| Literature DB >> 36205860 |
Abstract
This study draws ardent attention to the Sustainable Development Goal 13 (climate change mitigation) of the United Nations by investigating the CO2 emissions-energy consumption-militarisation-economic growth nexus for South Africa (SA) from 1960 to 2019. The researcher applied frequency domain causality and the novel dynamic autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) simulation approaches to achieve the research objective. The main findings reflected that (i) there is a long-run equilibrium relationship between the variables; (ii) there is no causality between militarisation and energy consumption; (iii) unidirectional causality runs from militarisation to economic growth; (iv) there is no causality between militarisation and CO2 emissions; and (v) unidirectional causality runs from energy consumption to economic growth. The dynamic ARDL simulations' main results suggest that (i) in the short-run, a positive and insignificant relationship exist between militarisation and CO2 emissions. Conversely, a negative and significant relationship was recorded in the long-run. Thus, the treadmill theory of destruction is not valid for SA. (ii) In the short-run, economic growth has a positive and significant impact on CO2 emissions, while in the long-run, economic growth has a negative and significant impact on CO2 emissions. This implies the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis holds for SA. Overall, this research suggests a synergy between defence, energy, growth, and environmental policies in the short- and long-run to promote and maintain environmental quality in SA.Entities:
Keywords: ARDL simulations; CO2 emissions; Energy consumption; Growth; Militarisation
Year: 2022 PMID: 36205860 PMCID: PMC9540089 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23069-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Represents the average military expenditure of selected African countries spanning 1990–2015, (This is meant to just provide a brief visual inspection of military spending of some African countries when compared to South Africa). Source: author’s computations using SIPRI data
Fig. 2Average trends in CO2 emissions (CO2), military expenditure (MILEXY), energy consumption (ECOM), and economic growth (proxied by real GDP) for South Africa. Source: author’s computations using SIPRI and World Development Indicator’s (WDI) data
Summary of some of the existing literatures
| Author(s) | Countries | Time period | Estimation approach | Variable | Result/conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Narayan et al. ( | Global Evidence | 1980–2006 | Panel Granger causality | ELEC, GDP | ELEC→GDP |
| Shahbaz et al. ( | Pakistan | 1972–2011 | ARDL, VECM | ELEC, GDP | ELEC ↔ GDP |
| Dagher and Yacoubian ( | Lebanon | 1983–2014 | Toda-Yamamoto | ELEC, GDP | ELEC↔ GDP |
| Tang & Shahbaz ( | Pakistan | 1972–2010 | Granger Causality | ELEC, GDP | ELEC ← GDP |
| Javid and Qayyum ( | Pakistan | 1972–2012 | UEDT | ELEC, ELEP GDP | ELEC→ GDP and ELEC↔ELEP |
| Kasperowicz ( | Poland | 2000–2012 | Granger causality | ELEC, GDP | ELEC↔GDP |
| Bayar and Özel ( | Turkey | 1970–2011 | Granger causality | ELEC, GDP | ELEC↔GDP |
| Zaman et al. ( | Pakistan | 1972–2012 | Granger causality | ELEC, ELEP GDP | ELEC→ GDP and ELEC↔ELEP |
| Bekhet et al. ( | Malaysia | 2005–2010 | Multiplier approach | ELEC, GDP | ELEC→GDP |
| Lu ( | Taiwan | 1998–2014 | Granger causality | ELEC, GDP | ELEC↔GDP |
| Abokyi et al. ( | Ghana | 1971–2014 | ARDL, ECM | ELEC, INDG | ELEC→INDG |
| Ben-Salha et al. ( | US | 2005–2015 | Wavelet | ELEC, GDP | ELEC→GDP |
| Das and McFarlane ( | Jamaica | 1971–2014 | ARDL, VECM, Granger | EPL, EPC, GDP | EPL→ GDP and EPL← EPC |
| Varma ( | India | Dynamic modelling | EDE, ESU | EDE↔ ESU | |
| Adedoyin and Zakari ( | UK | 1985–2017 | ARDL | CO2, GDP, EUS, EPUN | CO2→GDP, CO2↔EUS, EPUN |
| Alsaedi and Tularam ( | Saudi Arabia | 1990–2015 | VAR | ELEC, PLO, GDP | ELEC→ GDP and ELEC ←PLO, |
| Abbasi et al. ( | Pakistan | 1970–2018 | VECM | ELEC, ELEP, GDP, UPG, OEC | ELEC→ ELEP, GDP→ ELEC, ELEP ↔ELEC |
| Abbasi et al. ( | Pakistan | 1970–2018 | VECM | ELEC, ELEP, GDP | ELEC↔ELEP, ELEC→ GDP |
| Abbasi et al. ( | Pakistan | 1970–2018 | NARDL | RENG, NRENG, EGRT, terrorism | RENG→ EGRT, NRENG↔EGRT, terrorism→ EGRT |
→, ←, ↔, and ≠ denote long-run, short-run, both and no relationship, respectively. ELEC, EDE, ESU, ELEP, GDP, EPUN, INDG, EPL, EPC, CO2, EUS, PLO, OEC, UPG, RENG, NRENG, EGRT, VAR, VECM, ECM, and ARDL represent electricity consumption, energy demand, energy supply, electricity prices, gross domestic product, economic policy uncertainty, industrial growth, electric power losses, electric power consumption, CO2 emissions, energy use, peak load, other electricity consumption, urbanisation population growth, renewable energy consumption, non-renewable energy, economic growth, vector auto-regression, vector error correction method, error correction model, and autoregressive distributive lagged, respectively
Definition of variables and data sources
| Variable | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| LRGDP | Log of GDP (constant 2010 US$) serves as a proxy for economic growth | WDI database |
| LCO2 | Log of CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | WDI database |
| LECOM | Log of energy consumption/use (kg of oil equivalent per capita) | WDI database |
| LMILEXY | Log of military expenditure as a percentage share of GDP serves as a proxy for militarisation | SIPRI database |
| LTRD | Log of trade (% of GDP) serves as a proxy for trade openness | WDI database |
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database; and World Bank Development Indicators (WDI) database
Lag length criteria results
| Lag | LogL | LR | FPE | AIC | SC | HQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 176.551 | NA | 1.34e-09 | −6.238 | −6.056 | −6.168 |
| 1 | 478.001 | 537.129* | 5.81e-14* | −16.291* | −15.196* | −15.868* |
| 2 | 500.840 | 36.543 | 6.44e-14 | −16.212 | −14.205 | −15.436 |
| 3 | 519.105 | 25.903 | 8.72e-14 | −15.967 | −13.048 | −14.838 |
| 4 | 537.308 | 22.505 | 1.26e-13 | −15.720 | −11.888 | −14.238 |
| 5 | 564.793 | 28.984 | 1.41e-13 | −15.811 | −11.066 | −13.976 |
Note: *Indicates lag order selected by the criterion; LR, sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level); FPE, final prediction error; AIC, Akaike information criterion; SC, Schwarz Bayesian information criterion; HQ, Hannan-Quinn information criterion. Source: authors’ computations
Diagnostic statistics tests
| Diagnostic statistics tests | Model 1: | Model 2: | Model 3: | Model 4: | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 ( | X2 ( | X2 ( | X2 ( | ||
| Durbin-Watson | 1.577 | 1.824 | 1.859 | 1.679 | No first-order serial serial correlation for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
| Breusch Godfrey LM test | 2.207 (0.137) | 0.126 (0.722) | 0.306 (0.580) | 1.859 (0.173) | No serial correlation for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
| Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test | 0.03 (0.858) | 5.05 (0.125) | 0.78 (0.378) | 5.38 (0.203) | No problem of heteroscedasticity for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
| ARCH test | 4.553 (0.133) | 0.008 (0.928) | 3.391 (0.066) | 10.147 (0.0014) | No problem of heteroscedasticity for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
| Ramsey RESET test | 1.42 (0.248) | 1.17 (0.332) | 3.57 (0.120) | 0.13 (0.943) | Model has no omitted variables for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
