IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/67227.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Fluctuations in Gas Consumption Per Capita Transitory? Evidence from LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks

Author

Listed:
  • Shahbaz, Muhammad
  • Solarin, Sakiru Adebola
  • Mallick, Hrushikesh

Abstract

With a view to determine the effectiveness of the policies aimed at boosting the natural gas consumption, this paper examines the unit root properties of natural gas in 44 countries, for the period 1965 to 2010. Applying the LM unit root tests, which allow for a maximum of two structural breaks, we are able to reject the null hypothesis of unit root in the natural gas consumption series of 57% of the countries, under study. The implication of these results is that shocks to natural gas consumption in several countries will produce transitory effects. A key consequence of this finding is that initiatives designed to have permanent positive effects on natural gas, such as construction of large natural gas pipeline network, are to be effective in increasing the share of natural gas consumption in only 43% of the total sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Shahbaz, Muhammad & Solarin, Sakiru Adebola & Mallick, Hrushikesh, 2015. "Are Fluctuations in Gas Consumption Per Capita Transitory? Evidence from LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks," MPRA Paper 67227, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 14 Oct 2015.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:67227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/67227/1/MPRA_paper_67227.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smyth, Russell, 2013. "Are fluctuations in energy variables permanent or transitory? A survey of the literature on the integration properties of energy consumption and production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 371-378.
    2. Kumar Narayan, Paresh & Smyth, Russell, 2007. "Are shocks to energy consumption permanent or temporary? Evidence from 182 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 333-341, January.
    3. Kumar Narayan, Paresh & Narayan, Seema & Popp, Stephan, 2010. "Energy consumption at the state level: The unit root null hypothesis from Australia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(6), pages 1953-1962, June.
    4. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots," NBER Chapters,in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2005. "Structural breaks, energy consumption, and economic growth revisited: Evidence from Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 857-872, November.
    6. Apergis, Nicholas & Loomis, David & Payne, James E., 2010. "Are fluctuations in coal consumption transitory or permanent? Evidence from a panel of US states," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2424-2426, July.
    7. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Kumar Tiwari, Aviral & Ozturk, Ilhan & Farooq, Abdul, 2013. "Are fluctuations in electricity consumption per capita transitory? Evidence from developed and developing economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 551-554.
    8. Kapetanios, George & Shin, Yongcheol & Snell, Andy, 2003. "Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 359-379, February.
    9. Lee, Junsoo & Strazicich, Mark C, 2001. " Break Point Estimation and Spurious Rejections with Endogenous Unit Root Tests," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 63(5), pages 535-558, December.
    10. Junsoo Lee & Mark C. Strazicich, 2013. "Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(4), pages 2483-2492.
    11. 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.
    12. Robin L. Lumsdaine & David H. Papell, 1997. "Multiple Trend Breaks And The Unit-Root Hypothesis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 212-218, May.
    13. Chen, Pei-Fen & Lee, Chien-Chiang, 2007. "Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3526-3540, June.
    14. Junsoo Lee & Mark C. Strazicich, 2003. "Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1082-1089, November.
    15. Apergis, Nicholas & Loomis, David & Payne, James E., 2010. "Are shocks to natural gas consumption temporary or permanent? Evidence from a panel of U.S. states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4734-4736, August.
    16. Hasanov, Mübariz & Telatar, Erdinc, 2011. "A re-examination of stationarity of energy consumption: Evidence from new unit root tests," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7726-7738.
    17. Lean, Hooi Hooi & Smyth, Russell, 2014. "Will initiatives to promote hydroelectricity consumption be effective? Evidence from univariate and panel LM unit root tests with structural breaks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 102-115.
    18. Lean, Hooi Hooi & Smyth, Russell, 2009. "Long memory in US disaggregated petroleum consumption: Evidence from univariate and multivariate LM tests for fractional integration," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3205-3211, August.
    19. Aslan, Alper, 2011. "Does natural gas consumption follow a nonlinear path over time? Evidence from 50 US States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4466-4469.
    20. Golpe, Antonio A. & Carmona, Monica & Congregado, Emilio, 2012. "Persistence in natural gas consumption in the US: An unobserved component model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 594-600.
    21. Al-Iriani, Mahmoud A., 2006. "Energy-GDP relationship revisited: An example from GCC countries using panel causality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3342-3350, November.
    22. Perron, Pierre, 1990. "Testing for a Unit Root in a Time Series with a Changing Mean," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 153-162, April.
    23. Noguera, José, 2013. "Oil prices: Breaks and trends," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 60-67.
    24. Aslan, Alper & Kum, Hakan, 2011. "The stationary of energy consumption for Turkish disaggregate data by employing linear and nonlinear unit root tests," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 4256-4258.
    25. Mishra, Vinod & Sharma, Susan & Smyth, Russell, 2009. "Are fluctuations in energy consumption per capita transitory? Evidence from a panel of Pacific Island countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2318-2326, 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


    Cited by:

    1. Solarin, Sakiru Adebola & Lean, Hooi Hooi, 2016. "Are fluctuations in oil consumption permanent or transitory? Evidence from linear and nonlinear unit root tests," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 262-270.
    2. Solarin, Sakiru Adebola & Ozturk, Ilhan, 2016. "The relationship between natural gas consumption and economic growth in OPEC members," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1348-1356.
    3. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Omay, Tolga & Roubaud, David, 2019. "Sharp and Smooth Breaks in Unit Root Testing of Renewable Energy Consumption: The Way Forward," MPRA Paper 92176, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 Feb 2019.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gas Consumption; Stationary; Structural Breaks;

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:67227. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.