This study investigates the impacts of economic policy uncertainty (EPU), energy consumption (EC), sustainable technological innovation (STI), and quality of governance on green growth (GG). Besides, it examines the moderating effect of STI and governance quality on the association between EPU and GG. It applies a Pooled Mean Group Autoregressive Distributed Lag estimator for 25 emerging economies for periods 1991–2019. For the robustness test, we utilize the asymptotic distribution of the Cross-section Augmented Distributed Lag to control for cross-sectional dependence concerns. We drive two indicators for GG by applying the principal component approach and directional distance function. The findings imply that STI and quality of governance have significant positive impacts on GG. However, EPU and EC adversely impact GG in emerging economies. Besides, quality of governance and STI positively moderate EPU's influence on GG, implying that countries with better quality of governance and promote STI mitigate the detrimental effects of high EPU on GG. Moreover, we run the causality analysis to investigate the causal relationship between target variables and GG. Policy suggestions are proposed based on the results.
HickelJKallisG. Is green growth possible?New Polit Econ2020; 25: 469–486.
2.
FletcherRRammeltC. Decoupling: a key fantasy of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. Globalizations2017; 14: 450–467.
3.
BinaO. The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance?Environ Plann C2013; 31: 1023–1047.
4.
LiangZQamruzzamanM. An asymmetric investigation of the nexus between economic policy uncertainty, knowledge spillover, climate change, and green economy: evidence from BRIC nations. Front Environ Sci2022; 9: 807424.
5.
GaleottiMSaliniSVerdoliniE. Measuring environmental policy stringency: approaches, validity, and impact on environmental innovation and energy efficiency. Energ Policy2020; 136: 111052.
RodríguezCHaščičMVSM. Environmentally adjusted multifactor productivity: methodology and empirical results for OECD and G20 countries. Ecol Econ2018; 153: 147–160.
8.
CapozzaISamsonR. Towards green growth in emerging market economies: evidence from environmental performance reviews. OECD Green Growth Papers No. 2019-01. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
9.
ChongTTLiX. Understanding the China–US trade war: causes, economic impact, and the worst-case scenario. Econ Polit Stud2019; 7: 185–202.
10.
Gould-DaviesN. Economic Effects and Political Impacts: Assessing Western Sanctions on Russia. BOFIT Policy Brief 8, 2018.
11.
BekkersE. Challenges to the trade system: the potential impact of changes in future trade policy. J Policy Model2019; 41: 489–506.
12.
GuKDongFSunH, et al.How economic policy uncertainty processes impact on inclusive green growth in emerging industrialized countries: a case study of China. J Clean Prod2021; 322: 128963.
13.
SongYHaoFHaoX, et al.Economic policy uncertainty, outward foreign direct investments, and green total factor productivity: evidence from firm-level data in China. Sustainability2021; 13: 2339.
14.
HussainZMehmoodBKhanM, et al.Green growth, green technology, and environmental health: evidence from high-GDP countries. Front Public Health2022; 9: 816697.
15.
AbbasiKRShahbazMJiaoZ, et al.How energy consumption, industrial growth, urbanization, and CO2 emissions affect economic growth in Pakistan? A novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Energy2021; 221: 119793.
16.
FernandesCIVeigaPMFerreiraJJ, et al.Green growth versus economic growth:do sustainable technology transfer and innovations lead to an imperfect choice?Bus Strateg Environ2021; 30: 2021–2037.
17.
AdamsRJeanrenaudSBessantJ, et al.Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int J Manag Rev2016; 18: 180–205.
18.
JinPPengCSongM. Macroeconomic uncertainty, high-level innovation, and urban green development performance in China. China Econ Rev2019; 55: 1–18.
19.
MeilingWSiluPIkramH, et al.Towards sustainable development: How does technological innovation drive the increase in green total factor productivity?Sustain Dev2020; 29: 217–227.
20.
SohagKHusainSHammoudehS, et al.Innovation, militarization, and renewable energy and green growth in OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 36004–36017.
21.
NosheenMIqbalJAbbasiMA. Do technological innovations promote green growth in the European union?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 21717–21729.
22.
Leal FilhoWShielCPaçoA, et al.Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: falling behind or getting ahead of the pack?J Clean Prod2019; 232: 285–294.
23.
ThomasKLittlewoodS. From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Plan, Pract Res2010; 25: 203–222.
24.
ZhangDOzturkIUllahS. Institutional factors-environmental quality nexus in BRICS: a strategic pillar of governmental performance. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz2022; 35: 5777–5789.
25.
LinBWangS. From catch-up to transcend: the development of emerging countries’ green economy. Math Probl Eng2019: 1481946.
26.
GuXZhuZYuM. The macro effects of GPR and EPU indexes over the global oil market—are the two types of uncertainty shock alike?Energ Econ2021; 100: 105394.
27.
OzturkIUddinGS. Causality among carbon emissions, energy consumption and growth in India. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz2012; 25: 752–775.
28.
HuangXHuangXChenM, et al.Fiscal spending and green economic growth: fresh evidence from high polluted Asian economies. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz2022; 35: 5502–5513.
UllahSAgyei-BoapeahHKimJR, et al.Does national culture matter for environmental innovation? A study of emerging economies. Technol Forecast Soc2022; 181: 121755.
31.
LorekSSpangenbergJH. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy -beyond green growth and green economies. J Clean Prod2014; 63: 33–44.
32.
Le BlancD. Special issue on green economy and sustainable development. Nat Resour Forum2011; 35: 151–154.
33.
SolowRM. The economics of resources or the resources of economics. Am Econ Rev1974; 64: 1–14.
34.
PirgaipBDinçergökB. Economic policy uncertainty, energy consumption and carbon emissions in G7 countries: evidence from a panel Granger causality analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 30050–30066.
SyedQRBouriE. Impact of economic policy uncertainty on CO2 emissions in the US: Evidence from bootstrap ARDL approach. J Public Affairs2021; 22: e2595.
37.
BloomN. The impact of uncertainty shocks. Econometrica2009; 77: 623–685.
38.
SohailMTUllahSMajeedMT. Effect of policy uncertainty on green growth in high-polluting economies. J Clean Prod2022; 380: 135043.
39.
Bar-IlanAStrangeWC. Investment lags. Am Econ Rev1996; 86: 610–622.
40.
AbelAB. Optimal investment under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev1983; 73: 228–233.
41.
AbbasiKRAdedoyinFF. Do energy use and economic policy uncertainty affect CO2 emissions in China? Empirical evidence from the dynamic ARDL simulation approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 23323–23335.
42.
AnserMKApergisNSyedQR. Impact of economic policy uncertainty on CO2 emissions: evidence from top ten carbon emitter countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 29369–29378.
43.
WangQXiaoKLuZ. Does economic policy uncertainty affect CO2 emissions? Empirical evidence from the United States. Sustainability2020; 12: 9108.
44.
SyedQBhowmikRAdedoyinFF, et al.Do economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk surge CO2 emissions? New insights from panel quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27845–27861.
45.
AdedoyinFFZakariA. Energy consumption, economic expansion, and CO2 emission in the UK: the role of economic policy uncertainty. Sci Total Environ2020; 738: 140014.
46.
AdamsSAdedoyinFOlaniranE, et al.Energy consumption, economic policy uncertainty and carbon emissions; causality evidence from resource rich economies. Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 179–190.
47.
BhowmikRSyedQRApergisN, et al.Applying a dynamic ARDL approach to the environmental phillips curve (EPC) hypothesis amid monetary, fiscal, and trade policy uncertainty in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 14929.
48.
LiXLiZSuC, et al.Exploring the asymmetric impact of economic policy uncertainty on China's carbon emissions trading market price: do different types of uncertainty matter?Technol Forecast Soc2022; 178: 121601.
49.
BhowmikRDuraniFSarfrazM, et al.Does sectoral energy consumption depend on trade, monetary, and fiscal policy uncertainty? Policy recommendations using novel bootstrap ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 12916–12928.
50.
AnserMKSyedQRLeanHH, et al.Do economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk lead to environmental degradation? Evidence from emerging economies. Sustainability2021; 13: 5866.
51.
XieYCaoYLiX. The importance of trade policy uncertainty to energy consumption in a changing world. Financ Res Lett2023; 52: 103566.
52.
SohailMTXiuyuanYUsmanA, et al.Renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption: assessing the asymmetric role of monetary policy uncertainty in energy consumption. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 31575–31584.
53.
AbbasiKRLvKRadulescuM, et al.Economic complexity, tourism, energy prices, and environmental degradation in the top economic complexity countries: fresh panel evidence. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 68717–68731.
54.
SolowRM. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ1956; 70: 65–94.
55.
AcemogluDUfukADouglasH, et al.The transition to clean technology. J Polit Econ2016; 124: 52–104.
56.
LuoYWangQLongX, et al.Green innovation and SO2 emissions: Dynamic threshold effect of human capital. Bus Strateg Environ2022; 32: 499–515.
57.
SkareMPorada-RochonM. The role of innovation in sustainable growth: a dynamic panel study on micro and macro levels 1990–2019. Technol Forecast Soc2022; 175: 121337.
58.
IqbalNAbbasiKRShinwariR, et al.Does exports diversification and environmental innovation achieve carbon neutrality target of OECD economies?J Environ Manage2021; 291: 112648.
59.
ZhaoJSinhaAInuwaN, et al.Does structural transformation in economy impact inequality in renewable energy productivity? Implications for sustainable development. Renew Energ2022; 189: 853–864.
60.
ForgioneAFMigliardoC. Panel VAR study on the effects of technical efficiency, market competition, and firm value on environmental performance. J Clean Prod2022; 359: 131919.
61.
AbbasiKRHussainKHaddadAM, et al.The role of financial development and technological innovation towards sustainable development in Pakistan: fresh insights from consumption and territory-based emissions. Technol Forecast Soc2022; 176: 121444.
62.
ZhuYSunZZhangS, et al.Economic policy uncertainty, environmental regulation, and green innovation-an empirical study based on Chinese high-tech enterprises. INT J Environ Res Pu2021; 18: 9503.
63.
SalmanMLongXDaudaL, et al.The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand. J Clean Prod2019; 241: 118331.
64.
AhmedFKousarSPervaizA, et al.Do institutional quality and financial development affect sustainable economic growth? Evidence from South Asian countries. Borsa Istanb Rev2022; 22: 189–196.
65.
UsmanMJahangerA. Heterogeneous effects of remittances and institutional quality in reducing environmental deficit in the presence of EKC hypothesis: A global study with the application of panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 37292–37310.
66.
LisciandraMMigliardoC. An empirical study of the impact of corruption on environmental performance: evidence from panel data. Environ Resource Econ2017; 68: 297–318.
67.
BorojoDGYushiJMiaoM. The impacts of economic policy uncertainties on carbon dioxide emissions of emerging and low-income developing countries: the moderating role of institutional quality. Int J Emerg Mark2022.
68.
BilgenS. Structure and environmental impact of global energy consumption. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2014; 38: 890–902.
69.
ZhangJAbbasiKRHussainK, et al.Another perspective towards energy consumption factors in Pakistan: fresh policy insights from novel methodological framework. Energ2022; 249: 123758.
70.
AwanAAbbasiKRRejS, et al.The impact of renewable energy, internet use and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions: a method of moments quantile analysis. Renew Energ2022; 189: 454–466.
71.
BaniyaBGiurcoDKellyS. Green growth in Nepal and Bangladesh: empirical analysis and future prospects. Energ Policy2020; 149: 112049.
72.
KhanDUlucakR. How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from BRICS economies. Sci Total Environ2020; 712: 136504.
73.
AbbasiKRJiaoZShahbazM, et al.Asymmetric impact of renewable and non-renewable energy on economic growth in Pakistan: new evidence from a nonlinear analysis. Energ Explor Exploit2020; 38: 1946–1967.
74.
XiaFXuJ. Green total factor productivity: a re-examination of quality of growth for provinces in China. China Econ Rev2020; 62: 101454.
75.
ChungYFäreRGrosskopfS. Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage1997; 51: 229–240.
76.
ShephardRW. Theory of cost and production. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
77.
FareRGrosskopfSNohD, et al.Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J Econ2005; 126: 469–e492.
78.
KumarS. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using malmquist- luenberger index. Ecol Econ2006; 56: 280–293.
79.
LiKLinB. Impact of energy conservation policies on the green productivity in China’s manufacturing sector: evidence from a three-stage DEA model. Appl Energ2016; 168: 351–363.
80.
SunX. Analysis of green total factor productivity in OECD and BRICS countries: based on the super-SBM model. J Water Clim Change2022; 13: 3400.
81.
BaltagiB. Econometric analysis of panel data. 2nd ed.Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001.
82.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRP. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 621–634.
83.
PesaranMHPesaranB. Working with microfit 4.0: Interactive econometric analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
84.
BrockWATaylorMS. The Green Solow model. J Econ Growth2010; 15: 127–153.
85.
ChudikAKPesaranMH. Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. J Econometrics2015; 188: 393–420.
86.
DumitrescuEIHurlinC. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460.
87.
DemiralMDemiraO. Where is the gray side of green growth? Theoretical insights, policy directions, and evidence from a multidimensional approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 63905–63930.
88.
LinLChangHShahzadI, et al.A nexus between the rule of law, green innovation, growth and sustainable environment in top Asian countries: fresh insights from heterogeneous panel estimation. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz2022; 35: 5434–5452.
89.
HussainZMehmoodBKhanMK, et al.Green growth, green technology, and environmental health: evidence from high-GDP countries. Front Public Health2022; 9: 816697.
90.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econometrics2003; 115: 53–74.
91.
WesterlundJ. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford B Econ Stat2007; 69: 709–748.
92.
PedroniP. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econ Theor2004; 20: 597–625.
93.
KaoC. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econometrics1999; 90: 1–44.
94.
BaltagiBH. The Oxford handbook of panel data. USA: Oxford University Press, 2014.
95.
ChudikAGrossmanVPesaranMH. A multi-country approach to forecasting output growth using PMIs. J Econometrics2016; 192: 349–365.
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.
