Financial inclusion and energy productivity: evaluating the role composite risk for E7 countries

Figures & data

Figure 1. The theoretical framework.

Source: Author.

Table 1. Slope heterogeneity and cross-section dependence.

$\text{Slope heterogeneity}$
Model			$\stackrel{\sim }{\Delta }$		${\stackrel{\sim }{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{Adjusted}}$
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it}\right)$			8.464***		10.208***
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it},{\mathit{HCI}}_{it}\right)$			6.725***		8.506***
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it},{\mathit{HCI}}_{it},{\mathit{GDP}}_{it}\right)$			5.552***		7.403***
$\mathrm{Cross}-\text{Section Dependence}$
$EP$	$\mathit{FININC}$	$\mathit{HCI}$		$\mathit{GLOB}$
7.469***	15.023***	13.361***		16.239***
$\mathit{CRI}$	$\mathit{GDP}$	–		–
4.163***	17.103***	–		–

*** is for 1% significance level.

Source: Author.

Table 2. Pesaran (2007) unit root test.

Variables	Level	First difference
$EP$	−2.034	−2.992**
$\mathit{FININC}$	−1.713	−2.960**
$\mathit{HCI}$	−1.347	−2.984**
$\mathit{GLOB}$	−2.052	−3.973***
$\mathit{CRI}$	−2.300	−3.426***
$\mathit{GDP}$	−1.557	−2.951**

Note: All the variables are tested with trend and intercept.

*** and

** is for 1% and 5% level of significance.

Source: Author.

Table 3. Westerlund (2007) cointegration.

Model	Gt	Ga	Pt	Pa
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it}\right)$	−4.62***	−11.20***	−8.88***	−11.75***
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it},{\mathit{HCI}}_{it}\right)$	−4.60***	−11.04***	−8.40***	−12.72***
${EP}_{it}=f\left({\mathit{FININC}}_{it},{\mathit{GLB}}_{it},{\mathit{CRI}}_{it},{\mathit{HCI}}_{it},{\mathit{GDP}}_{it}\right)$	−4.01***	−10.72***	−9.32***	−13.71***

*** means significant at 10% level.

Source: Author.

Table 4. AMG results.

$\mathrm{Variables}$	$\mathrm{Model}-1$ $\mathrm{Coefficients}\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{Std}.\mathrm{Error}\right]$	$\mathrm{Model}-2$ $\text{Coefficients}\left[\mathrm{Std}.\mathrm{Error}\right]$	$\mathrm{Model}-3$ $\text{Coefficients}\left[\mathrm{Std}.\mathrm{Error}\right]$
$\mathit{FININC}$	0.038*** [0.0069]	0.028*** [0.0045]	0.0234*** [0.0041]
$\mathit{GLOB}$	0.499*** [0.1458]	0.430** [0.2037]	0.371*** [0.0871]
$\mathit{CRI}$	0.369*** [0.0970]	0.340** [0.1364]	0.291*** [0.0611]
$\mathit{HCI}$	–	0.1028*** [0.0261]	0.156** [0.0775]
$\mathit{GDP}$	–	–	1.150*** [0.5775]
$\mathit{Constant}$	2.345*** [0.2944]	2.790*** [0.2614]	2.006*** [0.1523]
$\mathrm{Wald}-\mathrm{Test}$	27.01***	60.43***	117.73***
$\mathrm{RMSE}$	0.0076	0.0067	0.0062

Note: All the models are tested with trend and intercept.

*** and

** means significant at 1%, and 5% level. RMSE is for root mean squared error.

Source: Author.

Table 4. Dumitrescu Hurlin panel causality.

${\mathrm{H}}_0$	$\mathrm{Wald}-\mathrm{Stats}$	$\overline{\mathrm{Z}}-\mathrm{Stats}$	p-value(s)
FININC-EP	2.506*	1.737	0.082
EP-FININC	5.984***	6.361	0.000
GLOB-EP	2.795**	2.120	0.033
EP-GLOB	4.310***	3.146	0.000
CRI – EP	3.635***	2.579	0.005
EP – CRI	4.151***	3.924	0.000
HCI – EP	4.374***	4.220	0.000
EP – HCI	2.865**	2.213	0.0268
GDP – EP	2.613*	1.879	0.0602
EP – GDP	3.387**	2.578	0.0143

Note: ***, ** and * is for 1%, 5% and 10% significance level.

Source: Author.

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

Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar