Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Is there a material Kuznets curve for aluminium? evidence from rich countries

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jaunky, Vishal Chandr
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The paper tests the material Kuznets Curve (MKC) hypothesis with regard to aluminium consumption for 20 high-income countries over the period 1970 to 2009. The test is based on the suggestion of Narayan and Narayan (2010). Various unit root and cointegration tests are applied. The aluminium and GDP series are found to be integrated of order one and cointegrated. Additionally, the Blundell–Bond system generalized methods-of-moments (GMM) is employed to conduct a panel causality test in a vector error-correction mechanism (VECM) setting. Unidirectional causality running from real per capita GDP to the aluminium intensity is uncovered in both the short-run and long-run. While controlling for structural shocks, the MKC hypothesis is found to hold at individual levels for Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and United Kingdom as well as for the whole panel. A 1% increase in GDP generates an increase of 0.87% in metal intensity in the short-run and a fall of 0.82% in the long-run for the panel.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420712000220
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Resources Policy.

    Volume (Year): 37 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 296-307

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:296-307

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467

    Related research

    Keywords: Material Kuznets Curve; Cross-sectional dependence; Structural breaks; System GMM; Panel DOLS;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Koedijk, Kees & Tims, Ben & Van Dijk, Mathijs A, 2004. "Purchasing Power Parity and the Euro Area," CEPR Discussion Papers 4510, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Docquier, Frédéric & Lodigiani, Elisabetta & Rapoport, Hillel & Schiff, Maurice, 2011. "Emigration and Democracy," IZA Discussion Papers 5496, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    3. Anindya Banerjee & Massimiliano Marcellino & Chiara Osbat, . "Some Cautions on the Use of Panel Methods for Integrated Series of Macro-Economic Data," Working Papers 170, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    4. Canas, Angela & Ferrao, Paulo & Conceicao, Pedro, 2003. "A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialised countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 217-229, September.
    5. Yoosoon Chang, 2000. "Nonlinear IV Unit Root Tests in Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependency," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-85, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    6. Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
    7. Herwartz, H. & Siedenburg, F., 2008. "Homogenous panel unit root tests under cross sectional dependence: Finite sample modifications and the wild bootstrap," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 137-150, September.
    8. Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Narayan, Seema, 2010. "Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 661-666, January.
    9. Pedroni, Peter, 1999. " Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 653-70, Special I.
    10. Ignacio Guzman, Juan & Nishiyama, Takashi & Tilton, John E., 2005. "Trends in the intensity of copper use in Japan since 1960," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 21-27, March.
    11. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    12. Graham Elliott & Thomas J. Rothenberg & James H. Stock, 1992. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," NBER Technical Working Papers 0130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Peter Pedroni, 2001. "Purchasing Power Parity Tests in Cointegrated Panels," Department of Economics Working Papers 2001-01, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    14. Taner Yigit, 2002. "Shortfalls of Panel Unit Root Testing," Departmental Working Papers 0208, Bilkent University, Department of Economics.
    15. Richard Blundell & Steve Bond, 1995. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," IFS Working Papers W95/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. Yoosoon Chang, 2000. "Bootstrap Unit Root Tests in Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependency," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1585, Econometric Society.
    17. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Ruipeng Liu, 2010. "Are Shocks to Commodity Prices Persistent?," Economics Series 2010_02, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance.
    18. Joakim Westerlund, 2007. "Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 69(6), pages 709-748, December.
    19. Engle, Robert F & Granger, Clive W J, 1987. "Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 251-76, March.
    20. de Bruyn, S. M. & Opschoor, J. B., 1997. "Developments in the throughput-income relationship: theoretical and empirical observations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 255-268, March.
    21. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-54, July.
    22. Martin Jänicke & Harald Mönch & Thomas Ranneberg & Udo Simonis, 1989. "Structural change and environmental impact," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 24-35, January.
    23. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April.
    24. David Roodman, 2007. "A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments," Working Papers 125, Center for Global Development.
    25. Karlsson, Sune & Löthgren, Mickael, 1999. "On the power and interpretation of panel unit root tests," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 299, Stockholm School of Economics.
    26. Kyung-So Im & Junsoo Lee & Margie Tieslau, 2005. "Panel LM Unit-root Tests with Level Shifts," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 67(3), pages 393-419, 06.
    27. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Stephan Popp, 2009. "A New Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks in Level and Slope at Unknown Time," Economics Series 2009_11, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance.
    28. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
    29. Pesaran, M.H., 2003. "A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross Section Dependence," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0346, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    30. Antonio Focacci, 2007. "Empirical analysis of the relationship between total consumption-GDP ratio and per capita income for different metals: The cases of Brazil, China and India," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 34(9), pages 612-636, September.
    31. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 1992. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 251-70, July.
    32. Yoosoon Chang & Wonho Song, 2009. "Testing for Unit Roots in Small Panels with Short-run and Long-run Cross-sectional Dependencies," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 903-935.
    33. Windmeijer, Frank, 2005. "A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 25-51, May.
    34. Lohani, Prem R. & Tilton, John E., 1993. "A cross-section analysis of metal intensity of use in the less developed countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 145-154, June.
    35. Jaunky, Vishal Chandr, 2011. "The CO2 emissions-income nexus: Evidence from rich countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1228-1240, March.
    36. Martin Jänicke & Manfred Binder & Harald Mönch, 1997. "‘Dirty industries’: Patterns of change in industrial countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(4), pages 467-491, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Wårell, Linda, 2014. "Trends and developments in long-term steel demand – The intensity-of-use hypothesis revisited," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 134-143.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:296-307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.