Causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth: A multi-country analysis
This paper attempts to investigate the causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth using the data from six countries among 20 countries that have used nuclear energy for more than 20 years until 2005. To this end, time-series techniques including the tests for unit roots, co-integration, and Granger-causality are employed to Argentina, France, Germany, Korea, Pakistan, and Switzerland. The main conclusion is that the causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth is not uniform across countries. In the case of Switzerland, there exists bi-directional causality between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth. This means that an increase in nuclear energy consumption directly affects economic growth and that economic growth also stimulates further nuclear energy consumption. The uni-directional causality runs from economic growth to nuclear energy consumption without any feedback effects in France and Pakistan, and from nuclear energy to economic growth in Korea. However, any causality between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in Argentina and Germany is not detected.
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.
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.
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.:
- Stock, James H. & Watson, Mark W., 1989. "Interpreting the evidence on money-income causality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 161-181, January.
- Stern, David I., 1993. "Energy and economic growth in the USA : A multivariate approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 137-150, April.
- David I. Stern, 1998.
"A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the U.S. macroeconomy,"
Working Papers in Ecological Economics
9803, Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Ecological Economics Program.
- Stern, David I., 2000. "A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 267-283, April.
- Johansen, Soren & Juselius, Katarina, 1990. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration--With Applications to the Demand for Money," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 52(2), pages 169-210, May.
- Pesaran, H. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 1998.
"Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models,"
Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-29, January.
- Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y., 1997. "Generalised Impulse Response Analysis in Linear Multivariate Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 9710, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Hsiao, Cheng, 1981. "Autoregressive modelling and money-income causality detection," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 85-106.
- Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2005. "Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1627-1632, August.
- Masih, Abul M. M. & Masih, Rumi, 1996. "Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality: results from a multi-country study based on cointegration and error-correction modelling techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 165-183, July.
- Grover, R.B. & Chandra, Subhash, 2006. "Scenario for growth of electricity in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2834-2847, November.
- 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.
- Chiou-Wei, Song Zan & Chen, Ching-Fu & Zhu, Zhen, 2008.
"Economic growth and energy consumption revisited -- Evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality,"
Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 3063-3076, November.
- Chiou-Wei, Song Zan & Chen, Ching-Fu & Zhu, Zhen, 2009. "Economic growth and energy consumption revisited -- Evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 235-239, March.
- Geweke, John & Meese, Richard & Dent, Warren, 1983. "Comparing alternative tests of causality in temporal systems : Analytic results and experimental evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-194, February.
- Soytas, Ugur & Sari, Ramazan, 2003. "Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 33-37, January.
- Hiro Y. Toda & Peter C.B. Phillips, 1991.
"Vector Autoregression and Causality,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
977, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Oh, Wankeun & Lee, Kihoon, 2004. "Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP revisited: the case of Korea 1970-1999," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 51-59, January.
- Glasure, Yong U. & Lee, Aie-Rie, 1998. "Cointegration, error-correction, and the relationship between GDP and energy: The case of South Korea and Singapore," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 17-25, March.
- Toth, Ferenc L. & Rogner, Hans-Holger, 2006. "Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-25, January.
- Wolde-Rufael, Yemane, 2006. "Electricity consumption and economic growth: a time series experience for 17 African countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1106-1114, July.
- Pantula, Sastry G & Gonzalez-Farias, Graciela & Fuller, Wayne A, 1994. "A Comparison of Unit-Root Test Criteria," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(4), pages 449-59, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:5:p:1905-1913. 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.