Is There a Trade-off Between Economic Growth,Foreign Direct Investment,International Trade and Environmental Degradation? A Comparison Between Asian Developed and Developing Countries
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2026
Is There a Trade-off Between Economic Growth,Foreign Direct Investment,International Trade and Environmental Degradation? A Comparison Between Asian Developed and Developing Countries
Against the backdrop of impressive economic growth, the attractive foreign direct investment (FDI) and international trade of Asian countries, this study attempts to examine whether trade-offs between three aspects of economic growth, FDI, international trade and environmental degradation. Panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (P-ARDL) model with pooled mean group estimates has been applied on panel data from 1996 to 2019. Panel Vector Error Correction model (VECM) Granger causality test is also used to identify multidimensional causal relationships between variables. The research results confirm the existence of a long-term equilibrium relationship between environmental degradation (CO2 emission) and the combination of economic growth, FDI and trade openness. In the short run, income positively affects CO2 emission while negative impacts and lower income elasticity have been found in the long run, implying that CO2 emission decreases and reverses its direction when income rises. Contrasting results collected from two groups of developed versus developing countries, the author reveals a linear relationship with a positive direction between economic growth and environmental degradation in developing countries while opposite results have been shown in developed nations, which supports the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. This study also provides sound proof for the ‘pollution haven hypothesis’ and the scale effects on FDI attraction and international trade. By applying relatively new estimators in the field of econometrics to compare the differences between Asian developed and developing countries, the research highlights the appropriate policies contributing to sustainable economic growth, attractive FDI and growing green trade with minimum adverse effects on the environment.
AbdouliM., & HammamiS. (2017). The impact of FDI inflows and environmental quality on economic growth: An empirical study for the MENA countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8, 254–278.
2.
AgrasJ., & ChapmanD. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28(2), 267–277.
3.
AhmedK., & LongW. (2012). Environmental Kuznets curve and Pakistan: An empirical analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 1(12), 4–13.
4.
AhmedK., RehmanM. U., & OzturkI. (2017). What drives carbon dioxide emissions in the long-run? Evidence from selected South Asian Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1142–1153.
5.
Al-MulaliU., SabooriB., & OzturkI. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 76, 123–131.
6.
AngJ. B. (2008). Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(2), 271–278.
7.
AntweilerW., CopelandB. R., & TaylorM. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment?American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–908.
8.
ApergisN., & OzturkI. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16–22.
9.
ApergisN., & PayneJ. E. (2009). CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3282–3286.
10.
ArouriM. E. H., Ben YoussefA., M’henniH., & RaultC. (2012). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy, 45, 342–349.
11.
BaekJ. (2016). A new look at the FDI-income-energy-environment nexus: Dynamic panel data analysis of ASEAN. Energy Policy, 91, 22–27.
12.
BaltagiB. H., GriffinJ. M., & XiongW. (2000). To pool or not to pool: Homogeneous versus heterogeneous estimators applied to cigarette demand. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 117–126.
13.
BastolaU., & SapkotaP. (2015). Relationships among energy consumption, pollution emission, and economic growth in Nepal. Energy, 80, 254–262.
14.
BeckermanW. (1992). Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?World Development, 20(4), 481–496.
15.
BeghinJ. C., BowlandB. J., DessusS., Roland-HolstD., & Van Der MensbruggheD. (2002). Trade integration, environmental degradation, and public health in Chile: Assessing the linkages. Environment and Development Economics, 7(2), 241–267.
16.
BirdsallN., & WheelerD. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: Where are the pollution havens?The Journal of Environment & Development, 2(1), 137–149.
17.
BoutabbaM. A. (2014). The impact of financial development, income, energy and trade on carbon emissions: Evidence from the Indian economy. Economic Modelling, 40, 33–41.
18.
BurdaM. C., & Zessner-SpitzenbergL. (2022). Greenhouse gas mitigation and price-driven growth in a Baumol-Solow-Swan economy [CEPR Discussion Paper 17368]. Accessed on 30June2023 at https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/economic-growth-and-co2-abatement.
19.
CandauF., & DieneschE. (2017). Pollution haven and corruption paradise. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 85, 171–192.
20.
ChakrabortyD., & MukherjeeS. (2010). The relationship between trade, investment and environment: Some empirical findings. Foreign Trade Review, 45(2), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732515100201
21.
ChenJ.-H., & HuangY.-F. (2013). The study of the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emission and economic growth. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, 6(2), 45–61.
22.
ColeM. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71–81.
23.
CopelandB, R., & TaylorM. S. (2003). Trade and the environment: Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press.
24.
CopelandB. R., & TaylorM. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7–71.
25.
EngleR. F. & GrangerC. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276.
26.
EngleRobert F., & GrangerC. W. J. (2015). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Applied Econometrics, 39(3), 107–135.
27.
FerrantinoM. J. (1997). International trade, environmental quality and public policy. The World Economy, 20(1), 43–72.
28.
GlasureY. U. (2002). Energy and national income in Korea: Further evidence on the role of omitted variables. Energy Economics, 24(4), 355–365.
29.
GrossmanG., & KruegerA. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, 3914.
30.
HaliciogluF. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156–1164.
31.
HoffmannR., LeeC. G., RamasamyB., & YeungM. (2005). FDI and pollution: A Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17(3), 311–317.
