Sustainable growth and green environment? Evidence from nonparametric methods provincial data of China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Economic growth, CO₂ emissions, and trade in China.

Source: Franzen and Mader (2016).

Table 1. Literature summary.

Authors (year)	Methodology	Findings
Safi et al. (2021a)	CS-ARDL, AMG, CCEMG	Economic growth and imports ↑ CO2.
Safi et al. (2022a)	CS-ARDL	Exports, eco-innovation, and energy productivity ↓ CO2.
Safi et al. (2021b)	CS-ARDL	DGP and imports ↑ emissions while exports ↓ the CO2.
Safi et al. (2022b)	Spatial autoregressive model, spatial error model, and spatial Durbin model.	Fiscal decentralization ↑ the CO2 emissions by ↓ in the long-run.
Safi et al. (2021c)	CS-ARDL	Exports, financial stability, and renewable’s ↓ the CO2.
Hasnaoui et al. (2021)	Fixed effect	Better human capital funds outperform the lower human capital funds.
Rizvi et al. (2020)	Statistical methods	COVID-19 significantly affects equity prices.
Mirza et al. (2020)	Statistical methods	Funds with improved human capital outperformed traditional funds.
Yarovaya et al. (2021)	Statistical methods	Funds having higher human capital are more efficient in the COVID-19.
Naqvi et al. (2021)	Panel methods	Renewable energy investment drops down due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Ji et al. (2021a, 2021b)	Panel specifications	Green funds outperformed conventional funds, which also reduces emissions.
Umar et al. (2021)	Panel methods	Green loans, which reduces emissions also encourages the bank’s asset quality.
Ji et al. (2021a, 2021b)	Statistical methods	Renewable energy funds are stable and assist in environmental sustainability.
Jiang et al. (2022)	CS-ARDL	Exports and R&D ↓ emissions
Wei et al. (2022)	Quantile regression	Economic growth and human capital ↓ CO2.
Luan et al. (2022)	ANG, FMOLS, DOLS	Investment in energy industry and industrial pollution prevention ↓ emissions.
Qin et al. (2021a)	Quantile regression	EKC is valid in the E7 countries.
Qin et al. (2021b)	FMOLS, DOLS	Renewable electricity and human capital ↓ CO2.
Shahzad et al. (2021)	FMOLS	Economic growth and environmental regulations ↑ renewable’s generation.
Khan et al. (2020a)	FMOLS, DOLS, CCR	Renewable energy and exports ↑ environmental sustainability.
Khan et al. (2020b)	Panel methods	Imports ↑ emissions while exports ↓ it.
Khan et al. (2019)	ARDL	Environmental regulations ↓ emissions.
Khan et al. (2020c)		Renewables and exports ↑ environmental sustainability.
Khan et al. (2020d)	Panel methods	Human capital ↓ fossil fuel consumption.
Khan et al. (2021)	Panel specifications	Renewables and technical innovation ↑ environmental sustainability.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Id	15.5	8.66172	1	30
CO2	9.671136	0.9480846	6.404583	11.58329
GDP	9.725525	0.96646	7.509883	11.76752
REC	9.010263	1.707456	4.820282	13.35003
FTR	5.045347	2.03625	0.076961	11.12955
HC	8.759978	0.857776	7.097549	10.88962

Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 3. Testing for slope heterogeneity.

Model specification		Delta	p-Value
1	${\mathrm{CO}}_{2, it}=f({\mathrm{GDP}}_{it},{\mathrm{REC}}_{\mathrm{it}},{\mathrm{FTR}}_{\mathrm{it}},{\mathrm{HC}}_{\mathrm{it}})$	18.261	0.0000
2	${\mathrm{CO}}_{2,\mathrm{ }it}=f({\mathrm{GDP}}_{\mathrm{it}},{\mathrm{REC}}_{\mathrm{it}},{\mathrm{FTR}}_{\mathrm{it}},{\mathrm{HC}}_{\mathrm{it}})$	adj. 21.241	0.0000

Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 4. Testing for cross-sectional dependence (CSD).

Variable	CD-test	p-Value	Average joint T	Mean ρ	Mean abs(ρ)
CO2	89.286	0.000	23.00	+ 0.89	0.91
GDP	99.311	0.000	23.00	+ 0.99	0.99
FTR	88.529	0.000	23.00	+ 0.89	0.89
HC	99.174	0.000	23.00	+ 0.99	0.99
REC1	73.079	0.000	23.00	+ 0.73	0.73

Notes: Under the null hypothesis of cross-section independence, CD ∼ N(0,1). Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 5. Pesaran (2007) panel unit root test.

Cross-sectional first difference mean
	Constant and trend			CIPS	N,T
Variables	10%	5%	1%
CO2	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–2.443	(30,23)
D.CO2	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–4.625	(30,22)
GDP	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–2.041	(30,23)
D.GDP	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–4.076	(30,22)
FTR	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–2.149	(30,23)
D.FTR	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–4.306	(30,22)
REC	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–2.753	(30,23)
HC	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–2.490	(30,23)
D.HC	–2.58	–2.66	–2.81	–4.517	(30,22)

Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 6. Westerlund ECM panel cointegrating tests.

Statistic	Value	Z-Value	p-Value
Gt	–3.750	–9.435	0.000
Ga	–5.988	2.997	0.999
Pt	–19.113	–8.097	0.000
Pa	–6.185	–0.053	0.479

Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 7. Method of moment quantile regression.

Variable	CO2 (0.25 quantile)			CO2 (0.50 quantile)
	Location	Scale	qtile	Location	Scale	qtile
GDP	1.146081	0.3699479	0.8230581	1.181575	0.1675376	1.194543
	(0.157733)	(0.098796)	(0.168413)	(0.204474)	(0.133181)	(0.200232)
	[0.000]	[0.0000]	[0.0000	[0.000]	[0.208]	[0.000]
REC1	0.6185008	–0.1567967	0.7554093	0.3246327	–0.2294893	0.3068702
	(0.378156)	(0.023685)	(0.411848)	(0.690056)	(0.044945)	(0.068265)
	[0.000]	[0.0000]	[0.0000]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]
FTR	–0.1339783	0.0077565	–0.140751	0.2416972	–0.0714089	0.2361702
	(0.028541)	(0.017877)	(0.030189)	(0.025537)	(0.016633)	(0.025180)
	[0.000]	[0.664]	[0.0000]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]
HC	–1.477655	–0.1322721	–1.36216	–1.359148	0.0427292	–1.35584
	(0.174839)	(0.109510)	(0.185092)	(0.241141)	(0.157063)	(0.235994)
	[0.000]	[0.227]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.786]	[0.000]
Constant	6.572226	–0.6000642	7.096177	8.044394	–0.4861623	8.006765
	(0.359685)	(0.225292)	(0.382700)	(0.438257)	(0.285452)	(0.429429)
	[0.000]	[0.008]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.089]	[0.000]

Note: Values of coefficient (standard errors) and [p-values].

Source: Authors own calculations.

Table 8. Method of moment quantile regression.

	CO2 (0.75 quantile)			CO2 (0.90 quantile)
Variable	Location	Scale	Qtile	Location	Scale	qtile
GDP	1.181575	0.1675376	1.334053	1.181575	0.1675376	1.435892
	(0.204478)	(0.133181)	(0.185655)	(0.204478)	(0.133185)	(0.214419)
	[0.000]	[0.208]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.208]	[0.000]
REC1	0.3246327	–0.2294893	0.1157729	0.3246327	–0.2294893	–0.0237249
	(0.690056)	(0.044947)	(0.062939)	(0.690056)	(0.044457)	(0.073001)
	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.065]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.745]
FTR	0.2416972	–0.0714089	0.1767075	0.2416972	–0.0714089	0.1333008
	(0.025537)	(0.016633)	(0.023206)	(0.025537)	(0.016633)	(0.026950)
	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.000]
HC	–1.359148	0.0427292	–1.320259	–1.359148	0.0427292	–1.294286
	(0.241141)	(0.157063)	(0.218922)	(0.241141)	(0.157063)	(0.252713)
	[0.000]	[0.786]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.786]	[0.000]
Constant	8.044394	–0.4861623	7.601934	8.044394	–0.4861623	7.306415
	(0.438257)	(0.2854521)	(0.3978563)	(0.4382572)	(0.2854521)	(0.459729)
	[0.000]	[0.089]	[0.000]	[0.000]	[0.089]	[0.000]

Source: Authors own calculations.

Figure 2. Method of moment quantile regression results.

Source: Authors own calculations.

Franzen, A., & Mader, S. (2016). Predictors of national CO2 emissions: Do international commitments matter? Climatic Change, 139(3–4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1795-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safi, A., Chen, Y., Wahab, S., Ali, S., Yi, X., & Imran, M. (2021a). Financial instability and consumption-based carbon emission in E-7 countries: The role of trade and economic growth. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.034

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safi, A., Chen, Y., & Zheng, L. (2022a). The impact of energy productivity and Eco-innovation on sustainable environment in Emerging Seven (E-7) countries: Does institutional quality matter? Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 878243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.878243

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safi, A., Chen, Y., Wahab, S., Zheng, L., & Rjoub, H. (2021b). Does environmental taxes achieve the carbon neutrality target of G7 economies? Evaluating the importance of environmental R&D. Journal of Environmental Management, 293(112908), 112908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112908

