This paper aims to explore the convergence of per capita carbon and ecological footprints in G7 countries during 1961–2016. For this purpose, we propose a new unit root test in the panel setting–the panel Fourier threshold unit root test. This test takes into consideration both multiple smooth structural changes and nonlinearity. According to the literature, the power of the nonlinear unit root tests is reduced in the case of ignoring structural breaks. Therefore, we expect to get more reliable empirical findings by utilizing this methodology. The empirical results of this paper show that these series have nonlinear behaviors for the period 1961–2016. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the absolute convergence hypothesis is valid in G7 countries for both regimes. Thus, governments can conduct common environmental policies, including international climate summits and agreements, instead of national-based policies to mitigate environmental deterioration in their countries.
AcarSSöderholmPBrännlundR.Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: implications and meta-analysis. Clim Policy2018;
18: 512–525.
2.
RiosVGianmoenaL.Convergence in CO2 emissions: a spatial economic analysis with cross-country interactions. Energy Econ2018;
75: 222–238.
3.
ParkerSBhattiMI.Dynamics and drivers of per capita CO2 emissions in asia. Energy Econ2020;
89: 104798.
4.
PayneJEApergisN.Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions among developing countries: evidence from stochastic and club convergence tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 1–13.
5.
SephtonPS.Mean reversion in CO2 emissions: the need for structural change. Environ Resour Econ2020;
75: 953–975.
6.
SolarinSATiwariAKBelloMO.A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustain Cities Soc2019;
46: 101422.
7.
UlucakRKassouriYİlkaySÇ, et al.
Does convergence contribute to reshaping sustainable development policies? Insights from Sub-Saharan africa. Ecol Indic2020;
112: 106140.
8.
YilanciVPataUK.Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecol Indic2020;
113: 106178.
9.
SternDI. The environmental Kuznets curve: a primer. CCEP Working Paper 1404, 2014.
10.
OzcanBUlucakRDoganE.Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustain Cities Soc2019;
44: 130–143.
AlvaradoROrtizCJiménezN, et al.
Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: the role of agriculture and international trade. J Clean Prod2021;
288: 125589.
13.
PerronP.The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica1989;
57: 1361–1401.
14.
YavuzNCYilanciV.Convergence in per capita carbon dioxide emissions among G7 countries: a TAR panel unit root approach. Environ Resour Econ2013;
54: 283–291.
15.
HabimanaOMånssonKSjölanderP.Testing for nonlinear unit roots in the presence of a structural break with an application to the qualified PPP during the 1997 asian financial crisis. Int J Fin Econ2018;
23: 221–232.
16.
AnoruoEMurthyVN.Testing nonlinear inflation convergence for the central African economic and monetary community. Int J Econ Financ Issues2014;
4: 1–7.
17.
StrazicichMCListJA.Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries?Environ Resour Econ2003;
24: 263–271.
SolarinSA.Convergence of CO2 emission levels: evidence from african countries. J Econ Res2014;
19: 65–92.
26.
El-MontasserGInglesi-LotzRGuptaR.Convergence of greenhouse gas emissions among G7 countries. Appl Econ2015;
47: 6543–6552.
27.
BurnettJW.Club convergence and clustering of US energy-related CO2 emissions. Resour Energy Econ2016;
46: 62–84.
28.
AhmedMKhanAMBibiS, et al.
Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: insights via wavelet analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
75: 86–97.
29.
TiwariCMishraM.Testing the CO2 emissions convergence: evidence from asian countries. IIM Kozhikode Soc Manag Rev2017;
6: 67–72.
30.
ChurchillSAInekweJIvanovskiK.Conditional convergence in per capita carbon emissions since 1900. Appl Energy2018;
228: 916–927.
31.
LinJInglesi-LotzRChangT.Revisiting CO2 emissions convergence in G18 countries. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy2018;
13: 269–280.
32.
PresnoMJLandajoMGonzálezPF.Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis. Energy Econ2018;
70: 563–581.
33.
ErdoganSAcaravciA.Revisiting the convergence of carbon emission phenomenon in OECD countries: new evidence from fourier panel KPSS test. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 24758–24771.
34.
ApergisNPayneJE.NAFTA and the convergence of CO2 emissions intensity and its determinants. Int Econ2020;
161: 1–9.
35.
ChurchillSAInekweJIvanovskiK.Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: evidence from emerging economies. Energy Econ2020;
86: 104659.
36.
SolarinSATiwariA.Convergence in sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions since 1850 in OECD countries: evidence from a new panel unit root test. Environ Model Assess2020;
25: 665–675.
37.
YeCChenYInglesi-LotzR, et al.
CO2 emissions converge in China and G7 countries? Further evidence from fourier quantile unit root test. Energy Environ2020;
31: 348–363.
38.
BilgiliFUlucakR.Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries?Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2018;
25: 35404–35419.
39.
UlucakRApergisN.Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environ Sci Policy2018;
80: 21–27.
40.
HaiderSAkramV.Club convergence analysis of ecological and carbon footprint: evidence from a cross-country analysis. Carbon Manag2019;
10: 451–463.
41.
SolarinSA.Convergence in CO2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: evidence from OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 6167–6181.
42.
ErdoganSOkumusI.Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: an empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecol Indic2021;
121: 107123.
43.
BeckerREndersWLeeJ.A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. J Time Series Anal2006;
27: 381–409.
44.
EndersWLeeJ.A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2012;
74: 574–599.
45.
EndersWLeeJ.The flexible Fourier form and dickey–fuller type unit root tests. Econ Lett2012;
117: 196–199.
46.
ChristopoulosDKLeón-LedesmaMA.Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: post-Bretton woods real exchange rates. J Int Money Finance2010;
29: 1076–1093.
YilanciVOzkanYAltinsoyA.Testing the unemployment hysteresis in G7 countries: a fresh evidence from fourier threshold unit root test. Rom J Econ Forecast2020;
23: 49–59.
49.
Bahmani-OskooeeMChangTWuT.Revisiting purchasing power parity in african countries: panel stationary test with sharp and smooth breaks. Appl Financ Econ2014;
24: 1429–1438.
50.
LeeCWuJLYangL.A simple panel unit‐root test with smooth breaks in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2016;
78: 365–393.
51.
OlayeniROTiwariAKWoharME. Fractional frequency flexible fourier form (FFFFF) for panel cointegration test. Appl Econ Lett2021;
28: 482–486.
52.
YilanciVGorusMS.Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a fourier function. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2020;
27: 40552–40562.
53.
UcarNOmayT.Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels. Econ Lett2009;
104: 5–8.
54.
WuJLLeeHY.A revisit to the non-linear mean reversion of real exchange rates: evidence from a series-specific non-linear panel unit-root test. J Macroecon2009;
31: 591–601.
55.
BeyaertACamachoM.TAR panel unit root tests and real convergence. Rev Dev Econ2008;
12: 668–681.
56.
PayneJE.The convergence of carbon dioxide emissions: a survey of the empirical literature. JES2020;
47: 1757–1785.
57.
McKibbinWJStegmanA.Convergence and per capita carbon emissions.Brookings Discuss Pap Int Econ2005;
167: 1–69.
58.
BilgiliFUlucakRKoçakE.Implications of environmental convergence: continental evidence based on ecological footprint. In: ShahbazMBalsalobreD (eds) Energy and environmental strategies in the era of globalization. Green energy and technology.
Cham:
Springer, 2019, pp. 133–165.
