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.

Key words： 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