| Jarque–Bera test | 3.168 (0.205) | 1.681 (0.432) | 0.509 (0.775) | 3.234 (0.199) | Estimated residual are normal for model 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
Source: authors’ computations
Dynamic ARDL simulations results
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | ∆LRGDP | ∆LCO2 | ∆LECOM | ∆LMILEXY |
| (Model 1) | (Model 2) | (Model 3) | (Model 4) | |
| LRGDP | −0.054** | −0.145* | 0.080* | −0.256* |
| (0.023) | (0.078) | (0.047) | (0.150) | |
| ∆LRGDP | 5.429*** | 0.642** | −1.188 | |
| (0.369) | (0.262) | (0.881) | ||
| ∆LCO2 | −0.000* | 0.218*** | 0.348 | |
| (0.043) | (0.079) | (0.268) | ||
| LCO2 | 0.001 | −0.271*** | 0.070 | 0.434** |
| (0.029) | (0.086) | (0.055) | (0.170) | |
| ∆LMILEXY | −0.030 | 0.095 | −0.037 | |
| (0.022) | (0.074) | (0.044) | ||
| ∆LECOM | 0.170** | 0.624*** | −0.388 | |
| (0.069) | (0.224) | (0.458) | ||
| ∆LTRD | 0.153*** | 0.258** | −0.123 | 0.143 |
| (0.032) | (0.122) | (0.074) | (0.243) | |
| LMILEXY | −0.021** | −0.017* | 0.024 | −0.167*** |
| (0.010) | (0.033) | (0.019) | (0.058) | |
| LECOM | 0.037 | 0.370*** | −0.224*** | −0.150 |
| (0.042) | (0.128) | (0.076) | (0.264) | |
| LTRD | 0.045 | 0.231*** | −0.032 | 0.130 |
| (0.027) | (0.084) | (0.053) | (0.171) | |
| Constant | 0.894*** | 0.489 | −0.277 | 5.854*** |
| (0.285) | (1.023) | (0.605) | (1.771) | |
| Observations | 59 | 59 | 59 | 59 |
| R-squared | 0.622 | 0.404 | 0.569 | 0.504 |
| Adj R-squared | 0.552 | 0.295 | 0.490 | 0.413 |
| Root MSE | 0.016 | 0.052 | 0.031 | .0985 |
| 8.95*** | 3.69*** | 7.18*** | 5.53*** | |
| (0.000) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Simulations | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 |
Note: Standard errors in parentheses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Source: authors’ computations
Fig. 4a and b Model 1: change (±1%) in predicted CO2 emissions on real GDP. c and d Model 1: change (±1%) in predicted militarisation on real GDP. e and f Model 1: change (±1%) in predicted change in predicted energy consumption on real GDP. Note: dots represent average predicted value while dark blue to light blue lines stands for 75, 90, and 95% confidence interval
Fig. 5a and b Model 2: change (±1%) in predicted real GDP on CO2 emissions. c and d Model 2: change (±1%) in predicted militarisation on CO2 emissions. e and f Model 2: change (±1%) in predicted change in predicted energy consumption on CO2 emissions. Note: dots represent average predicted value while dark blue to light blue lines stands for 75, 90, and 95% confidence interval
Fig. 6a and b Model 3: change (±1%) in predicted CO2 emissions on energy consumption. c and d Model 3: change (±1%) in predicted real GDP on energy consumption. e and f Model 3: change (±1%) in predicted change in predicted militarisation on energy consumption. Note: dots represent average predicted value while dark blue to light blue lines stands for 75, 90, and 95% confidence interval
Fig. 7a and b Model 4: change (±1%) in predicted CO2 emissions on militarisation. c and d Model 4: change (±1%) in predicted real GDP on militarisation. e and f Model 4: change (±1%) in predicted change in predicted energy consumption on militarisation. Note: dots represent average predicted value while dark blue to light blue lines stands for 75, 90, and 95% confidence interval
Descriptive statistics results
| Mean | Median | Max | Min | Std. Dev. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque-Bera | Probability | Observation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LMILEXY | −3.858 | −3.749 | −2.944 | −4.655 | 0.518 | 0.004 | 1.594 | 4.945 | 0.084 | 60 |
| LECOM | 7.726 | 7.813 | 7.990 | 6.910 | 0.245 | −1.768 | 5.510 | 47.017 | 0.000 | 60 |
| LCO2 | 2.006 | 2.010 | 2.295 | 1.745 | 0.148 | 0.294 | 2.297 | 2.100 | 0.350 | 60 |
| LRGDP | 26.099 | 26.110 | 26.809 | 25.094 | 0.464 | −0.299 | 2.338 | 1.991 | 0.370 | 60 |
| LTRD | 3.949 | 3.946 | 4.289 | 3.624 | 0.138 | −0.191 | 2.906 | 0.385 | 0.825 | 60 |
Unit root test results
| Variable | DF-GLS | PP | ADF | KPSS | ERS |
| Level | |||||
| LMILEXY | −1.006 | −1.434 | −0.884 | 0.570 | 15.729 |
| LECOM | −0.005 | −5.781 | −5.912 | 0.718 | 329.259*** |
| LCO2 | −0.999 | −2.206 | −1.999 | 0.209 | 15.407*** |
| LRGDP | 0.739 | −2.919 | −2.395 | 0.945 | 760.965*** |
| LTRD | −1.986 | −1.954 | −1.982 | 0.324 | 3.434 |
| First difference | |||||
| −1.321** | −5.461*** | −5.484*** | 0.463** | 9.542*** | |
| −2.414*** | −5.416*** | −5.437*** | 0.625** | 2.362** | |
| −5.987*** | −6.149*** | −6.135*** | 0.096* | 1.193* | |
| −4.269*** | −4.334*** | −4.323** | 0.439** | 1.196* | |
| −5.938*** | −7.308*** | −7.020*** | 0.127* | 1.223* | |
| Lee and Strazicich ( | |||||
| Level | First difference | ||||
| Level | test-statistic | Break dates | test-statistic | Break dates | |
| LMILEXY | −3.755 | 1981, 1994 | −6.236** | 1970, 1994 | |
| LECOM | −4.263 | 1966, 1991 | −8.120*** | 1968, 2002 | |
| LCO2 | −4.368 | 1988, 1996 | −6.737** | 1979, 1986 | |
| LRGDP | −3.724 | 1984, 2003 | −6.500* | 1982, 1993 | |
| LTRD | −4.575 | 1973, 1993 | −7.259*** | 1971, 1990 | |
| Critical values for level | LMILEXY = 1 | LECOM = 2 | LCO2 = 3 | LRGDP =4 | LTRD= 5 |
| 1% | −6.978 | −6.932 | −7.014 | −6.978 | −6.932 |
| 5% | −6.288 | −6.175 | −6.446 | −6.288 | −6.175 |
| 10% | −5.998 | −5.825 | −6.072 | −5.998 | −5.825 |
| Critical values for first difference | |||||
| 1% | −6.932 | −6.691 | −6.963 | −6.863 | −6.932 |
| 5% | −6.175 | −6.152 | −6.201 | −6.268 | −6.175 |
| 10% | −5.825 | −5.798 | −5.890 | −5.956 | −5.825 |
Note: *, **, and *** denote statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. MacKinnon’s (1996) one-sided p-values. Lag length based on SIC and AIC. Probability-based on Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin (1992). Dickey-Fuller GLS-(DF-GLS); Phillips-Perron (PP); augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF); Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt (KPSS); Elliott-Rothenberg-Stock (ERS) Shin. Source: authors’ computations
ARDL bounds test results
| Kripfganz and Schneider (2018) critical values and approximate p-values | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models | Statistics | 10% | 5% | 1% | ||||||
| No level relationship | Relationship exists | |||||||||
| I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) | |||
| LRGDP = f(LMILEXY, LECOM, LCO2, LTRD) | F-value | 11.255 | 2.584 | 3.709 | 3.083 | 4.319 | 4.220 | 5.683 | 0.000*** | 0.000*** |
| LCO2 = f(LMILEXY, LECOM, LRGDP, LTRD) | F-value | 5.662 | 2.584 | 3.709 | 3.083 | 4.319 | 4.220 | 5.683 | 0.001*** | 0.010*** |
| LECOM = f(LMILEXY, LRGDP, LCO2, LTRD) | F-value | 8.666 | 2.584 | 3.709 | 3.083 | 4.319 | 4.220 | 5.683 | 0.000*** | 0.000*** |
| LMILEXY = f(LECOM, LRGDP, LCO2, LTRD) | F-value | 9.564 | 2.584 | 3.709 | 3.083 | 4.319 | 4.220 | 5.683 | 0.000*** | 0.000*** |
Note: The null hypothesis of no cointegration is rejected when the F-statistic is above the 10%, 5%, and 1% upper bound critical values, corroborated by the p-value. *, **, and ***respectively represent statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels. Source: authors’ computations
Fig. 3a Recursive CUSUM plot for model 1; b recursive CUSUM plot for model 2; c recursive CUSUM plot for model 3; d recursive CUSUM plot for model 4
Fig. 11Spectral causality between energy consumption and economic growth
Fig. 8Spectral causality between militarisation and CO2 emissions
Fig. 9Spectral causality between militarisation and economic growth
Fig. 10Spectral causality between militarisation and energy consumption
Fig. 12Spectral causality between CO2 emissions and economic growth
Fig. 13Spectral causality between CO2 emissions and energy consumption
Fig. 14Frequency domain causality analysis