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Safi, A., Wang, Q.-S., & Wahab, S. (2022b). Revisiting the nexus between fiscal decentralization and environment: Evidence from fiscally decentralized economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(38), 58053–58064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19860-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safi, A., Wahab, S., Zeb, F., Amin, M., & Chen, Y. (2021c). Does financial stability and renewable energy promote sustainable environment in G-7 Countries? The role of income and international trade. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(34), 47628–47640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13991-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hasnaoui, J. A., Rizvi, S. K. A., Reddy, K., Mirza, N., & Naqvi, B. (2021). Human capital efficiency, performance, market, and volatility timing of Asian equity funds during COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Asset Management, 22(5), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-021-00228-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rizvi, S. K. A., Yarovaya, L., Mirza, N., & Naqvi, B. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on valuations of non-financial European firms. SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3705462

 Google Scholar

Mirza, N., Hasnaoui, J. A., Naqvi, B., & Rizvi, S. K. A. (2020). The impact of human capital efficiency on Latin American mutual funds during Covid-19 outbreak. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Volkswirtschaft Und Statistik, 156(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41937-020-00066-6

 Google Scholar

Yarovaya, L., Mirza, N., Abaidi, J., & Hasnaoui, A. (2021). Human capital efficiency and equity funds’ performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.09.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Naqvi, B., Mirza, N., Rizvi, S. K. A., Porada-Rochoń, M., & Itani, R. (2021). Is there a green fund premium? Evidence from twenty seven emerging markets. Global Finance Journal, 50(100656), 100656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2021.100656

 Google Scholar

Ji, X., Zhang, Y., Mirza, N., Umar, M., & Rizvi, S. K. A. (2021a). The impact of carbon neutrality on the investment performance: Evidence from the equity mutual funds in BRICS. Journal of Environmental Management, 297(113228), 113228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113228

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ji, X., Chen, X., Mirza, N., & Umar, M. (2021b). Sustainable energy goals and investment premium: Evidence from renewable and conventional equity mutual funds in the Euro zone. Resources Policy, 74(102387), 102387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102387

 Google Scholar

Umar, M., Ji, X., Mirza, N., & Naqvi, B. (2021). Carbon neutrality, bank lending, and credit risk: Evidence from the Eurozone. Journal of Environmental Management, 296(113156), 113156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113156

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Jiang, S., Chishti, M. Z., Rjoub, H., & Rahim, S. (2022). Environmental R&D and trade-adjusted carbon emissions: Evaluating the role of international trade. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(42):63155–63170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20003-9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wei, J., Rahim, S., & Wang, S. (2022). Role of environmental degradation, institutional quality, and government health expenditures for human health: Evidence from emerging seven countries. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 870767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.870767

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luan, S., Hussain, M., Ali, S., & Rahim, S. (2022). China’s investment in energy industry to neutralize carbon emissions: Evidence from provincial data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(26), 39375–39383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18141-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qin, L., Raheem, S., Murshed, M., Miao, X., Khan, Z., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021a). Does financial inclusion limit carbon dioxide emissions? Analyzing the role of globalization and renewable electricity output. Sustainable Development, 29(6), 1138–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2208

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qin, L., Hou, Y., Miao, X., Zhang, X., Rahim, S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021b). Revisiting financial development and renewable energy electricity role in attaining China’s carbon neutrality target. Journal of Environmental Management, 297(113335), 113335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113335

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Shahzad, U., Radulescu, M., Rahim, S., Isik, C., Yousaf, Z., & Ionescu, S. (2021). Do environment-related policy instruments and technologies facilitate renewable energy generation? Exploring the contextual evidence from developed economies. Energies, 14(3), 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030690

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Ali, M., Kirikkaleli, D., Wahab, S., & Jiao, Z. (2020a). The impact of technological innovation and public‐private partnership investment on sustainable environment in China: Consumption‐based carbon emissions analysis. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1317–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2086

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Ali, M., Jinyu, L., Shahbaz, M., & Siqun, Y. (2020b). Consumption-based carbon emissions and trade nexus: Evidence from nine oil exporting countries. Energy Economics, 89(104806), 104806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104806

 Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Sisi, Z., & Siqun, Y. (2019). Environmental regulations an option: Asymmetry effect of environmental regulations on carbon emissions using non-linear ARDL. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects, 41(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1504145

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Ali, S., Umar, M., Kirikkaleli, D., & Jiao, Z. (2020c). Consumption-based carbon emissions and International trade in G7 countries: The role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. The Science of the Total Environment, 730(138945), 138945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Malik, M. Y., Latif, K., & Jiao, Z. (2020d). Heterogeneous effect of eco-innovation and human capital on renewable & non-renewable energy consumption: Disaggregate analysis for G-7 countries. Energy (Oxford, England), 209(118405), 118405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118405

 Google Scholar

Khan, Z., Ali, S., Dong, K., & Li, R. M. (2021). How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Economics, 94, 105060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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