Do export quality, urbanization and fertility rate affect the ecological footprint? Case study: A panel of developing countries

Journal title ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Author/s Fariba Osmani, Masuod Homayounifar, Mohammad Javad Gorjipour
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/1 Language English
Pages 17 P. 51-67 File size 243 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2022-001004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page .

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of export quality and fertility rate on ecological footprint in a panel of developing countries. For this purpose, panel quantile regression in the period 1990-2014 has been used. Also in this study, the variables of trade openness, urbanization, and GDP per capita were considered as observer variables. Experi- mental results show that the quality of exports and Fertility rate at all levels of the quantile improve the quality of the environment. Open trade and urbanization help to improve the quality of the environment. GDP per capita further degrades the environment. Therefore, policymakers should take into account these factors affecting the ecological footprint and adopt appropriate policies.

Keywords: export quality, fertility rate, ecological footprint, panel quantile regression.

Jel codes: Q56, Q57, F18

  1. Ahmed K., Shahbaz M. & Kyophilavong P. (2016). Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: evidence from the newly industrializing countries. Environmental Science and Pol- lution Research, 23(8): 7676-7691. DOI: 7610.1007/s11356-11015-16018-x.
  2. Albulescu C., Tiwari A.K., Yoon S.M. & Kang S.H. (2019). FDI, income, and environmental pollution in Latin America: Replication and extension using panel quantiles regression analysis. Energy Econ, 84, 104504.
  3. Ali S., Yusop Z., Kaliappan S.R. & Chin L. (2020). Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: evidence from OIC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
  4. Al-Mulali U. & Ozturk I. (2016). The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypoth- esis in the advanced economies: the role of energy prices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54: 1622-1631.
  5. Al-Mulali U., Solarin SA., Sheau-Ting L. & Ozturk I. (2016). Does moving towards renewa- ble energy cause water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 93: 303-314.
  6. Alola A.A., Bekun F.V. & Sarkodie S.A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci. Total Environ, 685: 702-709.
  7. Aşıcı A.A. & Acar S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators, 61: 707-714.
  8. Baek J., Cho Y. & Koo W.W. (2009). The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(8-9): 2255-2264.
  9. Belsley D.A., Kuh E. & Welsch R.E. (2005). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons, 571. DOI: 10.1002/0471725153
  10. Boserup E. (1981). Population and Technological Change: A Study of long- Term Trends.
  11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  12. Breusch T.S. & Pagan A.R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1): 239-253. DOI: 10.2307/2297111
  13. Buhari D.O., Lorente D.B. & Ali-Nasir M. (2020). European commitment to COP21 and the role of energy consumption, FDI, trade and economic complexity in sustaining economic growth. Journal of Environmental Management, 273.
  14. Charfeddine L. & Mrabet Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev, 76: 138-154.
  15. Dogan E. & Turkekul B. (2016). CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, ur- banization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 23: 1203-1213. DOI 10.1007/s11356-015-5323-8.
  16. Dogan B., Madaleno M., Tiwari A.K. & Hammoudeh S. (2020). Impacts of export quality on environmental degradation: does income matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-38.
  17. Fang J., Gozgor G., Lu Z. & Wu W. (2019). Effects of the export product quality on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from developing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(12): 12181-12193.12187.
  18. Frankel J.A. & Rose A.K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1): 85-91. DOI: 10.1162/0034653053327577
  19. Global Footprint Network (GFN) (2020). -- https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/ data/.
  20. Gómez M. & Rodríguez J.C. (2020). The Ecological Footprint and Kuznets Environmental Curve in the USMCA Countries: A Method of Moments Quantile Regression Analysis. Moments Quantile Regression Analysis Energies, 13(24): 6650.
  21. Gozgor G. & Can M. (2017). Does export product quality matter for CO2 emissions? Evi- dence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(3): 2866-2875.
  22. Guloglu B. & Tekin R.B. (2012). A panel causality analysis of the relationship among re- search and development, innovation, and economic growth in high-income OECD coun- tries. Eurasian Economic Review, 2(1), 32-47 -- https://link.springer.com/article/ 10.14208/BF03353831.
  23. Hallak J.C. (2006). Product quality and the direction of trade. Journal of International Eco- nomics, 68: 238-65.
  24. Hassan S.T., Baloch M.A., Mahmood N. & Zhang J. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Soci- ety, 47: 101516.
  25. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C.A., Bustos S., Coscia M., Simoes A. & Yildirim M.A. (2014). The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  26. Henn C., Papageorgiou M.C. & Spatafora M.N. (2013). Export quality in developing coun- tries. International Monetary Fund --https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=slaYuinTyPIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=Export+Quality+in+Developing+Countries+&ot s=NusExXQxtS&sig=oeSUIolmnJjSaXsRaDsEJaR4Ww8#v=onepage&q=Export%20 Quality%20in%20Developing%20Countries&f=false.
  27. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2020). -- https://data.imf.org/?sk=3567E911-4282-4427- 98F9-2B8A6F83C3B6.
  28. Jacobson J. (1988). Environmental refugees: a yardstick of habitability. Washington DC: World Watch Institute.
  29. Kao C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data.
  30. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1): 1-44. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(1098)00023-00022
  31. Khan I., Hou F. & Le H.P. (2021). The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: Fresh evidence from the United States of America. Science of The Total Environment, 754, 142222.
  32. Koenker R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. J. Multivar. Anal, 91: 74-89.
  33. Koenker R. & Bassett J.G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econ- ometric Society, 33-50. DOI: 10.2307/1913643
  34. Koenker R. & Xiao Z. (2002). Inference on the quantile regression process. Econometrica, 70(4): 1583-1612. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0262.00342
  35. Liddle B. & Lung S. (2010). Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumptionrelated en- vironmental impacts. Popul Environ, 31: 317-43.
  36. Lin D., Hanscom L., Martindill J., Borucke M., Cohen L., Galli A., Lazarus E., Zokai G., Iha
  37. K. & Eaton D. (2020). Working Guidebook to the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. Global Footprint Network, Oakland CA USA -- http://www.footprint network.org/.
  38. Lv Z. & Xu T. (2019). Trade openness, urbanization and CO2 emissions: Dynamic panel data analysis of middle-income countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(3): 317-330. DOI: 10.1080/09638199.2018.1534878
  39. Malthus T. (1803). An Essay on the Principle of Population, as It Affects the Future Improve- ment of Society (First Essay on Population, 1796, and Second Essay on Population). New York: Modern Library and Random House.
  40. Murshed M. & Dao N.T.T. (2020). Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of Export Quality Improvement. GeoJournal, 1-29.
  41. Neagu O. (2020). Economic Complexity and Ecological Footprint: Evidence from the Most Complex Economies in the World. Sustainability, 12(21): 1-18.
  42. Pedroni P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1): 653-670.
  43. Pesaran H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. University of Cambridge, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435 -- https://www.econstor. eu/bitstream/10419/18868/1/cesifo1_wp1229.pdf.
  44. Pesaran M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section depend- ence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2): 265-312.
  45. Royston J. (1983). A Simple Method for Evaluating the Shapiro-Francia W’ Test of Nonnor- mality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 32(3): 297-300. DOI: 10.2307/2987935
  46. Royston P. (1992). Approximating the Shapiro-Wilk W-test for non-normality. Statistics and computing, 2(3), 117-119. DOI: 10.1007/BF01891203
  47. Saidi K. & Mbarek M.B. (2017). The impact of income, trade, urbanization, and financial development on CO2 emissions in 19 emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(14): 12748-12757.12743.
  48. Saud S., Chen S. & Haseeb A. (2019). Impact of financial development and economic growth on environmental quality: an empirical analysis from Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) coun- tries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(3): 2253-2269.
  49. Sbia R., Shahbaz M. & Hamdi H. (2014). A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Economic Modelling, 36: 191-197.
  50. Shahbaz M., Mahali M.K., Shah S.H. & Sato J.R. (2016). Time-varying analysis of CO2 emis- sions, energy consumption, and economic growth Nexus: statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energy Policy, 98: 33-48.
  51. Shahbaz M., Shafiullah M. & Mahalik M.K. (2019). The dynamics of financial development, globalisation, economic growth, and life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa. Aust. Econ, 58(4): 444-479. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8454.12163
  52. Sharma S.S. (2011). Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Applied energy, 88(1): 376-382.
  53. Sobotka T. & Fürnkranz-Prskawetz A. (2020). Demographic change in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: trends, determinants and challenges. In 30 Years of Transition in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  54. Toth G. & Szigeti C. (2016). The historical ecological footprint: From over-population to over-consumption. Ecological Indicators, 60: 283-291.
  55. Uddin G.Z., Salahuddin M., Alam K. & Gow J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77: 166-175.
  56. Wang Y., Chen L. & Kubota J. (2016). The relationship between urbanization, energy use and carbon emissions: evidence from a panel of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 1368-1374.
  57. Wang J. & Dong K. (2019). What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub- Saharan African countries. Science of The Total Environment, 656: 165-173.
  58. Wang Z., Jebli M.B., Madaleno M., Doğan B. & Shahzad U. (2021). Does export product quality and renewable energy induce carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from leading complex and renewable energy economies. Renewable Energy, 171: 360-370.
  59. Wilson J. & Anielski M. (2005). Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions, the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Anielski Management Inc from -- www.anielski.com.
  60. World Bank Data (WBD) (2020). -- https://databank.worldbank.org/home.
  61. Xu B. & Lin B. (2018). What cause large regional differences in PM2. 5 pollutions in China? Evidence from quantile regression model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174: 447-461.
  62. Zhang S., Liu X. & Bae J. (2017). Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(21): 17616-17625.

Fariba Osmani, Masuod Homayounifar, Mohammad Javad Gorjipour, Do export quality, urbanization and fertility rate affect the ecological footprint? Case study: A panel of developing countries in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2022, pp 51-67, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2022-001004