| Literature DB >> 35978423 |
Mohammad Mafizur Rahman1, Khosrul Alam2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 has alerted governments around the world, including Australia, to think seriously about the health issues. Life expectancy is one of such issues. Therefore, this study tries to reveal the effects of globalization, energy consumption, information and communication technology, financial development, education rate, and economic growth on life expectancy at birth in Australia.Entities:
Keywords: Australia; Globalization; ICT; Life expectancy at birth; Renewable and non-renewable energy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978423 PMCID: PMC9382624 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13911-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Trend of the studied variables in Australia
| Description | LEX | GLOB | RE | NRE | ICT | GDPC | EDU | FD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth (total years) | KOF Globalization Index | Renewable energy consumption in Exajoules | Sum of oil, gas, and coal consumption in Exajoules | Individuals using the Internet (% of population) | GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) | School enrollment, primary (% gross) | Stocks traded, total value (% of GDP) | |
| 1990 | 76.995 | 66.455 | 0.008 | 3.553 | 0.585 | 35,911.372 | 106.372 | 12.931 |
| 1994 | 77.878 | 72.211 | 0.007 | 3.800 | 2.232 | 37,133.041 | 105.830 | 30.908 |
| 1998 | 78.632 | 74.777 | 0.011 | 4.306 | 30.813 | 41,555.945 | 100.929 | 38.991 |
| 2002 | 79.937 | 77.580 | 0.021 | 4.640 | 55.267 | 45,806.719 | 101.549 | 73.723 |
| 2006 | 81.041 | 79.414 | 0.063 | 5.069 | 66.000 | 49,443.232 | 103.304 | 115.132 |
| 2010 | 81.695 | 81.044 | 0.087 | 5.113 | 76.000 | 52,022.126 | 105.619 | 98.709 |
| 2014 | 82.300 | 80.660 | 0.180 | 5.227 | 84.000 | 54,679.416 | 105.457 | 47.938 |
| 2018 | 82.749 | 81.509 | 0.294 | 5.248 | 88.000 | 56,832.050 | 100.161 | 54.019 |
Sources: WDI [5], KOF Globalization Index [6], and BP Statistical Review [7]
Descriptive statistics
| Description | LNLEX | LNGLOB | LNRE | LNNRE | LNICT | LNGDPC | LNEDU | LNFD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 4.384 | 4.344 | -3.320 | 1.529 | 3.264 | 10.739 | 4.637 | 3.932 |
| Median | 4.388 | 4.363 | -3.275 | 1.579 | 4.101 | 10.777 | 4.632 | 4.017 |
| Maximum | 4.416 | 4.402 | -1.224 | 1.675 | 4.477 | 10.948 | 4.667 | 5.081 |
| Minimum | 4.344 | 4.197 | -4.988 | 1.257 | -0.536 | 10.464 | 4.607 | 2.560 |
| Std. Dev | 0.024 | 0.059 | 1.315 | 0.140 | 1.623 | 0.161 | 0.023 | 0.644 |
| Skewness | -0.265 | -1.018 | 0.115 | -0.735 | -1.176 | -0.411 | 0.039 | -0.699 |
| Kurtosis | 1.608 | 2.940 | 1.487 | 2.162 | 2.720 | 1.768 | 1.235 | 2.919 |
| Jarque–Bera | 2.680 | 5.016 | 2.832 | 3.461 | 6.775 | 2.648 | 3.770 | 2.371 |
| Probability | 0.262 | 0.081 | 0.243 | 0.177 | 0.034 | 0.266 | 0.152 | 0.306 |
| Sum | 127.136 | 125.971 | -96.289 | 44.330 | 94.644 | 311.443 | 134.486 | 114.030 |
| Sum Sq. Dev | 0.016 | 0.096 | 48.403 | 0.550 | 73.726 | 0.723 | 0.014 | 11.620 |
| Observations | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 |
The results of unit root test
| Variables | DF-GLS (ERS) | Order of integration (I) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level | 1st Diff | ||
| LNLEX | -1.951a | -2.889c | I(1) |
| LNGLOB | -0.773 | -2.931c | I(1) |
| LNRE | -0.063 | -2.573b | I(1) |
| LNNRE | -1.071 | -2.924c | I(1) |
| LNICT | -0.619 | -3.056c | I(1) |
| LNGDPC | -0.103 | -3.942c | I(1) |
| LNEDU | -1.422 | -4.492c | I(1) |
| LNFD | -1.261 | -5.264c | I(1) |
(a, b and c stipulate statistical significance, respectively, at 10%, 5% and 1% levels; H0: The variable has a unit root, and H1: Rejects H0)
The results of ARDL Bounds test
| Calculated values | F-statistic: 5.715 | t-statistic: -8.189 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical values | 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% |
