The present study is motivated by the need to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation given the new wave of chase for higher economic growth trajectories comes with its environmental cost implications, especially among developing blocs like the Emerging 7 (E7) countries. There is a consistent trade-off between economic growth versus environmental quality. Government apparatus are perpetually on the chase for low-carbon emission policies via the pursuit for green economy. To this end, this present study extends the conventional environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) argument by incorporating the role of institution in emerging industrialized economies (E7) and using second-generation panel analysis methods like mean group (MG), augmented mean group (AMG), common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG), and the Dumitrescu and Hurlin causality test for more robust estimates and inferences. To this end, we explore the long-run and causality relationship between economic growth, quadratic form of economic growth, institutional quality, trade flow, investment in energy sector, and financial development in an EKC environment. Empirical analysis established a long-run equilibrium relationship among the outlined variables over the study period. The long-run regression shows the presence of EKC in the E7. Thus, suggesting the preference for GDP growth over environmental quality at the earlier stage of growth curve. Interestingly, investment in energy, trade flow dynamics across the blocs, and financial development dampens the detrimental effect of environmental pollution as we observed negative relationship with the ecological footprint. On the contrary, quality of institution is weak as institutional quality increase (worsen) the quality of environment in the E7 economies. From a policy perspective, this current study proposed the need for more stringent environmental treaties and regulations and promotion of green economy without compromising economic growth. In the conclusion part of the study, more details and specifics about the policy blueprint are presented.
KatirciogluSKatirciogluSSaqibN. Does higher education system moderate energy consumption and climate change nexus? Evidence from a small island.Air Qual Atmos Health2020; 13: 153–160.
2.
WangQZhangFLiRLiL. The impact of renewable energy on decoupling economic growth from ecological footprint–an empirical analysis of 166 countries. J Clean Prod2022; 354: 131706.
3.
HawksworthJCooksonG. The world in 2050. How big will the major emerging market economies get and how can the OECD compete, 2006. Available at Microsoft Word - World in 2050 update _long version_ - mar08.doc (mathsfi.com)
4.
VipinNSumeshDRoyaT (Eds). Promotional strategies and new service opportunities in emerging economies. IGI Global, 2010.
5.
KatirciogluS.ImamogluH. Spillover effects of financial development on the informal economic activity: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Int J Islam Middle East2020; 13(3): 471–482.
6.
ShabaniHMorinaFMisiriV. The effect of capital adequacy on returns of assets of commercial banks in Kosovo. Eur J Sustain Dev2019; 8(2): 201–201.
7.
IEA Oil Market Report 2018. Hawksworth, John. “The World in 2050” PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2018.
8.
LeeJWBrahmasreneT. Investigating the influence of tourism on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from panel analysis of the European Union. Tourism Management2013; 38: 69–76.
9.
LamersPHamelinckCJungingerM,et al.International bioenergy trade—a review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2011; 15: 2655–2676.
10.
GyamfiBA. Consumption-based carbon emission and foreign direct investment in oil- producing Sub-Sahara African countries: the role of natural resources and urbanization. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 13154–13166.
11.
LambWFSteinbergerJKBows-LarkinA,et al.Transitions in pathways of human development and carbon emissions. Environ Res Lett2014; 9: 014011.
12.
BustosP. Multilateral trade liberalization, exports and technology upgrading: Evidence on the impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinean firms. mimeo Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2007.
13.
AdebayoTSBekunFVRjoubH,et al.Another look at the nexus between economic growth trajectory and emission within the context of developing country: fresh insights from a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles test.Environment Dev Sustainability2022: 1–23.
14.
GyamfiBAOzturkIBeinMA,et al.An investigation into the anthropogenic effect of biomass energy utilization and economic sustainability on environmental degradation in E7 economies. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin2021c; 15: 840–851.
15.
OhajionuUCGyamfiBAHasekiMI,et al.Assessing the linkage between energy consumption, financial development, tourism and environment: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 30004–30018.
16.
ColeMAElliottRJ. Do environmental regulations influence trade patterns? Testing old and. 2003.
17.
AsghariM. Does FDI promote MENA region’s environment quality? Pollution halo or pollution haven hypothesis. Int J Sci Res Environ Sci2013; 1: 92–100.
18.
