Strengthening climate prevention through economic globalization, clean energy, and financial development in N11 countries: evidence from advance panel estimations

Figures & data

Table 1. CSD test results.

Variable	Test statistics (p-values)
CO2	28.010*** (0.000)
FD	17.024*** (0.000)
EGLO	39.822*** (0.000)
CLEAN	16.140*** (0.000)
GDP	24.526*** (0.000)

*, ** & *** shows significance at 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively, whereas P values are given in parentheses.

Source: author estimation.

Table 2. Results of unit root test: With and without structural break (Pesaran, 2007).

	I(0)			I(1)
Variables	CIPS	M-CIPS			CIPS	M-CIPS
CO2	−4.518***	−5.350**			–	–
FD	−6.010***	−7.011**			–	–
EGLO	−3.064***	−4.955**			–	–
CLEAN	−5.709***	−6.705**			–	–
GDP	−3.232***	−4.631**			–	–
(Bai & Carrion-I-Silvestre, 2009)
	Z	Pm	P	Z	Pm	P
CO2	0.201	0.145	19.001	−3.010***	4.010***	78.019***
FD	0.050	0.041	16.010	−5.011***	6.011***	59.014***
EGLO	0.304	0.202	20.101	−3.021***	4.019***	91.016***
CLEAN	0.075	0.060	18.103	−6.002***	7.013***	67.010***
GDP	0.316	0.265	21.012	−3.101***	4.001***	82.018***

*, ** and *** shows the significance at 10, 5, and 1% levels.

(Bai & Carrion-I-Silvestre, 2009): for Z and Pm statistics, the critical values 2.326, 1.645, and 1.282 for 1, 5, and 10% significance level respectively, whereas for P, critical values are 56.06, 48.60, and 44.90, separately.

Source: author estimation.

Table 3. Slope heterogeneity test results.

Test statistics	Test value /Pvalues
Delta tilde	51.047*** (0.000)
Adjusted Delta tilde	73.039*** (0.000)

Where, ***, ** & * shows significance at 1, 5 and 10% level, whereas parantheses contain P-value.

Source: author estimation.

Table 4. Westerlund and Edgerton (2008) Panel cointegration results.

Test	Without break	Mean shift	Regime shift
Explained variable: CO2
Zφ(N)	−4.135***	−3.108***	−5.025***
Pvalue	0.000	0.000	0.000
Zτ(N)	−3.117***	−3.944***	−4.483***
Pvalue	0.000	0.000	0.000

Where *, ** and *** respectively denote 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level, and parentheses contain P-value.

Source: author estimation.

Table 5. Banerjee and Carrion-i-Silvestre (2017) results.

Economies	No deterministic–specification	With constant	With trend
Whole Sample	−4.010***	−3.332***	−5.651***
Bangladesh	−6.046***	−5.011***	−7.783***
Egypt	−3.192***	−3.213***	−4.671***
Indonesia	−5.870***	−4.010***	−6.012***
Iran	−3.041***	−3.786***	−4.022***
Mexico	−7.621***	−6.021***	−8.972***
Nigeria	−4.021***	−3.030***	−5.215***
Pakistan	−6.016***	−5.014***	−7.902***
Philippines	−3.512***	−3.412***	−4.016***
South Korea	−5.818***	−4.642***	−6.114***
Turkey	−3.231***	−3.891***	−4.030***
Vietnam	−7.021***	−6.115***	−8.061***

With constant, CV (critical value) at 10%* and 5%** is −2.18 and −2.32, whereas trend CV is −2.82. and −2.92.

Source: author estimation.

Table 6. Long run CS-ARDL results.

Variables	Coeff	t stat	p values
FD	0.196***	3.010	0.000
EGLO	0.235***	5.329	0.000
CLEAN	−0.215***	−4.571	0.000
GDP	0.467***	7.692	0.000
CSD-Statistics	–	0.046	0.312

Where, *, ** and *** denotes significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.

Source: author estimation.

Table 7. CS-ARDL analysis results (Short-run).

Variables	Coeff	t stat	P values
FD	0.039***	5.516	0.000
EGLO	0.024***	6.381	0.000
CLEAN	−0.103***	−4.244	0.000
GDP	0.051***	−5.829	0.000
ECT(-1)	−0.234***	−7.589	0.000

Where, *, ** and *** represent significance at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively.

Source: author estimation.

Table 8. Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel causality test results.

H0	Stats	Prob.
FD doesn’t homogenously cause CO2	11.854	0.000
CO2 doesn’t homogenously cause FD	29.210	0.000
EGLO doesn’t homogenously cause CO2	21.448	0.000
CO2 doesn’t homogenously cause EGLO	7.587	0.000
CLEAN doesn’t homogenously cause CO2	17.082	0.000
CO2 doesn’t homogenously cause CLEAN	39.712	0.000
GDP doesn’t homogenously cause CO2	10.696	0.000
CO2 doesn’t homogenously cause GDP	16.842	0.000

Source: Author Estimation.

Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bai, J., & Carrion-I-Silvestre, J. L. (2009). Structural changes, common stochastic trends, and unit roots in panel data. Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 471–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00530.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2008). A simple test for cointegration in dependent panels with structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(5), 665–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00513.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Banerjee, A., & Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. (2017). Testing for panel cointegration using common correlated effects estimators. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 38(4), 610–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsa.12234

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar