The role of technological innovation in fostering environmental quality in South Africa: Fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach

Titolo Rivista ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Autori/Curatori Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha, Nicholas Ngepah
Anno di pubblicazione 2023 Fascicolo 2022/2
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 49 P. 107-155 Dimensione file 509 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2022-002006
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

This study revisits the role technological innovation plays in fostering environmental quality in South Africa over the period 1960-2020. Unlike the previous studies, the work employs the novel dynamic autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) simulations framework to assess the positive and negative changes in technological innovation, scale effect, technique effect, for- eign direct investment, energy consumption, urbanization, industrial growth, and trade open- ness on CO2 emissions. Second, the paper uses the Squalli &Wilson (2011)’s innovative meas- ure of trade openness to overcome the limitations associated with the conventional trade in- tensity. Third, the study uses the frequency domain causality (FDC) approach developed by Breitung & Candelon (2006) to robustly capture permanent causality for long, short, and me- dium-term associations among the variables examined. Fourth, the paper employs the second- generation econometric procedures, which take into account the multiple structural breaks considerably overlooked by previous works. For South Africa, our empirical results reveal that: (i) technological innovation contributes to lower CO2 emissions in the short- and long run; (ii) while technique effect improves environmental quality, the scale effect largely con- tributes to escalate CO2 emissions, thus confirming that the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis holds; (iii) urbanization, industrial value-added, foreign direct investment and energy consumption increase CO2 emissions; (iv) trade openness contributes to worsen environmental degradation in the long run; (v) scale effect, technique effect, technological innovation, energy consumption, foreign direct investment, trade openness, urbanization, and industrial growth Granger-cause CO2 emissions in the short, medium and long run showing that these variables are fundamental to determine environmental quality. In light of our em- pirical evidence, this paper suggests that South Africa’s government and policymakers could consider the role of technological innovation as a clean source of technology in achieving energy security and fostering environmental quality in the country.

Keywords:technological innovation, trade openness, CO2 emissions, dynamic ARDL simulations, energy consumption, EKC, cointegration, economic growth, industrial value-added, South Africa

Jel codes:F18, F13, Q56, O13, F1, F41

  1. Abdouli, M., Hammami, S. (2017). Investigating the causality links between environmental quality, foreign direct investment and economic growth in MENA countries. Interna- tional Business Review, 26(2): 264-278.
  2. Adebayo, T. S., Odugbesan, J. A. (2021). Modeling CO2 emissions in South Africa: empirical evidence from ARDL based bounds and wavelet coherence techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(8): 9377-9389.
  3. Ahmad, M., Raza, M. Y. (2020). Role of public-private partnerships investment in energy and technological innovations in driving climate change: evidence from Brazil. Environmen- tal Science and Pollution Research, 27: 30638-30648.
  4. Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., Rahman, Z. U., Khattak, S. I., Khan, Z. U. (2021). Can innovation shocks determine CO2 emissions (CO2e) in the OECD economies? A new perspec- tive. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 30(1): 89-109.
  5. Ahmad, M., Rehman, A., Shah, S. A. A., Solangi, Y. A., Chandio, A. A., Jabeen, G. (2021). Stylized heterogeneous dynamic links among healthcare expenditures, land urbanization, and CO2 emissions across economic development levels. Science of The Total Environ- ment, 753, 142228.
  6. Altinoz, B., Vasbieva, D., Kalugina, O. (2020). The effect of information and communication technologies and total factor productivity on CO2 emissions in top 10 emerging market economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-10.
  7. Álvarez-Herránz, A., Balsalobre, D., Cantos, J. M., Shahbaz, M. (2017). Energy innovations- GHG emissions nexus: fresh empirical evidence from OECD countries. Energy Pol- icy, 101: 90-100.
