This study empirically examines the relationship between energy intensity, carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth for the case of Romania given the conflicting evidences in the literature between 1990 and 2014 on a quarterly basis. To this end, our study employs an autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model for cointegration, while direction of causality was achieved via the Toda–Yamamoto model. Empirical findings reveal cointegration among the variables under consideration. The causality results show feedback causality between energy intensity and economic growth while uni-directional causality is seen running from renewable energy consumption to economic growth. Thus, this study affirms the energy-led growth hypothesis. Therefore, our study corroborates with the current success story of Romania attaining her energy targets within two decades. However, there is need to sustain this milestone by further diversification of her energy portfolio into other cleaner energy sources.
BiesiotWNoormanKJ.Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of The Netherlands. Ecol Econ1999;
28: 367–383.
2.
HaliciogluF.An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy2009;
37: 1156–1164.
3.
KraftJKraftA.On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev1978;
1: 401–403.
4.
MasihAMMasihR.Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality: results from a multi-country study based on cointegration and error-correction modelling techniques. Energy Econ1996;
18: 165–183.
5.
ChengBSLaiTW.An investigation of co-integration and causality between energy consumption and economic activity in Taiwan. Energy Econ1997;
119: 435–444.
6.
GlasureYULeeAR.Cointegration, error-correction, and the relationship between GDP and energy: the case of South Korea and Singapore. Resour Energy Econ1998;
20: 17–25.
7.
Asafu-AdjayeJ.The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Econ2000;
22: 615–625.
8.
SternPC.New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues2000;
56: 407–424.
9.
SoytasUSariR.Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Econ2003;
25: 33–37.
10.
PaulSBhattacharyaRN.Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: a note on conflicting results. Energy Econ2004;
26: 977–983.
11.
Wolde-RufaelY.Energy demand and economic growth: the African experience. J Policy Model2005;
127: 891–903.
12.
Mehrara M.Energy consumption and economic growth: the case of oil exporting countries, Energy. Policy 2007;
35(5): 2939–2945.
13.
NarayanPKSmythR.Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Econ2008;
30: 2331.
14.
Akadiri SS, Bekun VF, Taheri E, Akadiri AC. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: A causality evidence. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy.
15.
SeifritzWHodgkinJ.Nonlinear dynamics of the per capita energy consumption. Energy1991;
116: 615–620.
16.
YooSHKimY.Electricity generation and economic growth in Indonesia. Energy2006;
131: 2890–2899.
17.
LeeCCChangCP.Energy consumption and GDP revisited: a panel analysis of developed and developing countries. Energy Econ2007;
29: 1206.
18.
Lütkepohl H, Krätzig M, editors. Applied Time Series Econometrics. NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (accessed 4 August 2004).
19.
OzturkIAcaravciA.CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2010;
14: 3220–3225.
20.
Al-MulaliUSolarinSAOzturkI.Investigating the presence of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in Kenya: an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. Nat Hazards2016;
80: 1729.
21.
BaekJ.Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: the case of Arctic countries. Energy Econ2015;
50: 13–17.
22.
Al-MulaliUSabooriBOzturkI.Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy2015;
76: 123–131.
23.
ApergisNOzturkI.Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecol Indicators2015;
52: 16–22.
24.
Shahbaz M, Loganathan N, Zeshan M, Zaman K. Does renewable energy consumption add in economic growth? An application of auto-regressive distributed lag model in Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015 Apr 1; 44: 576–85.
25.
OsabuohienESEfobiURGitauCM.Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve in Africa: evidence from panel cointegration. J Environ Policy Plann2014;
16: 517–538.
26.
ChoCHChuYPYangHY.An environment Kuznets curve for GHG emissions: a panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources B Econ Plann Policy2014;
9: 120–139.
27.
SoytasUSariROzdemirO.Energy consumption and GDP relation in Turkey: a cointegration and vector error correction analysis. In economies and business in transition: Facilitating competitiveness and change in the global environment proceedings.
Vol. 1.
New York, NY:
Global Business and Technology Association, 2001, pp. 838–844.
28.
ShafieiSSalimRA.Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy2014;
66: 547–556.
29.
TiwariAKShahbazMHyeQM.The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
18: 519–527.
30.
KleemannLAbdulaiA.The impact of trade and economic growth on the environment: revisiting the cross‐country evidence. J Int Dev2013;
25: 180–205.
31.
OzcanB.The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy2013;
62: 1138–1147.
32.
GovindarajuVCTangCF.The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, economic growth and coal consumption in China and India. Appl Energy2013;
1104: 310–318.
33.
World Development Indicators. World bank. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2017.
SoytasUSariREwingBT.Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ2007;
62: 482–489.
37.
FriedlBGetznerM.Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecol Econ2003;
145: 133–148.
38.
El-AasarKMHanafySA.Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Egypt: the role of renewable energy and trade in mitigating GHGs. Int J Energy Econ Policy2018;
88: 177–184.
39.
McdermottJFMcMenaminP. Assessing inflation targeting in Latin America with a DSGE model. Documentos Trabajo2008: 1.
40.
Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 1981; 49: 1057–72.
41.
PhillipsPCPerronP.Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika1988;
75: 335–346.
42.
ShahbazMLoganathanNMuzaffarATet al.
How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016;
57: 83–93.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ.Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ2001;
16: 289–326.
45.
TodaHYYamamotoT.Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econom1995;
66: 225–250.
46.
VogelsangTJ.Wald-type tests for detecting breaks in the trend function of a dynamic time series. Econ Theory1997;
13: 818–848.
47.
ShahbazMMutascuMAzimP.Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and the role of energy consumption. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
18: 165–173.
48.
AceleanuMIŞerbanACPociovălișteanuDMet al.
Renewable energy: a way for a sustainable development in Romania. Energy Sources B Econ Plann Policy2017;
212: 958–963.
49.
BrownRLDurbinJEvansJM.Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J R Stat Soc Ser B1975; 37(2): 149–192.
50.
Okunola AM. Nigeria: Positioning rural economy for implementation of sustainable development goals. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology 2016 Sep 15; 4(9): 752–7.
51.
Shahbaz M, Lean HH. Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy policy 2012 Jan 1; 40: 473–9.
