |
| lnET ≠ > LNTI | 0.59689 | 0.7321 |
| LNR ≠ > lnET | 0.67499 | 0.6701 |
| lnET ≠ > LNR | 0.75364 | 0.6081 |
| LNY ≠ > lnET | 3.27883 | 0.0152 |
| lnET ≠ > LNY | 3.54511 | 0.0033 |
| LNTI ≠ > LNF | 2.12779 | 0.1615 |
| LNF ≠ > LNTI | 0.63200 | 0.7043 |
| LNR ≠ > LNF | 4.70531 | 0.0003 |
| LNF ≠ > LNR | 3.01698 | 0.0097 |
| LNY ≠ > LNF | 1.08786 | 0.3755 |
| LNF ≠ > LNY | 3.59660 | 0.0173 |
| LNR ≠ > LNTI | 1.36592 | 0.2366 |
| LNTI ≠ > LNR | 0.35455 | 0.9056 |
| LNY ≠ > LNTI | 3.96553 | 0.0453 |
| LNTI ≠ > LNY | 2.36950 | 0.0356 |
| LNY ≠ > LNR | 0.11346 | 0.9946 |
| LNR ≠ > LNY | 1.32765 | 0.2527 |
stands for ‘’does not granger cause’’. Source: authors’ computation