BamideleROzturkIGyamfiBA,et al.Tourism-induced pollution emission amidst energy mix: evidence from Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 19752–19761.
19.
DumitrescuEIHurlinC. Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460.
20.
AslanAAltinozBÖzsolakB. The nexus between economic growth, tourism development, energy consumption, and CO 2 emissions in Mediterranean countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 3243–3252.
21.
KalayciSKoksalC. The relationship between China’s airway freight in terms of carbon-dioxide emission and export volume. Int J Econ Perspect2015; 9(4): 60–68.
22.
KatirciogluS. Investigating the role of oil prices in the conventional EKC model: evidence from Turkey. Asian Econ Financ Rev2017; 7: 498–508.
23.
BatranceaLRusMIMascaES,et al.Fiscal pressure as a trigger of financial performance for the energy industry: an empirical investigation across a 16-year period. Energies2021; 14: 3769.
24.
DestekMAUlucakRDoganE. Analyzing the environmental kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 29387–29396.
25.
KöksalCIşikMKatircioğluS. The role of shadow economies in ecological footprint quality: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 13457–13466.
26.
LarissaBMaranRMIoanB,et al.Adjusted net savings of CEE and Baltic nations in the context of sustainable economic growth: a panel data analysis. J Risk Financ Manage2020; 13: 234.
27.
NathanielSPNwuluNBekunF. Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 6207–6221.
28.
NathanielSPYalçinerKBekunFV. Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Resour Policy2021; 70: 101924.
29.
ManagiSHibikiATsurumiT. Does trade openness improve environmental quality?J Environ Econ Manage2009; 58: 346–363.
30.
RahmanMMSaidiKMbarekMB. Economic growth in South Asia: the role of CO2 emissions, population density and trade openness. Heliyon2017; 6(5): e03903.
31.
YuCNataliiaDYooSJ,et al.Does trade openness convey a positive impact for the environmental quality? Evidence from a panel of CIS countries. Eurasian Geogr Econ2019; 60: 333–356.
32.
BatranceaLRathnaswamyMKBatranceaI. A panel data analysis on determinants of economic growth in seven non-BCBS countries. J Knowl Econ2022; 13: 1651–1665.
33.
AliSYusopZKaliappanSR,et al.Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: evidence from OIC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27(11): 11671–11682.
34.
LuWC. The interplay among ecological footprint, real income, energy consumption, and trade openness in 13 Asian countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 45148–45160.
35.
KöksalCKatirciogluSKatirciogluS. The role of financial efficiency in renewable energy demand: evidence from OECD countries.J Environ Manag2021; 285: 112122.
36.
KatirciogluSKöksalCKatirciogluS. The role of financial systems in energy demand: a comparison of developed and developing countries. Heliyon2021; 7(6): e07323.
37.
BatranceaL. An econometric approach regarding the impact of fiscal pressure on equilibrium: evidence from electricity, gas and oil companies listed on the New York stock exchange. Mathematics2021a; 9: 630.
38.
BatranceaL. The influence of liquidity and solvency on performance within the healthcare industry: evidence from publicly listed companies. Mathematics2021b; 9: 2231.
39.
TamazianAChousaJPVadlamannatiKC. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy2009; 37: 246–253.
40.
JalilAFeridunM. The impact of growth, energy, and financial development on the environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ2011; 33: 284–291.
41.
Al-MulaliUTangCFOzturkI. Does financial development reduce environmental degradation? Evidence from a panel study of 129 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2015; 22: 14891–14900.
42.
ShahbazMShahzadSJHAhmadN,et al.Financial development and environmental quality: the way forward. Energy Policy2016; 98: 353–364.
43.
ShahbazMNasirMARoubaudD. Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Econ2018; 74: 843–857.
44.
AcheampongAO. Modelling for insight: does financial development improve environmental quality?Energy Econ2019; 83: 156–179.
45.
BokpinGA. Foreign direct investment and environmental sustainability in Africa: the role of institutions and governance. Res Int Bus Finance2017; 39: 239–247.
HassanSTKhanSUDXiaE,et al.Role of institutions in correcting environmental pollution: an empirical investigation. Sustainable Cities Soc2020; 53: 101901.
48.
DanishUlucakR. The pathway toward pollution mitigation: does institutional quality make a difference?Bus Strategy Environ2020; 29: 3571–3583.
49.
BekunFVGyamfiBAOnifadeST, et al.Beyond the environmental kuznets curve in E7 economies: accounting for the combined impacts of institutional quality and renewables. J Cleaner Prod2021; 314: 127924.
50.
LeHPOzturkI. The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO 2 emissions in the presence of environmental kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 22680–22697.
51.
ShahWUHYasmeenRPaddaIUH. An analysis between financial development, institutions, and the environment: a global view. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 21437–21449.
52.
AgozieDQGyamfiBABekunFV,et al.Environmental kuznets curve hypothesis from lens of economic complexity index for BRICS: evidence from second generation panel analysis. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess2022; 53: 102597.
53.
SarpongSYBeinMAGyamfiBA,et al.The impact of tourism arrivals, tourism receipts and renewable energy consumption on quality of life: a panel study of Southern African region. Heliyon2020; 6: e05351.
54.
ShahbazMBalsalobreDShahzadSJH. The influencing factors of CO 2 emissions and the role of biomass energy consumption: statistical experience from G-7 countries. Environ Model Assess2019; 24: 143–161.
55.
ShahbazMDestekMAOkumusI,et al.An empirical note on comparison between resource abundance and resource dependence in resource abundant countries. Resources Policy2019; 60: 47–55.
56.
ShahbazMShahzadSJHMahalikMK,et al.How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis. Appl Econ2018; 50: 1479–1494.
57.
WangLVoXVShahbazM,et al.Globalization and carbon emissions: is there any role of agriculture value-added, financial development, and natural resource rent in the aftermath of COP21?J Environ Manag2020;268:110712.
58.
ShenYSuZWMalikMY,et al.Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? A provincial panel analysis of China. Sci Total Environ2021; 755: 142538.
59.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Econom2007; 22: 265–312.
60.
PesaranMH. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom Rev2015; 34: 1089–1117.
61.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom2003; 115: 53–74.
62.
WesterlundJ. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2007; 69: 709–748.
63.
EberhardtMBondS. Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/. 2009.
PesaranMH. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica2006; 74: 967–1012.
69.
BekunFVAlolaAASarkodieSA. Toward a sustainable environment: nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 657: 1023–1029.
70.
JayanthakumaranKVermaRLiuY. CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy2012; 42: 450–460.
71.
AdedoyinFFBeinMAGyamfiBA,et al.Does agricultural development induce environmental pollution in E7? A myth or reality. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021b; 28: 41869–41880.
72.
OnifadeSTGyamfiBABekunFV,et al.Significance of air transport to tourism-induced growth hypothesis in E7 economies: exploring the implications for environmental quality. Tourism: Int Interdiscip J2022; 70: 339–353.
73.
GyamfiBABeinMAUdembaEN,et al.Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in oil and non-oil sub-Saharan Africa countries: evidence from quantile regression technique. Resour Policy2021; 73: 102119.
74.
ShahbazMNwaniCBekunFV,et al.Discerning the role of renewable energy and energy efficiency in finding the path to cleaner consumption and production patterns: new insights from developing economies. Energy2022; 260: 124951.
75.
AliEBShayanmehrSRadmehrR,et al.Exploring the impact of economic growth on environmental pollution in South American countries: how does renewable energy and globalization matter?Environ Sci Pollut Res2022: 1–18.
76.
SteveYSMuradABGyamfiBA,et al.Renewable energy consumption a panacea for sustainable economic growth: panel causality analysis for African blocs. Int J Green Energy2022; 19: 847–856.
77.
GyamfiBAAdedoyinFFBeinMA,et al.The anthropogenic consequences of energy consumption in E7 economies: juxtaposing roles of renewable, coal, nuclear, oil and gas energy: evidence from panel quantile method.J Cleaner Prod2021b; 295: 126373.
78.
AdedoyinFFAlolaAABekunFV. The alternative energy utilization and common regional trade outlook in EU-27: evidence from common correlated effects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2021; 145: 111092.
79.
AcemogluDJohnsonSRobinsonJA. Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth.Handb Econ Growth2005; 1: 385–472.
80.
HashemizadehABuiQZaidiSAH. A blend of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption in G-7 countries: The role of disaggregate energy in human development. Energy2022; 241: 122520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122520.
81.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. WORKING PAPER 3914. 1991. https//doi.org/10.3386/w3914.
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.
