IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

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

  • Jaunky, Vishal Chandr
Registered author(s):

    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.

    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:
    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Resources Policy.

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

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:296-307
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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. 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.
    2. Karlsson, Sune & Lothgren, Mickael, 2000. "On the power and interpretation of panel unit root tests," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 249-255, March.
    3. Chang, Yoosoon, 2002. "Nonlinear IV Unit Root Tests in Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependency," Working Papers 2000-08, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard Blundell & Steve Bond, 1995. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," IFS Working Papers W95/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    8. Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Liu, Ruipeng, 2011. "Are shocks to commodity prices persistent?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 409-416, January.
    9. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Frédéric Docquier & Elisabetta Lodigiani & Hillel Rapoport & Maurice Schiff, 2011. "Emigration and Democracy," Development Working Papers 307, Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 09 May 2011.
    13. 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.
    14. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Chang, Yoosoon, 2002. "Bootstrap Unit Root Tests in Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependency," Working Papers 2000-01, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    18. David Roodman, 2007. "A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments," Working Papers 125, Center for Global Development.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. repec:oup:restud:v:76:y:2009:i:3:p:903-935 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-54, July.
    26. Peter Pedroni, 2001. "Purchasing Power Parity Tests In Cointegrated Panels," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 727-731, November.
    27. Jaunky, Vishal Chandr, 2011. "The CO2 emissions-income nexus: Evidence from rich countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1228-1240, March.
    28. 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.
    29. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-36, July.
    30. 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.
    31. Strauss, Jack & Yigit, Taner, 2003. "Shortfalls of panel unit root testing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 309-313, December.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.