32.
HwangD. B. (1992). The causal relationship between energy and GNP: The case of Taiwan. The Journal of Energy and Development, 16(2), 219–226.
33.
JayanthakumaranK., VermaR., & LiuY. (2012). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: A comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy, 42, 450–460.
34.
JebliM. B., YoussefS. B., & OzturkI. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60(2016), 824–831.
35.
KasperowiczR. (2015). Economic growth and CO2 emissions: The ECM analysis. Journal of International Studies, 8(3), 91–98.
36.
KhanN. H., JuY., & HassanS. T. (2018). Modeling the impact of economic growth and terrorism on the human development index: Collecting evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 34, 34661–34673.
37.
KripfganzS., SchneiderD. C., KripfganzS., & SchneiderD. C. (2018). Introduction ARDL model EC representation bounds testing postestimation further topics summary ardl: Estimating autoregressive distributed lag and equilibrium correction models. http://www.kripfganz.de/stata/
38.
LiZ., DongH., HuangZ., & FaillerP. (2019). Impact of foreign direct investment on environmental performance. Sustainability, 11(13), 3538.
39.
LinhD. H., & LinS.-M. (2015). Dynamic causal relationships among CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI in the most populous Asian Countries. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 5(1), 1792–7552.
40.
LucasR. E., WheelerD., & HettigeH. (1992). Economic development, environmental regulation, and the international migration of toxic industrial pollution, 1960–88 (Vol. 1062). World Bank Publications.
41.
MeadowsD. H., MeadowsD. L., RandersJ., & BehrensW. (1972). The limits to growth. Earth Island Limited.
42.
MenegakiA. N. (2019). The ARDL method in the energy-growth nexus field; best implementation strategies. Economies, 7(4), 1–16.
43.
MericanY., YusopZ., NoorZ. M., & LawS. H. (2007). Foreign direct investment and the pollution in five ASEAN nations. International Journal of Economics and Management, 1(2), 245–261.
44.
NarayanP. K., & NarayanS. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 661–666.
45.
NasirM., & Ur RehmanF. (2011). Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1857–1864.
46.
OmriA., NguyenD. K., & RaultC. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: Evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382–389.
47.
OxleyL., & GreasleyD. (1998). Vector autoregression, cointegration and causality: Testing for causes of the British industrial revolution. Applied Economics, 30(10), 1387–1397.
48.
OzturkI., & AcaravciA. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262–267.
49.
PanayotouT. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development [ILO Working Papers No. 992927783402676]. International Labour Organization.
50.
PaoH. T., & TsaiC. M. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7850–7860.
51.
PermanR., & SternD. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the Environmental Kuznets Curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3), 325–347.
52.
PesaranM. H., & ShinY. (1999). An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. InEconometrics and economic theory in the 20th century (pp. 371–413). Cambridge University Press.
53.
PesaranM. H., ShinY., & SmithR. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634.
54.
PesaranM. H., & SmithR. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79–113.
55.
PoumanyvongP., & KanekoS. (2010). Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 434–444.
56.
SalahuddinM., GowJ., & OzturkI. (2015). Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust?Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 317–326.
57.
SalmanM., LongX., DaudaL., & MensahC. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118331.
58.
SekerF., ErtugrulH. M., & CetinM. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: A bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347–356.
59.
ShafikN., & BandyopadhyayS. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time series and cross-country evidence [No. WPS904; Policy Research Working Paper].
60.
ShahbazM., NasreenS., AbbasF., & AnisO. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?Energy Economics, 51, 275–287.
61.
ShahbazM., NasreenS., AhmedK., & HammoudehS. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221–232.
62.
ShahbazM., SolarinS. A., MahmoodH., & ArouriM. (2013). Does financial development reduce CO2 emissions in Malaysian economy? A time series analysis. Economic Modelling, 35, 145–152.
63.
SolowR. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
64.
SrinivasanP., & RavindraI. S. (2015). Causality among energy consumption, CO2 emission, economic growth and trade: A case of India. Foreign Trade Review, 50(3), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732515589441
65.
SternD. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439.
66.
SwanT. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.
67.
TamazianA., ChousaJ. P., & VadlamannatiK. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246–253.
68.
TangC. F., & TanB. W. (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79(C), 447–454.
69.
RobertsJ., & GrimesP. E. (1997). Carbon intensity and economic development 1962–91: A brief exploration of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 25(2), 191–198.
70.
TwerefouD. K., AkpaluW., & MensahA. C. E. (2019). Trade-induced environmental quality: The role of factor endowment and environmental regulation in Africa. Climate and Development, 11(9), 786–798.
71.
WaslekarS. S. (2014). World environmental Kuznets curve and the global future. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 310–319.
72.
YazdiS., & DarianiA. G. (2019). CO2 emissions, urbanisation and economic growth: Evidence from Asian countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 32(1), 510–530.
73.
ZakariaM., & BibiS. (2019). Financial development and environment in South Asia: The role of institutional quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 7926–7937.
74.
ZhangY. J. (2011). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis in China. Energy Policy, 39(4), 2197–2203.
75.
Zugravu-SoilitaN. (2017). How does foreign direct investment affect pollution? Toward a better understanding of the direct and conditional effects. Environmental and Resource Economics, 66(2), 293–338.
