In this paper, it was aimed to investigate the relation between economic growth, terrorism, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow, environmental pollution, and energy consumption in China, India, Israel, and Turkey for a time span of 43 years from 1975 to 2017. Three different panel cointegration methods to determine the cointegration relation and two different causality methods to find the direction of causality were simultaneously used, since the presence of cointegration and direction of causality are fundamental to design economic policy and strategy. After similar results from panel cointegration tests were obtained, the causality tests were applied. Panel causality tests determined the evidence of uni-directional causality from terrorism, FDI, and energy usage to CO2 emission.
IEA, Global Energy & CO2 Status Report: the latest trends in energy and emissions in 2017, www.iea.org/geco/emissions (2018, accessed 18 December 2018).
2.
BildiriciM.Militarization, economic growth, petroleum consumption in Brazil, Russian, India, China, Turkey, South Africa and Mexico. Econ Com Econ Cyber Stud Res2017;
51: 249–266.
3.
BildiriciM.The defense industry sector, economic growth and energy consumption in 20 emerging countries. J Ener Develop2017;
42: 147–159.
4.
CopelandBTaylorM.North-south trade and the environment. Quar J Econ1994;
109: 755–787.
5.
LevinALin ChuCS.Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Economet2002;
108: 1–24.
6.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY.Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Economet2003;
115: 53–74.
7.
HadriK.Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data.Econom J2000;
3: 148–161.
8.
ShinYSnellA.Mean group tests for stationarity in heterogeneous panels. Economet J2006;
9: 123–158.
9.
PedroniP.Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bull Econ & Stats1999;
61: 653–670.
10.
KaoC.Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Economet1999;
90: 1–44.
11.
WesterlundJ.Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bull Econ & Stats2007;
69: 709–748.
12.
PedroniP.Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels and the case of purchasing power parity. Indi Univer WP in Econ1996; 96–020.
13.
Pedroni P. Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Rev Econ Stat 2001; 83: 727–731.
14.
MarkNSulD.Cointegration vector estimation by panel DOLS and long-run money demand. Oxford Bull Econ & Stats2003;
65(5): 655–680.
15.
KaoCChiangM.On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Adv Economet2000;
15: 179–222.
16.
DumitrescuEIHurlinC.Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Modell2012;
29: 1450–1460.
17.
LandesW.An economic study of U.S. aircraft hijacking, 1961–1976. J Law and Econ1978;
21: 1–31.
18.
CauleyJIksoonEI.Intervention policy analysis of skyjackings and other terrorist incidents. Am Econ Rev Paper Proceed1988;
78: 27–31.
19.
EndersWSandlerT.Causality between transnational terrorism and tourism: the case of Spain. Terrorism1991;
14: 49–58.
20.
EndersWSandlerT.Terrorism and foreign direct investment in Spain and Greece. Kyklos1996;
49: 331–352.
21.
AbadieAGardeazabalJ.The economic cost of conflict: a case study of the Basque country. Am Econ Rev2003;
93: 113–132.
22.
SandlerTRobertRDocksonKA, et al. Economic consequences of terrorism in developed and developing countries: an overview. In: KeeferPLoayzaN (eds) Terror, economic development and political openness.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.17–47.
23.
VolkerNSchumacherD.Terrorism and international trade: an empirical investigation. European J Politi Econ2004;
20: 423–433.
24.
BlombergSBHessGDOrphanidesA.The macroeconomic consequences of terrorism. J Mon Econ2003;
51: 1007–1032.
25.
GriesTKriegerTMeierrieksD.Causal linkages between domestic terrorism and economic growth. Defen Peace Econ2011;
22: 493–508.
26.
QuyangARajanR.Impact of terrorism on cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As): prevalence, frequency and intensity. Open Econ Rev 2017; 28: 79–106.
27.
BlombergSModyA.How severely does violence deter international investment? Claremont Colleges Working Papers 2005-01, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/31451 (2005, accessed 5 May 2018).
28.
MuckleyC.Terrorism, tourism and FDI: estimating a lower bound on the peace dividend in Northern. J Statis Soc Inquir Soc Ireland2010;
40: 116–132.
29.
FilerRStanišićD.The effect of terrorist incidents on capital flows. Rev Dev Econ2016;
20: 502–513.
30.
BildiriciMGokmenogluS.The impact of terrorism and FDI on environmental pollution: evidence from Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Somalia, Thailand and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev2020;
81: 106340.
31.
ShahzadSZakariaMRehmanM, et al.
Relationship between FDI, terrorism and economic growth in Pakistan: pre and post 9/11 analysis.Soc Indic Res (An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement) 2016;
127: 179–194.
32.
BezićHGalovićTMiševićP.The impact of terrorism on the FDI of the EU and EEA countries. ZbradEkonfakRij2016;
34: 333–362.
33.
BusseMHefekerC.Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. Europe J Polit Econ2007;
23: 397–415.
34.
GammoudiMCherifM.Capital account openness, political institutions and FDI in MENA region: an empirical investigation. J Econ Develop2016;
41: 53–76.
35.
MukhopadhyayK.Environmental impact of Thailand’s trade with OECD countries. Asia-Pac Trade Invest Rev2008;
2: 1–25.
36.
RafindadiAMuyeIKaitaRA.The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustain Ener Technolog Assess2018;
25: 126–137.
37.
CopelandBTaylorS.Trade, growth, and the environment.J Econ Lit2004;
42: 7–71.
38.
LevinsonA.Environmental regulations and manufacturers’ location choices: evidence from the census of manufactures. J Public Econ1996;
62: 5–29.
39.
CoCListJQuiL.Intellectual property rights, environmental regulations, and foreign direct investment. Land Econ2004;
80: 153–173.
40.
AcharyyaJ.FDI, growth and the environment: evidence from India on CO2 emission during the last two decades. J Econ Dev2009;
1: 43–58.
41.
HeJ.Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecolog Econ2006;
6: 228–245.
42.
BaekJKooW. A dynamic approach to the FDI-environment nexus: the case of China and India. In: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2008 annual meeting, July 27–29 2008, Orlando, Florida.
43.
OngSSekS.Interactions between economic growth and environmental quality: panel and non-panel analyses. AMS2013;
7: 687–700.
44.
ShenggangRBaolongY andXieM.International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of China’s industrial sectors. China Econ Rev2014;
28: 123–134.
45.
AbdouliMHammamiS.Economic growth, FDI inflows and their impact on the environment: an empirical study for the MENA countries. Qual Quant2016;
51: 121–146.
46.
LiuQWangSZhangW, et al.
Does foreign direct investment affect environmental pollution in China’s cities? A spatial econometric perspective. Sci Total Environ2018;
613–614: 521–529.
47.
SapkotaPBastolaU.Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Ener Econ2017;
64: 206–212.
48.
PaoHTsaiC.Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation. India, and China) countries. Ener2011;
36: 685–693.
49.
HoffmannRLeeCRamasamyB, et al.
FDI and pollution: a Granger causality test using panel data. J Int Dev2005;
17: 311–317.
50.
ZakaryaYGMostefaBAbbesMS, et al.
Factors affecting CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries: a panel data analysis.Procedia Econ Finan2015;
26: 114–125.
51.
JunWZakariaMShahzadSH, et al.
Effect of FDI on pollution in China. New Insights Based on Wavelet Approach. Sustain2018;
10: 1–20.
52.
OlivierGJanssens-MaenhoutGMunteanM, et al. Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2016 report. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016.
CollierPElliottVHegreH, et al. Breaking the conflict trap: civil war and development policy.
UK:
World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003.
56.
BravoADiasC.An empirical analysis of terrorism: deprivation, Islamism and geopolitical factors. Defen Peac Econ2006;
17: 329–341.
57.
LaiB.Draining the swamp: an empirical examination of the production of international terrorism, 1968–1998. Conflict Manage Peac Sci2007;
24: 297–310.
58.
BlombergSBHessGDOrphanidesA.The macroeconomic consequences of terrorism. J Monet Econ2004;
51: 1007–1032.
59.
FreytagAKrügerJJMeierrieksD, et al.
The origins of terrorism: cross-country estimates of socio-economic determinants of terrorism. Europ J Polit Econ2011;
27: 5–16.
60.
IEA, Global Energy & CO2 Status Report: the latest trends in energy and emissions in 2017,www.iea.org/geco/emissions/ (2018, accessed 18 December 2018).
PengHTanXLiY, et al.
Economic growth, foreign direct investment and CO2 emissions in China: a panel Granger causality.Anal Sustain2016;
8: 1–13.
63.
ShahbazMShabbirMSMalikMN, et al.
An analysis of a causal relationship between economic growth and terrorism in Pakistan. Econ Model2013;
35: 21–29.
64.
YeFFWangY-M. The effects of two types of environmental regulations on economic efficiency: an analysis of Chinese industries. Ener & Environ 2019; 30(5): 898–929.
65.
UllahIRahmanM.Terrorism and foreign direct investments in Pakistan: a cointegration analysis. J Econ Sustain Dev2014;
515: 233–243.
66.
BildiriciM.CO2 emission, oil consumption and production, economic growth in MENAP countries: ARDL and ANOVA methods. Int JOGC Tech2017;
14: 264–302.
67.
BildiriciMErsinO.Economic growth and CO2 emissions: an investigation with smooth transition autoregressive distributed lag models for the 1800–2014 period in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2018;
25: 200–219.
68.
PaoHTTsaiCM.CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Ener Pol2010;
38: 7850–7860.
69.
SongMWangS.How should developing countries cope with pollution-migration? An extended model of north-south trade and its numerical simulation. Ener & Environ2013;
24: 939–951.
