| Literature DB >> 35425739 |
Shaojie Huang1, Tiansong Zhou2, Chengying Xu2, Jiahui Zheng2.
Abstract
In the last few decades, the world has faced some natural issues, due to which economic growth faces a severe threat. Natural disasters like pandemic outbreaks and man-made disasters like pollution emissions are very frequent in the current times, which also influenced the economic growth, where the institutes could play a primary role in economic growth stimulation. This study aims to analyze the association of public health expenditures, institutional quality, renewable energy, and economic performance in China. This study uses quarterly data covering the period from 1996Q1 to 2020Q4 and employs various time-series estimating approaches. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller estimates asserted that all the variables are stationary at first difference. Also, the Bayer-Hanck combined cointegration validates that all the variables are cointegrated. Employing the three long-run estimators, i.e., Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square, Dynamic Ordinary Least Square, and canonical cointegrating regression, the results asserted public health expenditures and institutional quality (including government efficiency and political stability) significantly enhances economic performance in China. Whereas two indicators of corruption control and regulatory quality do not play any significant role in promoting the economic performance of China. On the contrary, renewable energy is found negatively associated with economic performance. Also, the Pair-wise Granger causality validates mixed causal associations between the study variables. As a developing and fossil energy-dependent economy, this study provides relevant policy implications for maintaining economic growth and rebalancing economic performance in China.Entities:
Keywords: China; economic performance; institutional quality; public health expenditure; renewable energy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35425739 PMCID: PMC9001902 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.864736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Literature summary table.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Bhargava et al. ( | Depicted that life expectancy as a health indicator has significant effects on low-income economies |
| Bloom and Canning ( | Health affects the workers' productivity leads toward the growth |
| Lustig ( | Health affects labor productivity and production |
| Wilkie and Young ( | Gross domestic product has a substantial impact on health outcomes |
| Strittmatter and Sunde ( | Public health care facilities have a significant impact on health dynamics and aggregate national income |
| Chiu ( | Economic growth in the country has a considerable influence on the health of the public |
| Khan ( | Increasing renewable green energies reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions |
| Miśkiewicz ( | Pollution can be controlled by the role of government and renewable energy consumption |
| Sahlian et al. ( | An efficient form of government enhances economic growth and improves market efficiency |
| Wu et al. ( | Consistent with the literature that healthcare's positive and negative effects repeatedly occur due to growth variability in the countries |
| Shahzad et al. ( | Government helps in attaining economic and environmental stability |
| Qin et al. ( | Green energies play a significant role in mitigating environmental pollution i.e., carbon and GHG emissions |
| Niu et al. ( | Economic growth has a significant impact on the public's health |
| Hussain et al. ( | Green technology and energy have a substantial effect on green growth. High GDP economies manage their economic activities to upsurge green growth for environmental protection |
Variables specification and data source.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| GDP | The monetary value of all complete services and goods, measured in constant US$ 2015. |
|
| HE | Domestic healthcare spending as a proportion of the economy (as measured by GDP, i.e., % of GDP). |
|
| REC | The percentage of renewable energy in total final energy use and measured as % of total final energy consumption. |
|
| GEF | Measures perceptions of public services quality, the civil service's independence from political constraints, the policy development and execution quality, and the reliability of the government's commitment to such policies, measured as a percentile. |
|
| RQ | Measures public perceptions of the government's capacity to establish and enforce effective rules and regulations that allow and support the development of the private sector, measured as a percentile. |
|
| CRC | Measures public perceptions of the amount to which public authority is used for personal benefit, encompassing both grand and petty corruption and “capture” of the state by elites and private interests, measured as a percentile. |
|
| PSV | Perceptions of the possibility of political instability and/or politically motivated violence, including terrorism, are measured as a percentile. |
|
Descriptive statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 7.26E + 12 | 1.942360 | 18.27155 | 42.55504 | 59.12864 | 31.99202 | 44.20462 |
| Median | 6.46E + 12 | 1.879487 | 14.00580 | 44.78902 | 58.03561 | 30.46017 | 44.27178 |
| Maximum | 1.49E + 13 | 3.018888 | 30.53718 | 53.40818 | 73.23947 | 44.14894 | 50.97087 |
| Minimum | 2.01E + 12 | 0.967205 | 11.33820 | 33.17073 | 43.16940 | 25.59242 | 34.18367 |
| Std. Dev. | 4.17E + 12 | 0.802624 | 7.232003 | 5.861273 | 7.281592 | 4.543164 | 4.396306 |
| Skewness | 0.399982 | 0.099237 | 0.737315 | −0.125500 | 0.332895 | 0.490237 | −0.492710 |
| Kurtosis | 1.791468 | 1.306116 | 1.809698 | 1.642881 | 2.382994 | 2.054428 | 2.549348 |
| Sum | 7.26E + 14 | 194.2360 | 1827.155 | 4255.504 | 5912.864 | 3199.202 | 4420.462 |
| Observations | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Unit root testing.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| GDP | −1.6006 | −1.8869* |
| HE | 1.2283 | −2.2454** |
| REC | −1.5568 | −4.6369*** |
| CRC | 0.1912 | −1.9884** |
| GEF | 1.7563 | −2.3901** |
| PSV | −0.0092 | −4.1098*** |
| RQ | 0.2917 | −4.5308*** |
Significance is indicated by 10, 5, and 1% through .
Bayer-Hanck cointegration analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| −1.8174 | 78.8175*** | −0.7939 | 104.6554*** |
| EG-J | EG-J-Ba-Bo | ||
| 55.3393*** | 110.6928*** | ||
Significance is indicated by 10, 5, and 1% through .
Empirical results of model-1.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| HE | 0.339*** | 0.314*** | 0.339*** |
| REC | −0.029*** | −0.032*** | −0.029*** |
| GEF | 0.027*** | 0.027*** | 0.027*** |
| RQ | 0.0094 | 0.0001 | 0.0010 |
|
| 27.693*** | 27.797*** | 27.684*** |
Significance is indicated by 10, 5, and 1% through .
Empirical results of model-2.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| HE | 0.521*** | 0.513*** | 0.522*** |
| REC | −0.037*** | −0.036*** | −0.037*** |
| CRC | −0.0025 | −0.0018 | −0.0022 |
| PSV | 0.018*** | 0.014*** | 0.018*** |
|
| 28.619*** | 28.717*** | 28.623*** |
Significance is indicated by 10, 5, and 1% through .
Pairwise granger causality tests.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| HE ⇏ GDP | 35.8618*** | 4.E-08 |
| GDP ⇏ HE | 15.0445*** | 0.0002 |
| REC ⇏ GDP | 195.256*** | 7.E-25 |
| GDP ⇏ REC | 29.1418*** | 5.E-07 |
| GEF ⇏ GDP | 22.6830*** | 7.E-06 |
| GDP ⇏ GEF | 1.26342 | 0.2638 |
| RQ ⇏ GDP | 26.2672*** | 2.E-06 |
| GDP ⇏ RQ | 3.38463* | 0.0689 |
| CRC ⇏ GDP | 160.922*** | 3.E-22 |
| GDP ⇏ CRC | 7.88824*** | 0.0060 |
| PSV ⇏ GDP | 76.6741*** | 7.E-14 |
| GDP ⇏ PSV | 9.74871*** | 0.0024 |
Significance is indicated by 10, 5, and 1% through .