The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the Environmental Kuznets Curve does not exist
Open accessAbstract
The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis – an inverted U‐shape relation between various indicators of environmental degradation and income per capita – has become one of the ‘stylised facts’ of environmental and resource economics. This is despite considerable criticism on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Cointegration analysis can be used to test the validity of such stylised facts when the data involved contain stochastic trends. In the present paper, we use cointegration analysis to test the EKC hypothesis using a panel dataset of sulfur emissions and GDP data for 74 countries over a span of 31 years. We find that the data is stochastically trending in the time‐series dimension. Given this, and interpreting the EKC as a long run equilibrium relationship, support for the hypothesis requires that an appropriate model cointegrates and that sulfur emissions are a concave function of income. Individual and panel cointegration tests cast doubt on the general applicability of the hypothesised relationship. Even when we find cointegration, many of the relationships for individual countries are not concave. The results show that the EKC is a problematic concept, at least in the case of sulfur emissions.
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
Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Econometrics · doi:10.1002/jae.616 · Cited by 20,385
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
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
Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels
Pesaran, M. H., & Smith, R. (1995) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-f · Cited by 5,479 · cited 1×
“This is a consistent estimator of the variance in question (Pesaran and Smith 1995).”
BackgroundEnvironmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets Curve for air pollution emissions?
Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1994) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1031 · Cited by 2,850
Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve
Torras, M., & Boyce, J. K. (1998) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(97)00177-8 · Cited by 1,326
Cited by
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
Self-citationThe relationship between GDP and electricity consumption in 10 Asian countries
Chen, S.-T., Kuo, H.-I., & Chen, C.-C. (2007) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.001 · Cited by 589
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., & Kahn, J. R. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.006 · Cited by 342
Metadata
- Authors
- Perman, R., & Stern, D. I.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-08-26
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 325-347
- ISSN
- 1364-985X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8489
- OpenAlex
- W1584724342
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 28.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.