  8. An, H., Razzaq, A., Haseeb, M., Mihardjo, L. W. (2021). The role of technology innovation and people’s connectivity in testing environmental Kuznets curve and pollution heaven hypotheses across the Belt and Road host countries: new evidence from Method of Mo- ments Quantile Regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(5): 5254- 5270.
  9. Anser, M. K., Ahmad, M., Khan, M. A., Zaman, K., Nassani, A. A., Askar, S. E., ... Kabbani,
  10. A. (2021). The role of information and communication technologies in mitigating carbon emissions: evidence from panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(17): 21065-21084.
  11. Arshad, Z., Robaina, M., Botelho, A. (2020). The role of ICT in energy consumption and environment: an empirical investigation of Asian economies with cluster analysis. Envi- ronmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26): 32913-32932.
  12. Asongu, S. A. (2018). ICT, openness and CO2 emissions in Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(10): 9351-9359.
  13. Azevedo, V. G., Sartori, S., Campos, L. M. (2018). CO2 emissions: A quantitative analysis among the BRICS nations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81: 107-115.
  14. 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.
  15. Baloch, M. A., Ozturk, I., Bekun, F. V., Khan, D. (2020). Modeling the dynamic linkage between financial development, energy innovation, and environmental quality: Does globalization matter?. Business Strategy and the Environment.
  16. Berg, A., Krueger, A. O. (2003). Trade, growth, and poverty: A selective survey. In: Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2003: The New Reform Agenda (p. 1047). World Bank Publications. DOI: 10.4324/9780203005804-13
  17. Brandão Santana, N., Rebelatto, D. A. D. N., Périco, A. E., Moralles, H. F., Leal Filho, W. (2015). Technological innovation for sustainable development: an analysis of different types of impacts for countries in the BRICS and G7 groups. International Journal of Sus- tainable Development & World Ecology, 22(5): 425-436. DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2015.1069766
  18. Breitung, J., Candelon, B. (2006). Testing for short-and long-run causality: A frequency-do- main approach. Journal of econometrics, 132(2): 363-378.
  19. Chen, J., Yang, F., Liu, Y., Usman, A. (2022). The asymmetric effect of technology shocks on CO2 emissions: a panel analysis of BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(18): 27115-27123.
  20. Cherniwchan, J. (2012). Economic growth, industrialization, and the environment. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(4): 442-467.
  21. Churchill, S. A., Inekwe, J., Smyth, R., Zhang, X. (2019). R&D intensity and carbon emis- sions in the G7: 1870-2014. Energy Economics, 80: 30-37.
  22. Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J. (2003). Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(3): 363-383. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00021-4
  23. Copeland, B. R., Taylor, M. S. (2013). Trade and the Environment. In Trade and the Envi- ronment. Princeton University Press.
  24. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M. (2019). The effects of economic growth and innovation on CO2 emissions in different regions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(15): 15028-15038.
  25. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M., Boamah, K. B., Ampon-Wireko, S., Dogbe,
  26. C. S. K. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125143.
  27. Demir, C., Cergibozan, R., Ari, A. (2020). Environmental dimension of innovation: time se- ries evidence from Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(3): 2497- 2516.
  28. Destek, M. A., Manga, M. (2021). Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: evidence from BEM economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Re- search, 28(17): 21991-22001.
  29. Dinda, S. (2018). Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short- run dynamics. Journal of Applied Economics, 21(1): 106-121.
  30. EIA, U (2018). Energy information administration. International Energy Outlook. US De- partment of Energy. -- https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/IDN. (Re- trieved 14 July 2022).
  31. Erdogan, S. (2021). Dynamic nexus between technological innovation and buildings Sector’s carbon emission in BRICS countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112780.
  32. Faisal, F., Tursoy, T., Pervaiz, R. (2020). Does ICT lessen CO2 emissions for fast-emerging economies? An application of the heterogeneous panel estimations. Environmental Sci- ence and Pollution Research, 1-12.
  33. Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Agha, H., Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). The dynamic nonlinear influence of ICT, financial development, and institutional quality on CO2 emission in Pakistan: new insights from QARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19): 24190-24200.
  34. Guo, J., Zhou, Y., Ali, S., Shahzad, U., Cui, L. (2021). Exploring the role of green innovation and investment in energy for environmental quality: An empirical appraisal from provin- cial data of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 292, 112779.
  35. Haseeb, A., Xia, E., Saud, S., Ahmad, A., Khurshid, H. (2019). Does information and com- munication technologies improve environmental quality in the era of globalization? An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(9): 8594-8608.
  36. Hasson, A., Masih, M. (2017). Energy consumption, trade openness, economic growth, car- bon dioxide emissions and electricity consumption: evidence from South Africa based on ARDL. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 79424.
  37. Hossain, M.S. (2011). Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, 39(11): 6991-6999.
  38. Ibrahiem, D. M. (2020). Do technological innovations and financial development improve environmental quality in Egypt? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(10): 10869-10881.
  39. Ibrahim, M., Vo, X. V. (2021). Exploring the relationships among innovation, financial sector development and environmental pollution in selected industrialized countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 284, 112057.
  40. Jabeen, A. (2015). Is trade liberalization, economic growth, energy consumption good for the environment? Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy (RJFP), 6(2):1-13. DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S272801
  41. Jamel, L., Maktouf, S. (2017). The nexus between economic growth, financial development, trade openness, and CO2 emissions in European countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 5(1),1341456.
  42. Jiahua, P., Guiyang, Z., Yan, Z., ShouXian, Z., Qianyi, X. (2010). Clarification of the Concept of Low-Carbon Economy and Analysis of its Core Elements [J]. International Economic Review, 4: 88-102.
  43. Jiang, Q., Rahman, Z. U., Zhang, X., Islam, M. S. (2022). An assessment of the effect of green innovation, income, and energy use on consumption-based CO2 emissions: Empirical ev- idence from emerging nations BRICS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, 132636.
  44. Jordan, S., Philips, A. Q. (2018). Cointegration testing and dynamic simulations of autoregres- sive distributed lag models. The Stata Journal, 18(4): 902-923. DOI: 10.1177/1536867X1801800409
  45. Joshua, U., Bekun, F. V., Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). New insight into the causal linkage between economic expansion, FDI, coal consumption, pollutant emissions and urbanization in South Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 18013-18024.
  46. Khan, A., Muhammad, F., Chenggang, Y., Hussain, J., Bano, S., Khan, M. A. (2020). The impression of technological innovations and natural resources in energy-growth-environ- ment nexus: a new look into BRICS economies. Science of The Total Environment, 727, 138265.
  47. Khan, D., Ulucak, R. (2021). Renewable energy, technological innovation and the environ- ment: a novel dynamic auto-regressive distributive lag simulation. Renewable and Sus- tainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111433.
  48. Khan, H., Weili, L., Khan, I. (2022). Examining the effect of information and communication technology, innovations, and renewable energy consumption on CO2 emission: evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17.
  49. Khan, M. I., Teng, J. Z., Khan, M. K. (2020). The impact of macroeconomic and financial development on carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan: evidence with a novel dynamic simulated ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 39560- 39571.
  50. Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M. (2022). The cyclical impact of green and sustainable technology research on carbon dioxide emissions in BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(15): 22687-22707.
  51. Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M. (2022). The cyclical impact of green and sustainable technology research on carbon dioxide emissions in BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(15): 22687-22707.
  52. Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M., Khan, Z. U., Khan, A. (2020). Exploring the impact of innovation, renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: new evidence from the BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16.
  53. Kripfganz, S., Schneider, D. C. (2018). ARDL: Estimating Autoregressive Distributed Lag and Equilibrium Correction Models. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from Stata. -- www.stata.com/meeting/uk18/slides/uk18_Kripfganz.pdf.
  54. Langnel, Z., Babington, G. (2020). Globalization, electricity consumption and ecological footprint: an autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) approach. Sustain Cities Soc, 63, 102482.
  55. Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., Eng, Y. K. (2014). Carbon dioxide emission, institutional quality, and economic growth: Empirical evidence in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 68: 276-281.
  56. Li, N., Ulucak, R., Khan, D. (2022). Turning points for environmental sustainability: the po- tential role of income inequality, human capital, and globalization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15.
  57. Lin, B., Omoju, O. E., Okonkwo, J. U. (2015). Impact of industrialisation on CO2 emissions in Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52: 1228-1239.
  58. Ling, C. H., Ahmed, K., Muhamad, R. B., Shahbaz, M. (2015). Decomposing the trade-envi- ronment nexus for Malaysia: what do the technique, scale, composition, and comparative advantage effect indicate? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(24): 20131-20142.
  59. Long, X., Chen, Y., Du, J., Oh, K., Han, I., Yan, J. (2017). The effect of environmental inno- vation behavior on economic and environmental performance of 182 Chinese firms. Jour- nal of cleaner production, 166: 1274-1282.
  60. Mensah, C. N., Long, X., Boamah, K. B., Bediako, I. A., Dauda, L., Salman, M. (2018). The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ- mental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29678-29698.
  61. Muhammad, F., Khan, A., Razzaq, N., Karim, R. (2021). Influence of tourism, governance, and foreign direct investment on energy consumption and CO2 emissions: a panel analysis of Muslim countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1): 416-431.
  62. Musolesi, A., Mazzanti, M. (2014). Nonlinearity, heterogeneity and unobserved effects in the carbon dioxide emissions-economic development relation for advanced countries. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 18(5): 521-541.
  63. Ngepah, N., Udeagha, M. C. (2018). African regional trade agreements and intra-African trade. Journal of Economic Integration, 33(1): 1176-1199
  64. Ngepah, N., Udeagha, M. C. (2019). Supplementary trade benefits of multi-memberships in African regional trade agreements. Journal of African Business, 20(4): 505-524. DOI: 10.1080/15228916.2019.1584719
  65. Ojekemi, O. S., Rjoub, H., Awosusi, A. A., Agyekum, E. B. (2022). Toward a sustainable environment and economic growth in BRICS economies: do innovation and globalization matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18.
  66. Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K., Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: Evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42: 382-389.
  67. Ozcan, B., Apergis, N. (2017). The impact of internet use on air pollution: Evidence from emerging countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 25: 4174-4189.
  68. Ozturk, I. (2015). Sustainability in the food-energy-water nexus: Evidence from BRICS (Bra- zil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) countries. Energy, 93: 999- 1010.
  69. Pata, U. K., Isik, C. (2021). Determinants of the load capacity factor in China: A novel dy- namic ARDL approach for ecological footprint accounting. Resources Policy, 74, 102313.
  70. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 289-326.
  71. Rafique, M. Z., Li, Y., Larik, A. R., Monaheng, M. P. (2020). The effects of FDI, technolog- ical innovation, and financial development on CO2 emissions: evidence from the BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19): 23899-23913.
  72. Rai, S. K., Rawat, A. (2022). Exploring the nexus between environment quality, economic development, and industrialization in BRICS nations: the role of technological innovation and income inequality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(25): 37842- 37853.
  73. Razzaq, A., Wang, Y., Chupradit, S., Suksatan, W., Shahzad, F. (2021). Asymmetric inter- linkages between green technology innovation and consumption-based carbon emissions in BRICS countries using quantile-on-quantile framework. Technology in Society, 66, 101656.
  74. Rout, S. K., Gupta, M., Sahoo, M. (2022). The role of technological innovation and diffusion, energy consumption and financial development in affecting ecological footprint in BRICS: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17): 25318-25335.
