Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-6
Environmental impact of fiscal decentralization,green technology innovation and institution’s efficiency in developed countries using advance panel modelling
The debate regarding mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions and fiscal decentralization has gained extreme attention, but only a little evidence supports this issue. Therefore, this study adopts fiscal decentralization, green technology innovation, and institutional efficiency that reduce environmental degradation and help to create a sustainable environment in seventeen developed countries. This study applies a novel Methods of Moment's Quantiles Regression (MMQR) which helps to deal with asymmetricity, structural change and non-normality. The overall results exhibit emissions mitigating effect of fiscal decentralization, green technology innovation and institutional efficiency. However, the emissions mitigating effects of fiscal decentralization is the lowest for lower quantiles and the highest for higher emissions quantiles. In contrast, emission reduction effect of green technology innovation and institutional efficiency is higher for lowest quantiles and lower for highest quantiles. These results confirm the asymmetric effect of fiscal decentralization, green technology innovation, and institutional efficiency on carbon emissions, and validating that their effect is not alike across all distribution, rather significantly varied at lower, medium, and higher quantiles. These results offer valuable suggestions to improve the environmental sustainability.
Sencer AtasoyB. Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the U.S.: evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 77: 731–747.
2.
DavenportFVHerrera-EstradaJEBurkeM,et al.Flood size increases nonlinearly across the western United States in response to lower snow-precipitation ratios. Wiley Online Library2019; 56
3.
ChristoffP. The promissory note: COP 21 and the Paris climate agreement. Env Polit2016; 25: 765–787.
4.
YangYYangXTangD. Environmental regulations, Chinese-style fiscal decentralization, and carbon emissions: from the perspective of moderating effect. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess2021.
5.
Oates. On the evolution of fiscal federalism: Theory and institutions. JSTOR2008; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41790447.
6.
LehmannEEMenterM. Public cluster policy and neighboring regions: beggar-thy-neighbor?Economics of Innovation and New Technology2018; 27: 420–437.
7.
ShanSAhmadMTanZ,et al.The role of energy prices and non-linear fiscal decentralization in limiting carbon emissions: tracking environmental sustainability. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544221014912.
8.
WuYZhuQZhuB. Decoupling analysis of world economic growth and CO2 emissions: a study comparing developed and developing countries. Elsevier2018; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618311661.
9.
HintonLHussLRocheG. Routledge handbook of language revitalization. New York: Routledge, 2018.
10.
BalochMAOzturkIBekunFV,et al.Modeling the dynamic linkage between financial development, energy innovation, and environmental quality: does globalization matter?Bus Strat Environ2021; 30: 176–184.
11.
ChenXLiuJ. Fiscal decentralization and environmental pollution: a spatial analysis. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc2020; 2020.
12.
UmarMAliSAliW. Does fiscal decentralization and eco-innovation promote sustainable environment? A case study of selected fiscally decentralized countries genetic diversity for nutritional traits in the leaves of baobab, Adansonia digitata view project South Korea development: key macroeconomic and industrial reforms view project. Wiley Online Library2020; 29: 79–88.
13.
ChengYYaoX. Carbon intensity reduction assessment of renewable energy technology innovation in China: a panel data model with cross-section dependence and slope heterogeneity. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2021; 135: 110157.
14.
AsifMMajidA. The role of institutions in energy policy and environmental protection. Springer2020. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-43578-3_11
15.
AliSYusopZKaliappanS,et al.Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: evidence from OIC countries. Springer2020; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-020-07768-7.pdf.
16.
EgbetokunSOsabuohienESAkinbobolaT,et al.Environmental pollution, economic growth and institutional quality: exploring the nexus in Nigeria. Emerald.Com2019; https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEQ-02-2019-0050/full/html.
17.
DanishBalochMAWangB. Analyzing the role of governance in CO2 emissions mitigation: the BRICS experience. Struct Change Econ Dyn2019; 51: 119–125.
18.
UzarU. Political economy of renewable energy: does institutional quality make a difference in renewable energy consumption?Elsevier2020; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014812030505X.
19.
AkalinGErdoganS. Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation?Environ Sci Pollu Res2020; 28: 7226–7235.
20.
WangZDanishZhangB. The moderating role of corruption between economic growth and CO2 emissions: evidence from BRICS economies. Energy2018; 148: 506–513.
21.
HassanSTKhanSUDXiaE,et al.Role of institutions in correcting environmental pollution: an empirical investigation. Sustain Cities Soc2020; 53: 101901.
22.
CaragliuA. Energy efficiency-enhancing policies and firm performance: evidence from the paper and glass industries in Italy. Energy Policy2021; 156: 112415.
23.
SamuelsonPA. The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat1954; 36: 87.
24.
TieboutCM. A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ1956; 64: 416–424.
25.
AdebayoTSAcheampongAO. Modelling the globalization-CO2 emission nexus in Australia: evidence from quantile-on-quantile approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2021.
26.
ChengYAwanUAhmadS. How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520312245.
27.
SuCUmarMKhanZ. Does fiscal decentralization and eco-innovation promote renewable energy consumption? Analyzing the role of political risk. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720357491.
28.
JiXUmarMAliS,et al.Does fiscal decentralization and eco-innovation promote sustainable environment? A case study of selected fiscally decentralized countries. Sustain Dev2021; 29: 79–88.
29.
TufailMSongLAdebayoTS,et al.Do fiscal decentralization and natural resources rent curb carbon emissions? Evidence from developed countries. Environ Sci Pollu Res2021; 28: 49179–49190.
30.
WenHLeeCC. Impact of fiscal decentralization on firm environmental performance: evidence from a county-level fiscal reform in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2020; 27: 36147–36159.
31.
LiWYangY. Can environmental centralization help reduce pollution? Evidence from an administrative reform in China. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621021909.
32.
DuXGuoHZhangH,et al.Cross-state air pollution transport calls for more centralization in India’s environmental federalism. Elsevier2020; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104220302038.
33.
BoccellaACentobelliPCerchioneR,et al.Evaluating centralized and heterarchical control of smart manufacturing systems in the era of industry 4.0. Mdpi.Com2020; https://www.mdpi.com/623178.
34.
LevinsonS. 2 Promoting diversity in the public schools (Or, To what extent does the establishment clause of the first amendment hinder the establishment of more genuinely multicultural schools?). Wrest Div2003: 62–93.
McQuestinDNoguchiMDrewJ. The association between budget inaccuracy and technical efficiency in Australian local government. Public Money Manage2021.
37.
ShinGJheeB. Better service delivery, more satisfied citizens? The mediating effects of local government management capacity in South Korea. Wiley Online Library2021; 8: 42–67.
38.
LiXYounasMZAndlibZ,et al.Examining the asymmetric effects of Pakistan’s fiscal decentralization on economic growth and environmental quality. Environ Sci Pollu Res2021; 28: 5666–5681.
39.
de AraujoJde JaneiroR. Fiscal decentralization and regional inequality in Brazil. Anpec.Org.Br2017. https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro/2017/submissao/files_I/i5-0b00a35e65eadbc6aac5050074078d93.pdf
40.
KuaiPYangSTaoA,et al.Environmental effects of Chinese-style fiscal decentralization and the sustainability implications. J Cleaner Prod2019; 239.
41.
MugablehMI. Fiscal policy tools and economic growth in Jordan: evidence from time-series models. Int J Econ Finance2019; 11
42.
KhanZAliSDongK,et al.How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Econom2021; 94.
43.
YangYTangDZhangP. Effects of fiscal decentralization on carbon emissions in China. Int J Energy Sect Manage2020; 14: 213–228.
44.
ShaoXZhongYLiuW. Modeling the effect of Green technology innovation and renewable energy on carbon neutrality in N-11 countries? Evidence from advance panel estimations. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721012512.
45.
FusslerCJamesP. Driving eco-innovation: a breakthrough discipline for innovation and sustainability. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 1996. https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1996&as_yhi=1996&q=Fussler+%26+James+%281996%29+%2C+Driving+ecoinnovation%3A+a+breakthrough+discipline+for+innovation+and+sustainability&btnG=.
46.
GengDLaiKZhuQ. Eco-innovation and its role for performance improvement among Chinese small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527320302280.
47.
FethiSRahumaA. The impact of eco-innovation on CO2 emission reductions: evidence from selected petroleum companies. Struct Change Econo Dynam2020; 53: 108–115.
48.
ColombelliAKrafftJQuatraroF. Firms’ growth, Green gazelles and eco-innovation: evidence from a sample of European firms. Small Bus Econom2021; 56: 1721–1738.
49.
GrecoMGermaniFGrimaldiM,et al.Policy mix or policy mess? Effects of cross-instrumental policy mix on eco-innovation in German firms. Technovation2020; 102194.
50.
ArranzNArguelloNArroyabemJCF. How do internal, market and institutional factors affect the development of eco-innovation in firms?Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621009124.
51.
KhattakSIAhmadMKhanZU,et al.Exploring the impact of innovation, renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: new evidence from the BRICS economies. Environ Sci Pollu Res2020; 27: 13866–13881.
52.
ZhangDRongZJiQ. Green Innovation and firm performance_ evidence from listed companies in China. Resou Conserv Recy2019; 144: 48–55.
53.
SohagKHusainSHammoudehS,et al.Innovation, militarization, and renewable energy and Green growth in OECD countries. Springer2021; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-13326-6.
54.
AhmedK. Environmental policy stringency, related technological change and emissions inventory in 20 OECD countries. Elsevier2020; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720311348.
55.
DindaS. Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short-run dynamics. J Appl Econ2018; 21: 106–121.
56.
TöbelmannDWendlerT. The impact of environmental innovation on carbon dioxide emissions. J Cleaner Prod2020; 244.
57.
DuKLiJ. Towards a Green world: how do Green technology innovations affect total-factor carbon productivity. Energy Policy2019; 131: 240–250.
58.
LuoYSalmanMLuZ. Heterogeneous impacts of environmental regulations and foreign direct investment on Green innovation across different regions in China. Sci Total Environ2021; 759: 143744.
59.
AboelmagedM. Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: an empirical study. J Cleaner Prod2018; 184: 537–549.
60.
ShakibMYumeiHRaufA,et al.Revisiting the energy-economy-environment relationships for attaining environmental sustainability: evidence from belt and road initiative countries. Environ Sci Pollu Res2021.
61.
RabadánAGonzález-MorenoÁSáez-MartínezFJ. Improving Firms’ Performance and Sustainability: The Case of Eco-Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry. Sustainability2019; 11(20): 5590.
62.
ParamatiSRDiMHuangR. The role of financial deepening and green technology on carbon emissions: Evidence from major OECD economies. Finance Res Lett2021; 41: 101794.
63.
HosseiniHMKanekoS. Can environmental quality spread through institutions? Want more papers like this? Can environmental quality spread through institutions?Elsevier2013; 56: 312–321.
64.
GodilDISharifAAghaH,et al.The dynamic nonlinear influence of ICT, financial development, and institutional quality on CO2 emission in Pakistan: new insights from QARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollu Res2020; 27: 24190–24200.
65.
KhanMRanaA. Institutional quality and CO2 emission–output relations: the case of asian countries. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720314948.
66.
EstyDCPorterME. National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environ Dev Econ2005; 10: 391–434.
67.
ChenPLuYWanY. Assessing carbon dioxide emissions of high-speed rail: the case of Beijing-Shanghai corridor. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921002479.
68.
HaldarASethiN. Effect of institutional quality and renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions−an empirical investigation for developing countries. Environ Sci Pollu Res2021; 28: 15485–15503.
69.
AcheampongADzatorJSavageD. The role of economic institutions in electricity consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions linkages: evidence from sub-saharan Africa. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128221884000026.
70.
TarverdiY. Aspects of governance and CO 2 emissions: a Non-linear panel data analysis. Environ Res Econom2018; 69: 167–194.
71.
DanishM.AliSAhmadM,et al.The influencing factors on choice behavior regarding green electronic products: based on the green perceived value model. Mdpi.Com2019; 7: 99.
72.
PrzeworskiA. Institutions matter? Government and opposition. Vol. 39. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
73.
HaiboCAyambaECAgyemangAO,et al.Economic development and environmental sustainability—the case of foreign direct investment effect on environmental pollution in China. Environ Sci Pollu Res2019; 26: 7228–7242.
74.
OmriAMabroukNB. Good governance for sustainable development goals: Getting ahead of the pack or falling behind?Elsevier2020; 83.
75.
YasinIAhmadNChaudharyMA. The impact of financial development, political institutions, and urbanization on environmental degradation: evidence from 59 less-developed economies. Environ Deve Sustainabil2020; 23: 6698–6721.
76.
ChenCPinarMStengosT. Determinants of renewable energy consumption: Importance of democratic institutions. Elsevier2021; 179: 75–83.
77.
YasmeenRLiYHafeezM. The trade-environment nexus in light of governance: a global potential. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 34360–34379.
78.
AsonguSAOdhiamboNM. Inclusive development in environmental sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa: insights from governance mechanisms. Sustain Dev2019; 27: 713–724.
79.
Fernandez-JimenezRAl-KazazMJaslowR. Children present a window of opportunity for promoting health: JACC review topic of the week. Elsevier, 2018.
80.
YorkRRosaEADietzT. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ2003; 46: 351–365.
81.
DietzTRosaEA. Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. P Nat Acad Sci USA1997; 94: 175–179.
82.
SinnHW. Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Pub Finan2008; 15: 360–394.
83.
GemmellNKnellerRSanzI. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: spending versus revenue decentralization2013; 51: 1915–1931.
84.
OatesWE. On the evolution of fiscal federalism: theory and institutions. JSTOR2008; 61: 313–334.
85.
BrennanGBuchananJ. The power to tax: Analytic foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
86.
ChenHHaoYLiJ, et al. The impact of environmental regulation, shadow economy, and corruption on environmental quality: theory and empirical evidence from China. J Cleaner Prod2018; 195: 200–214.
87.
PhillipsPCBSulD. Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. Econom J2003; 6: 217–259.
88.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ2007; 22: 265–312.
89.
Pedroni. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. JSTOR2004; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3533533.
90.
Westerlund. A panel bootstrap cointegration testElsevier2007; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176507000900.
91.
KaoCChiangMH. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Adv Economet2000; 15: 179–222.
92.
SarkodieSAStrezovV. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 646: 862–871.
93.
MachadoJASilvaJS. Quantiles via moments. J Econom2019; 213: 145–173.
CanayIA. A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. Economet J2011; 14: 368–386.
96.
WangKLiuLAdebayoT,et al.Fiscal decentralization, political stability and resources curse hypothesis: a case of fiscal decentralized economies. Elsevier2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420721000878.
97.
AhmadMKhanZRahmanZU. Can innovation shocks determine CO2 emissions (CO2e) in the developed economies? A new perspective. Econ Innov New Technol2021; 30: 89–109.
98.
LiWSongJDuanH,et al.Urban consumers’ willingness to pay for higher-level energy-saving appliances: focusing on a less developed region. Elsevier2020; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920300811.
99.
CaiXZhuBZhangH,et al.Can direct environmental regulation promote Green technology innovation in heavily polluting industries? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Elsevier2020; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720343345.
100.
BanoSZhaoYAhmadA,et al.Identifying the impacts of human capital on carbon emissions in Pakistan. J Clean Prod 2018; 183: 1082–1092.
101.
YaoYIvanovskiKInekweJ,et al.Human capital and CO2 emissions in the long run. Energy Econom2020; 91: 104907.
102.
AzamMLiuLAhmadN. Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: evidence from developing world. Environ Dev Sustainabil2021; 23: 1646–1667.
103.
IslamMNTamannaSNomanM, et al.Climate change impacts and mitigation strategies to develop the Low carbon themes in Bangladesh. Springer Climate2021: 319–355.
104.
Mikayilov. The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. Elsevier2018; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618319280.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
