Energy use, CO₂ emission and foreign direct investment: Is there any inconsistence between causal relations?

Abstract

In this study, the causal relations between inward foreign direct investment (FDI)-energy use per capita and inward FDI-CO₂ emission per capita were analyzed and the inconsistency between the causal relations was investigated via bootstrap-corrected panel causality test and cross-correlation analysis. In this direction, data from 76 countries including the period of 1980–2009 was processed. No supportive evidence was found for changing causal relations to country group which was classified into income level. The findings indicated that while the pollution haven hypothesis was supported for Mozambique, United Arab Emirates and Oman, the pollution halo hypothesis was supported in the case of India, Iceland, Panama and Zambia. For other countries, energy use and CO₂ emission were neutral to inward FDI flows in aggregated level. Furthermore, this study urged that increased (decreased) energy use due to the inward FDI flows did not necessarily mean an increase (decrease) in pollution level, and vice versa. For policy purpose, FDI attractive policy should be regulated by taking into account this possibility.

Keywords

CO₂ emissions / energy consumption / liberalization

References

[1] Chang N. The empirical relationship between openness and environmental pollution in China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2012, 55(6): 783–796

[2] Zarsky L. Havens, halos and spaghetti: untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. In: Meyer K E ed. Multinational Enterprises and Host Economies. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008, 283–306

[3] Blackman A, Wu X. Foreign direct investment in China’s power sector: trends, benefits and barriers. Energy Policy, 1999, 27(12): 695–711

[4] Mielnik O, Goldemberg J. Foreign direct investment and decoupling between energy and gross domestic product in developing countries. Energy Policy, 2002, 30(2): 87–89

[5] Eskeland G S, Harrison A E. Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics, 2003, 70(1): 1–23

[6] Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson G H, Ma J, Xu J. Technology development and energy productivity in China. Energy Economics, 2004, 28(5, 6): 690–705

[7] Tang C F. Electricity consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and population in Malaysia: new evidence from multivariate framework analysis. Journal of Economic Studies (Glasgow, Scotland), 2009, 36(4): 371–382

[8] Hübler M, Keller A. Energy savings via FDI? Empirical evidence from developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 2010, 15(1): 59–80

[9] Sadorsky P. The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(5): 2528–2535

[10] Pao H T, Tsai C M. Multivariate Granger causality between CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 2011, 36(1): 685–693

[11] Ting Y, Long R Y, Zhuang Y Y. Analysis of the FDI effect on energy consumption intensity in Jiangsu province. Energy Procedia, 2011, 5: 100–104

[12] Song F, Zheng X. What drives the change in China’s energy intensity: combining decomposition analysis and econometric analysis at the provincial level. Energy Policy, 2012, 51: 445–453

[13] Herrerias M J, Cuadros A, Orts V. Energy intensity and investment ownership across Chinese provinces. Energy Economics, 2013, 36: 286–298

[14] Al-mulali U, Tang C F. Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 2013, 60: 813–819

[15] Cole M A, Elliott R J R. FDI and the capital intensity of “dirty” sectors: a missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics, 2005, 9(4): 530–548

[16] Hoffmann R, Lee C G, Ramasamy B, Yeung M. FDI and pollution: a Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 2005, 17(3): 311–317

[17] He J. Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 2006, 60(1): 228–245

[18] Merican Y, Yusop Z, Noor Z M, Hook L S. Foreign direct investment and the pollution in five ASEAN nations. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2007, 1(2): 245–261

[19] Waldkirch A, Gopinath M. Pollution control and foreign direct investment in Mexico: an industry-level analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2008, 41(3): 289–313

[20] Jorgenson A K. Foreign direct investment and the environment, the mitigating influence of institutional and civil society factors, and relationships between industrial pollution and human health: a panel study of less-developed countries. Organization & Environment, 2009, 22(2): 135–157

[21] Lee C G. Foreign direct investment, pollution and economic growth: evidence from Malaysia. Applied Economics, 2009, 41(13): 1709–1716

[22] Tamazian A, Chousa J P, Vadlamannati K C. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(1): 246–253

[23] Kim M H, Adilov N. The lesser of two evils: an empirical investigation of foreign direct investment-pollution tradeoff. Applied Economics, 2012, 44(20): 2597–2606

[24] Blanco L, Gonzalez F, Ruiz I. The impact of FDI on CO₂ emissions in Latin America. Oxford Development Studies, 2013, 41(1): 104–121

[25] Chandran V G R, Tang C F. The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO₂ emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 24: 445–453

[26] Kónya L. Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD Countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 2006, 23(6): 978–992

[27] Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1962, 57(298): 348–368

[28] Pesaran M H. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panel with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 2006, 74(4): 967–1012

[29] Huang Y. Private investment and financial development in a globalized world. Empirical Economics, 2011, 41(1): 43–56

[30] Selover D D. International interdependence and business cycle transmission in ASEAN. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1999, 13(3): 230–253

[31] Sayek S, Selover D D. International interdependence and business cycle transmission between Turkey and the European Union. Southern Economic Journal, 2002, 69(2): 206–238

[32] Breusch T S, Pagan A R. The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 1980, 47(1): 239–253

[33] Pesaran M H. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper, 2004, Paper No. 1229

[34] Granger C W J. Some aspects of causal relationships. Journal of Econometrics, 2003, 112(1): 69–71

[35] Breitung J. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 2005, 24(2): 151–173

[36] Kar M, Nazlioglu S, Agir H. Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: bootstrap panel granger causality analysis. Economic Modelling, 2011, 28(1-2): 685– 693

[37] Pesaran M H, Shin Y, Smith R P. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1999, 94(446): 621–634

[38] Dumitrescu E I, Hurlin C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29(4): 1450–1460

[39] Phillips P C B. Fully modified least squares and vector autoregression. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29(4): 1450–1460

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg