The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impacts of different proxies for financialization on carbon emissions in top-ten emitter countries
Abstract
The nexus of financialization and carbon emissions has been widely discussed in the literature. A vast body of literature that estimates the impact of financialization on carbon emissions proxies financialization with either domestic credit or market capitalization. However, these representatives do not fully respond to the complicated nature of financial development. To fill the gaps in the existing literature, nine different proxies for financial development are used in the links with carbon emissions in the framework of EKC theory for the years 1980-2014. This study exposes reliable and robust empirical results due to the use of a number of proxies for financialization and second-generation econometric approaches in the empirical analysis. The quantile regression approach deals with unobserved heterogeneity for each cross-section and estimates different slope parameters at varying quantiles. Because non-normality and heterogeneity are detected in dataset, quantile regression provides more robust and reliable estimates than conventional econometric techniques. Results from quantile regression estimator support mixed effects of financial development on carbon emissions over quantiles; in addition, the impact of financial development on carbon emissions is varying not only for each quantile but also for different proxies of financial development. The EKC hypothesis is validated for the top-ten emitter economies. Interpretations and policy suggestions are further discussed in the present study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s0304-4076(03)00092-7 · Cited by 15,435
A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence
Pesaran, M. H. (2007) · Journal of Applied Econometrics · doi:10.1002/jae.951 · Cited by 12,787
Economic growth and the environment
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2118443 · Cited by 9,901
Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors
Pedroni, P. (1999) · Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1111/1468-0084.61.s1.14 · Cited by 6,726
The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve
Stern, D. I. (2004) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004 · Cited by 4,013
The great reversals: the politics of financial development in the twentieth century
Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (2003) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(03)00125-9 · Cited by 3,327
Chapter 12 Finance and Growth: Theory and Evidence
Levine, R. (2005) · Handbook of Economic Growth · doi:10.1016/s1574-0684(05)01012-9 · Cited by 2,889
Cited by
Qin, L., Raheem, S., Murshed, M., Miao, X., Khan, Z., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2208 · Cited by 346
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Amin, A., Dogan, E., & Khan, Z.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 740
- Pages
- 140127
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3034996243
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 20.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impacts of different proxies for financialization on carbon emissions in top-ten emitter countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140127
- The paper
- Amin, A., Dogan, E., & Khan, Z. (2020). The impacts of different proxies for financialization on carbon emissions in top-ten emitter countries. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140127
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.