  75. Santra, S. (2017). The effect of technological innovation on production-based energy and CO2 emission productivity: evidence from BRICS countries. African Journal of Science, Tech- nology, Innovation and Development, 9(5): 503-512.
  76. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: George Allen and Unwin.
  77. Shafiei, S., Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66: 547-556.
  78. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Afza, T. (2014). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: evidence from panel data analysis. Bull Energy Econ, 2(2): 14-27.
  79. Shan, S., Genç, S. Y., Kamran, H. W., Dinca, G. (2021). Role of green technology innovation and renewable energy in carbon neutrality: A sustainable investigation from Turkey. Jour- nal of Environmental Management, 294, 113004.
  80. Sohag, K., Al Mamun, M., Uddin, G. S., Ahmed, A. M. (2017). Sectoral output, energy use, and CO2 emission in middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Re- search, 24(10): 9754-9764.
  81. Sohag, K., Begum, R. A., Abdullah, S. M. S., Jaafar, M. (2015). Dynamics of energy use, technological innovation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia. Energy, 90, 1497-1507.
  82. Sohag, K., Kalugina, O., Samargandi, N. (2019). Re-visiting environmental Kuznets curve: Role of scale, composite, and technology factors in OECD countries. Environmental Sci- ence and Pollution Research, 26(27): 27726-27737.
  83. Squalli, J., Wilson., K. (2011). A new measure of trade openness, The World Economy, 34(10): 1745-1770.
  84. Tian, X., Chang, M., Shi, F., Tanikawa, H. (2014). How does industrial structure change im- pact carbon dioxide emissions? A comparative analysis focusing on nine provincial re- gions in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 37: 243-254.
  85. Toebelmann, D., Wendler, T. (2020). The impact of environmental innovation on carbon di- oxide emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118787.
  86. Udeagha M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2021). Estimating the trade-environmental quality rela- tionship in SADC with a dynamic heterogeneous panel model. African Review of Eco- nomics and Finance, 13(1): 113-165.
  87. Udeagha, M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2023a). Exploring the moderating role of financial de- velopment in environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa: fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Financial Innovation, 9:5.
  88. Udeagha, M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2023b). On the asymmetric effects of trade openness on CO2 emissions in SADC with a nonlinear ARDL approach. Discover Sustainability, 4(2).
  89. Udeagha, M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2023c). Revisiting the nexus between fiscal decentrali- zation and CO2 emissions in South Africa: fresh policy insights. Financial Innova- tion, 9(50).
  90. Udeagha, M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2023d). Can fiscal decentralization be the route to the race to zero emissions in South Africa? Fresh policy insights from novel dynamic auto- regressive distributed lag simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Re- search, 1-29.
  91. Udeagha, M. C., Breitenbach, M. C. (2023e). The role of financial development in climate change mitigation: Fresh policy insights from South Africa. Biophysical Economics and Sustainability, 8(1).
  92. Udeagha, M. C., Muchapondwa, E. (2022a). Investigating the moderating role of economic policy uncertainty in environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa: Evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Re- search, 29(51): 77199-77237.
  93. Udeagha, M. C., Muchapondwa, E. (2022b). Environmental sustainability in South Africa: Understanding the criticality of economic policy uncertainty, fiscal decentralization, and green innovation. Sustainable Development, 1-14.
  94. Udeagha, M. C., Muchapondwa, E. (2023a). Green finance, fintech, and environmental sus- tainability: Fresh policy insights from the BRICS nations. International Journal of Sus- tainable Development & World Ecology. DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2023.2183526
  96. Udeagha, M. C., Muchapondwa, E. (2023b). Achieving regional sustainability and carbon neutrality target in BRICS economies: understanding the importance of fiscal decentrali- zation, export diversification and environmental innovation. Sustainable Development, 1-
  97. 15.
  98. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2019). Revisiting trade and environment nexus in South Africa: Fresh evidence from new measure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26: 29283-29306.