| Lower bound I(0) | 2.96 | 2.32 | 2.03 | -3.43 | -2.86 | -5.19 |
| Upper bound I(1) | 4.26 | 3.50 | 3.13 | -5.19 | -4.57 | -4.23 |
The results of long-run coefficients
| Variables | Coefficients | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNGLOB | 0.108c | 0.033 | 3.278 | 0.005 |
| LNRE | 0.011c | 0.002 | 6.814 | 0.000 |
| LNNRE | -0.092c | 0.021 | -4.303 | 0.001 |
| LNICT | 0.003c | 0.001 | 3.819 | 0.002 |
| LNGDPC | 0.050a | 0.026 | 1.914 | 0.075 |
| LNEDU | 0.054c | 0.011 | 4.788 | 0.000 |
| LNFD | 0.005b | 0.002 | 2.839 | 0.013 |
(a, b and c represent the level of statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively)
The results of short-run coefficients (from the ECM)
| Variables | Coefficients | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 3.203c | 0.391 | 8.195 | 0.000 |
| D(LNGLOB) | -0.058b | 0.026 | -2.235 | 0.041 |
| D(LNRE) | 0.003a | 0.002 | 1.946 | 0.071 |
| D(LNEDU) | -0.002 | 0.014 | -0.170 | 0.868 |
| D(LNFD) | 0.007c | 0.001 | 6.735 | 0.000 |
| CointEq(-1)a | -0.978c | 0.119 | -8.189 | 0.000 |
| R-squared: 0.824 | Adjusted R-squared: 0.784 | |||
| F-statistic: 20.546c | Durbin-Watson statistic: 2.150 | |||
(a, b and c represent the level of statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively)
The results of diagnostic test
| Test | Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test | Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey Heteroskedasticity test | Jarque–Bera test |
|---|---|---|---|
| LM-version | 0.371 [0.542] | 7.087 [0.852] | 2.272 [0.321] |
| F-version | F(1, 14): 0.188 [0.671] | F(11, 16): 0.424 [0.930] | Not Applicable |
Parenthesis “[.]” designates the probability values
Fig. 1Plot of CUSUM test
Fig. 2Plot of CUSUM of squares test
The results of FMOLS
| Variables | Coefficients | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNGLOB | 0.124c | 0.022 | 5.740 | 0.000 |
| LNRE | 0.010c | 0.001 | 9.393 | 0.000 |
| LNNRE | -0.051c | 0.010 | -5.304 | 0.000 |
| LNICT | 0.002c | 0.001 | 3.860 | 0.001 |
| LNGDPC | 0.049c | 0.017 | 2.860 | 0.010 |
| LNEDU | 0.048c | 0.007 | 7.372 | 0.000 |
| LNFD | 0.001b | 0.001 | 2.234 | 0.037 |
| C | 3.190c | 0.149 | 21.423 | 0.000 |
| R-squared: 0.998 | Adjusted R-squared: 0.997 | |||
(a, b and c represent the level of statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively)
The results of Granger causality test
| Null Hypothesis: | F-Statistic | Prob | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| LNGLOB does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 3.483a | 0.074 | Unidirectional causality from GLOB to LEX |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNGLOB | 0.922 | 0.346 | |
| LNRE does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 1.245 | 0.275 | Unidirectional causality from LEX to RE |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNRE | 19.482c | 0.0002 | |
| LNNRE does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 6.239b | 0.0194 | Unidirectional causality from NRE to LEX |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNNRE | 0.163 | 0.6894 | |
| LNICT does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 6.383b | 0.018 | Unidirectional causality from ICT to LEX |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNICT | 0.499 | 0.487 | |
| LNGDPC does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 1.578 | 0.221 | Unidirectional causality from LEX to GDPC |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNGDPC | 5.275b | 0.030 | |
| LNEDU does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 4.901b | 0.036 | Unidirectional causality from EDU to LEX |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNEDU | 0.052 | 0.822 | |
| LNFD does not Granger Cause LNLEX | 1.410 | 0.246 | No causality |
| LNLEX does not Granger Cause LNFD | 0.164 | 0.689 |
(a, b and c represent the level of statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively)