The aim of this article is to empirically shed light on the impacts of trade openness (TO) on facilitation of renewable energy transition (RET) across Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Against this backdrop, this article incorporated annual time series data stemming from 2000 to 2017 and employed the two-stage least squares (2SLS) panel data estimation methodology. In addition, the panel Granger causality test was also applied to distinguish the possible long-run causal associations between the variables considered in the regression models. In the light of the estimated results, it is found that an improvement in TO triggers renewable energy consumption, improves the primary energy-use efficiency and elevates the access to clean cooking fuel technology within the selected South Asian economies. However, the results also led to the concerning conclusion regarding the ineffectiveness of the trade liberalization policies in curbing the relative consumption of non-renewable energy resources, thereby marginalizing the prospects of overall RET within these economies.
AkarB. G. (2016). The determinants of renewable energy consumption: An empirical analysis for the Balkans. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(11), 594–607.
2.
AminS. B.MurshedM. (2017). An empirical analysis of multivariate causality between electricity consumption, economic growth and foreign aid: Evidence from Bangladesh. The Journal of Developing Areas, 51(2), 369–380.
3.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W. (1995). Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 431–442.
4.
BaumC. F. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
5.
BeyeneA. D.KochS. F. (2013). Clean fuel-saving technology adoption in urban Ethiopia. Energy Economics, 36(1), 605–613.
6.
British Petroleum. (2017). Statistical review of world energy. London: British Petroleum.
7.
DoganE.TurkekulB. (2016). CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: Testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203–1213.
8.
FarhaniS.OzturkI. (2015). Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(20), 15663–15676.
9.
GhaliK. H.El-SakkaM. I. (2004). Energy use and output growth in Canada: A multivariate cointegration analysis. Energy Economics, 26(2), 225–238.
10.
GnansounouE. (2008). Assessing the energy vulnerability: Case of industrialised countries. Energy Policy, 36(10), 3734–3744.
11.
GrangerC. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral models. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438.
12.
HenriquesI.SadorskyP. (2008). Oil prices and the stock prices of alternative energy companies. Energy Economics, 30(3), 998–1010.
13.
ImK. S.PesaranM. H.ShinY. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
14.
JhaV. (2009). Trade flows, barriers, and market drivers in renewable energy supply goods: The need to level the playing field. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
15.
JohanssonT. B.GoldembergJ. (2002). Energy for sustainable development. A policy agenda. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.
16.
KaoC. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1–44.
17.
KehoY. (2016). Do foreign direct investment and trade lead to lower energy intensity? Evidence from selected African countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(1), 1–5.
18.
KirkpatrickC.ParkerD.ZhangY. F. (2006). Foreign direct investment in infrastructure in developing countries: Does regulation make a difference?Transnational Corporations, 15(1), 5.
19.
LevinA.LinC. F.ChuC.-S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–22.
20.
MaddalaG. S.WuS. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a simple new test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652.
21.
MertM.BölükG. (2016). Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to Kyoto Annex countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(21), 21669–21681.
22.
ParsaH.SajjadiS. Z. (2017). Exploring the trade openness, energy consumption and economic growth relationship in Iran by Bayer and Hanck combined cointegration and causality analysis. Iranian Economic Review, 21(4), 829–845.
23.
SadorskyP. (2009). Renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil prices in the G7 countries. Energy Economics, 31(3), 456–462.
24.
SbiaR.ShahbazM.HamdiH. (2014). A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Economic Modelling, 36, 191–197.
25.
ShahbazM.NasreenS.LingC. H.SbiaR. (2014). Causality between trade openness and energy consumption: What causes what in high, middle and low income countries. Energy Policy, 70, 126–143.
26.
ShakouriB.YazdiS. K. (2017). Causality between renewable energy, energy consumption, and economic growth. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy. doi:10.1080/15567249.2017.1312640
27.
The World Bank. (2018). World development indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
28.
United Nations. (2015). Achieving affordable, sustainable energy for all essential to meeting development goals, Secretary-General says at award ceremony. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm17071.doc.htm