  99. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2020). Trade liberalization and the geography of industries in South Africa: fresh evidence from a new measure. International Journal of Urban Sci- ences, 24(3): 354-396. DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2019.1695652
  100. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2021a). The asymmetric effect of trade openness on economic growth in South Africa: a nonlinear ARDL approach. Economic Change and Restructur- ing, 54(2): 491-540.
  101. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2022a). Striving towards environmental sustainability in the BRICS economies: the combined influence of fiscal decentralization and environmental innovation. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2022.2123411
  102. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2022b). Does trade openness mitigate the environmental degra- dation in South Africa? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(13): 19352- 19377.
  103. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2022c). Dynamic ARDL Simulations Effects of Fiscal Decen- tralization, Green Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, and Institutional Quality on Environmental Sustainability: Evidence from South Africa. Sustainability, 14, 10268.
  104. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2022d). Disaggregating the environmental effects of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in South Africa: fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Economic Change and Restructuring, 55: 1767- 1814.
  105. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2022e). The asymmetric effect of technological innovation on CO2 emissions in South Africa: New evidence from the QARDL approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 985719.
  106. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. (2023). Can public-private partnership investment in energy (PPPI) mitigate CO2 emissions in South Africa? Fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 1044605.
  107. Udeagha, M. C., Ngepah, N. N. (2021b). A step Towards Environmental Mitigation In South Africa: Does Trade Liberalisation Really Matter? Fresh Evidence from A Novel Dynamic ARDL Simulations Approach. Research Square.
  108. Ulucak, R., Erdogan, F., Bostanci, S. H. (2021). A STIRPAT-based investigation on the role of economic growth, urbanization, and energy consumption in shaping a sustainable en- vironment in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
  109. Usman, M., Hammar, N. (2021). Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(12): 15519-15536.
  110. Villanthenkodath, M. A., Mahalik, M. K. (2020). Technological innovation and environmen- tal quality nexus in India: Does inward remittance matter?. Journal of Public Affairs, e2291.
  111. Weitzman, M. L. (1997). Sustainability and technical progress. Scandinavian J. Econ., 99(1): 1-13.
  112. World Bank (2021). World Development Indicators. Accessed 23 April 2022. -- http://data- bank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=World%20Development%20Indicators.
  113. Yang, B., Jahanger, A., Ali, M. (2021). Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter?. Environ- mental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18): 23482-23500.
  114. Zameer, H., Yasmeen, H., Zafar, M. W., Waheed, A., Sinha, A. (2020). Analyzing the asso- ciation between innovation, economic growth, and environment: divulging the importance of FDI and trade openness in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 29539-29553.
  115. Zhang, Y. J., Peng, Y. L., Ma, C. Q., Shen, B. (2017). Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 100: 18-28.

  • A roadmap to a green economy in South Africa: modelling technological innovation and energy consumption in the novel dynamic ARDL simulations framework Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha, Nicholas Ngepah, in Cogent Economics & Finance 2295191/2024
    DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2295191
  • The drivers of environmental sustainability in BRICS economies: Do green finance and fintech matter? Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha, Nicholas Ngepah, in World Development Sustainability 100096/2023 pp.100096
    DOI: 10.1016/j.wds.2023.100096
  • Tariff effects on industrial performance: symmetric and asymmetric evidence from Nigeria Richard O. Ojike, Marius Ikpe, Joseph Chukwudi Odionye, Sunday V. Agu, in African Journal of Economic and Management Studies /2024
    DOI: 10.1108/AJEMS-09-2023-0366
  • The Role of Fiscal Decentralization in Limiting CO2 Emissions in South Africa Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha, Marthinus Christoffel Breitenbach, in Biophysical Economics and Sustainability 5/2023
    DOI: 10.1007/s41247-023-00112-w

Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha, Nicholas Ngepah, The role of technological innovation in fostering environmental quality in South Africa: Fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 2/2022, pp 107-155, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2022-002006