| Literature DB >> 35476268 |
Anne Chinonye Maduka1, Stephen Obinozie Ogwu2, Chukwunonso S Ekesiobi1.
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between economic growth and carbon dioxide and the moderating effect of institutional quality in Nigeria from 1990 to 2020, by employing long-run and short-run dynamic ARDL regression, quartile regression and Granger causality test for the estimation. Utilizing CO2 per capita emissions; GDP per capita, a proxy for economic growth; capital stock (CAPSTK), proxy for capital investment in Nigeria and control of corruption and regulatory quality (COC and RGQ) which represent the effective environmental regulations and laws put in place for the control and prevention of environmental degradation, the study found a significant cointegration between CO2 emissions and economic growth (lnGDP) in Nigeria. Furthermore, an N-shaped nexus exists between CO2 emissions and economic growth in the long-run and short-run instead of the inverted U-shape curve postulated by the EKC hypothesis. This was confirmed by both ARDL and quartile regression results. Similarly, InCAPSTK contributed significantly to the growth of CO2 emissions in Nigeria both in the long run and short run; although, the short run did so at 10% significant level. Contrary to expectations, control of corruption (COC) contributes significantly to CO2 emissions in the long run, but when it interacts with income (InGDP [Formula: see text] COC), it significantly contributes to the reduction of CO2 emissions. More so, regulatory quality (RGQ) had no significant impact on CO2 emissions in Nigeria either in the long run or short run, even when it interacts with InGDP. This finding is further supported by the quartile regression outcomes and Granger causality. The study therefore concludes that CO2 emissions-economic growth nexus in Nigeria assumes an N-shape both in the long run and short run. Based on the results, the study recommends that Government should pursue industrialisation policy with sophisticated method of production that will bring about rapid economic progress and at the same time support environmental sustainability.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon emission; Control of corruption; Economic growth; Environmental sustainability; Quartile regression; Regulatory quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35476268 PMCID: PMC9043093 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20346-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Descriptive statistics
| CO2 | InGDP | InGDP2 | InGDP3 | InCAPSTK | COC | InGDPXCOC | RGQ | InGDPXRGQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 0.666417 | 11.66652 | 138.3421 | 1664.261 | 14.86480 | − 1.176498 | − 13.64478 | − 0.921344 | − 10.64965 |
| Median | 0.654964 | 12.02279 | 144.5474 | 1737.863 | 14.80287 | − 1.172974 | − 13.78646 | − 0.907262 | − 10.12364 |
| Maximum | 0.862605 | 13.52555 | 182.9404 | 2474.369 | 16.78849 | − 0.891883 | − 10.34105 | − 0.659629 | − 8.200535 |
| Minimum | 0.481063 | 8.555482 | 73.19628 | 626.2294 | 14.65394 | − 1.431231 | − 16.75480 | − 1.351967 | − 15.96011 |
| Std. dev | 0.080902 | 1.519469 | 34.26189 | 587.7880 | 0.365866 | 0.123662 | 1.750183 | 0.170664 | 1.958414 |
| Skewness | 0.442992 | − 0.552084 | − 0.392413 | − 0.248299 | 4.893926 | − 0.187057 | 0.166137 | − 0.821965 | − 0.939694 |
| Kurtosis | 3.234609 | 2.126978 | 1.903585 | 1.749386 | 26.34081 | 2.936723 | 2.120890 | 3.362898 | 3.296862 |
| Jarque–Bera | 1.085012 | 2.559251 | 2.348353 | 2.338750 | 827.4360 | 0.185954 | 1.140852 | 3.660845 | 4.676127 |
| Probability | 0.581290 | 0.278141 | 0.309073 | 0.310561 | 0.000000 | 0.911214 | 0.565285 | 0.160346 | 0.096514 |
| Sum | 20.65892 | 361.6622 | 4288.604 | 51,592.08 | 460.8089 | − 36.47144 | − 422.9881 | − 28.56166 | − 330.1393 |
| Sum sq. dev | 0.196353 | 69.26363 | 35,216.30 | 10,364,842 | 4.015727 | 0.458767 | 91.89425 | 0.873789 | 115.0616 |
| Observations | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
Source: Author’s computation
Fig. 1Scattered plot for CO2 per capita and InGDP per capita in Nigeria
Fig. 2Scattered plot for fitted CO2 per capita and InGDP per capita in Nigeria
Stationarity results
| Variable | ADF (constant only) | PP ( constant only) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | First difference | Level | First difference | |
| InGDP | − 2.7722* | − 2.2094 | − 4.7739*** | − 2.7992* |
| InGDP2 | − 2.5840* | − 2.2869 | − 3.5152** | − 3.2612** |
| InGDP3 | − 2.1522 | − 2.4713 | − 2.2719 | − 3.7586*** |
| CO2 | − 1.7713 | − 5.3902*** | − 1.7167 | − 6.7192*** |
| InCAPSTK | − 1.4852 | − 3.6312** | − 1.3394 | − 3.7342*** |
| COC | − 2.3086 | − 6.7221*** | − 2.4164 | − 6.7229*** |
| InGDP | − 2.5078 | − 6.3826*** | − 2.4677 | − 6.3835*** |
| RGQ | − 2.9761** | − 8.6056*** | − 3.0523** | − 8.7327*** |
| InGDP | − 3.1540** | − 8.4439*** | − 3.1849** | − 8.5466*** |
NB: *, ** and *** imply significance at 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance
Source: Author’s computation
ARDL bound test results with intercept and trend
| Test tatistic | 5% critical value | 1% critical value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower bound 1(0) | Upper bound 1(1) | Lower bound 1(0) | Upper bound 1(1) | |
| 5.698420*** | 2.04 | 2.08 | 2.5 | 3.68 |
NB: *** implies significance at both 1%
Source: Author’s computation
Normalised short-run and long-run coefficients. Dependent variable—CO2
| Variable | Panel A | Std. error | Variable | Panel B | Std. error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| − 0.826161*** | 0.200950 | InGDP | 7.937128*** | 2.609109 | |
| 14.03196** | 5.335862 | InGDP2 | − 0.796046*** | 0.243441 | |
| − 1.401982** | 0.495220 | InGDP3 | 0.024729*** | 0.007503 | |
| 0.045612** | 0.015275 | InCAPSTK | 0.780546* | 0.381012 | |
| 0.644857** | 0.290629 | COC | 4.914986** | 1.950065 | |
| 2.133835 | 1.309837 | InGDP | − 0.415104** | 0.159583 | |
| − 0.167859 | 0.108929 | RGQ | − 2.110325 | 1.845243 | |
| − 1.743469 | 1.380528 | InGDP | 0.171004 | 0.153981 | |
| 0.147218 | 0.115427 | − 24.42258** | 10.07780 | ||
| ECM(-1) | − 0.826161*** | 0.078451 | |||
| 0.94 | |||||
| Adjusted | 0.86 | ||||
| 11.949 (0.0000) | |||||
| DW | 2.51 | ||||
| ARCH | 0.0383 (0.8464) | ||||
| LM test | 2.4586 (0.1310) | ||||
| Reset | 0.4777 (0.6415) | ||||
| Normality | .4670 (0.1766) |
***, ** and * imply significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively
Source: Author’s computation
Fig. 3A, B Result of stability test (cusum and cusum-squared)
Results of the quantile regression
| Explanatory variables | 10th | 20th | 30th | 40th | 50th | 60th | 70th | 80th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InGDP | 4.634*** | 4.819*** | 5.133*** | 4.177*** | 3.262*** | 3.702*** | 3.013** | 3.97*** | 3.014*** |
| InGDP2 | − 0.468*** | − 0.477*** | − 0.506*** | − 0.420*** | − 0.332*** | − 0.369*** | − 0.323*** | − 0.394*** | − 0.291*** |
| InGDP3 | 0.014*** | 0.014*** | 0.015*** | 0.012*** | 0.010*** | 0.011*** | 0.009*** | 0.012*** | 0.009*** |
| InCAPSTK | − 0.013 | − 0.019 | − 0.019 | − 0.015 | − 0.005 | − 0.019 | − 0.018 | − 0.020 | − 0.040 |
| COC | 3.458** | 3.742** | 4.161*** | 4.259*** | 4.747*** | 4.314*** | 4.590*** | 2.569* | − 2.150 |
| InGDP | − 0.301** | − 0.310** | − 0.342*** | − 0.347*** | − 0.382*** | − 0.344*** | − 0.374*** | − 0.215* | 0.154 |
| RGQ | − 1.465 | − 1.220 | − 1.507 | − 1.878 | − 2.238* | − 2.369* | − 0.265 | 0.664 | 3.522** |
| InGDP | 0.106 | 0.092 | 0.115 | 0.146 | 0.175* | 0.184* | 0.013 | − 0.055 | − 0.279** |
| Constant | − 13.101** | − 13.531** | − 14.544*** | − 11.130*** | − 8.003** | − 9.757** | − 5.723 | − 10.393** | − 8.513* |
(***), (**) and (*) indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively
Source: Author’s computation
Pairwise Granger causality test at lag 1
| S/N | Null hypothesis: | Prob | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | InGDP | 8.45443 | 0.0072 | Rejected |
| CO2
| 0.01644 | 0.8989 | Accepted | |
| 2 | InGDP2
| 7.11578 | 0.0128 | Rejected |
| CO2
| 0.02224 | 0.8826 | Accepted | |
| 3 | InGDP3
| 5.93765 | 0.0217 | Rejected |
| CO2
| 0.22929 | 0.6359 | Accepted | |
| 4 | COC | 2.24957 | 0.1453 | Accepted |
| CO2
| 0.21584 | 0.6460 | Accepted | |
| 5 | InCAPSTK | 9.13377 | 0.0054 | Rejected |
| CO2
| 9.40819 | 0.0049 | Rejected | |
| 6 | InGDPXCOC | 0.43582 | 0.5147 | Accepted |
| CO2
| 1.71710 | 0.2011 | Rejected | |
| 7 | InGDPXRGQ | 0.25811 | 0.6155 | Accepted |
| CO2
| 0.03640 | 0.8501 | Accepted | |
| 8 | RGQ | 0.51339 | 0.4798 | Accepted |
| CO2
| 1.45139 | 0.2388 | Accepted |
Rejecting the null hypothesis indicates that one variable actually Granger causes the other, whereas accepting the null hypothesis confirms that there is no causation between variables at either 1%, 5% or 10% level of significance. This is used to indicate the direction of causality