The non-linearity between financial development and carbon footprints: the environmental roles of technological innovation, renewable energy, and foreign direct investment

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Descriptives	lnCF	FD	lnTI	RES	FDI
Minimum	−2.2613	14.5791	17.7931	26.8800	−0.0984
Median	−1.0968	33.8182	19.0367	49.3300	0.9604
Maximum	−0.4199	76.1690	20.0207	91.3100	3.6683
Mean	−1.2349	35.9628	18.9180	54.9256	1.0467
Std. Dev.	0.5234	13.1057	0.5487	18.1655	0.7734
Skewness	−0.5105	0.5568	−0.1024	0.7563	1.1664
Kurtosis	2.2087	2.9008	2.0650	2.4948	2.7399
Obvs.	95	95	95	95	95

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 2. Correlation matrix.

Correlation	lnCF	FD	lnTI	RES	FDI
lnCF	1.0000
FD	0.9081***	1.0000
lnTI	0.1335	0.0400	1.0000
REC	−0.6443***	0.0923	−0.5467***	1.0000
FDI	0.6506***	0.1357	0.2343**	−0.5556*	1.0000

Note: ^*** and ^** respectively denote statistical significance at 1% and 5%, respectively.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 3. Results from variance inflation factor analysis.

Model	Variable	VIF	Tolerance	Model	Variable	VIF	Tolerance
A	FDI	1.0800	0.9291	B	FDI	1.5200	0.6560
A	lnTI	1.0600	0.9450	B	REC	1.5100	0.6626
A	FD	1.0200	0.9815	B	FD	1.0600	0.9409
A	Mean	1.0500		B	Mean	1.3700

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 4. Cross-sectional dependency test results.

Variable	Pesaran’s (2021) CD test		Breusch and Pagan (1980) LM test
	Test Statistic	Probability	Test Statistic	Probability
lnCF	5.0150***	0.0000	45.6530***	0.0000
FD	−1.3880	0.1811	24.6840***	0.0060
lnTI	1.5850	0.1130	10.2510	0.4188
RES	4.5410***	0.0000	65.1950***	0.0000
FDI	1.7160*	0.0861	37.3080***	0.0000

Notes: Statistical significance confirms cross-sectional dependence.

^***and ^* respectively denote statistical significance at 1% and 10%, respectively.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 5. Slope heterogeneity test results.

Model	Blomquist and Westerlund (2013) test
	Specification	Delta stat.	Adjusted Delta stat.
A	lnCF=∫(FD, FD^2, lnTI, FDI)	3.0240***	3.5650***
B	lnCF=∫(FD, FD^2, RES, FDI)	3.1491***	3.8221***

Notes: Statistical significance confirms heterogeneous slope coefficients.

^***Denotes statistical significance at 1%.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 6. Unit root test results.

Variable	Pesaran’s (2007) CADF test		Pesaran’s (2007) CIPS test
	Test statistic	Probability	Test statistic	Critical value
lnCF	−0.6020	1.0000	−2.3930	−2.7400 (10%)
ΔlnCF	−5.3630***	0.0000	−5.2570***	−3.1500 (1%)
FD	−2.3800	0.9800	−1.4400	−2.7400 (10%)
ΔFD	−3.9920***	0.0000	−3.9920***	−3.1500 (1%)
lnTI	−1.3660	0.9220	−2.8010*	−2.7400 (10%)
ΔlnTI	−4.8060***	0.0000	−4.7790***	−3.1500 (1%)
RES	−2.3180	0.4660	−2.0030	−2.7400 (10%)
ΔRES	−4.0750***	0.0000	−4.0750***	−3.1500 (1%)
FDI	−1.7660	0.8720	−2.3140	−2.7400 (10%)
ΔFDI	−4.1600***	0.0000	−4.1600***	−3.1500 (1%)

Notes: Δ denotes first difference; Statistical significance confirms stationarity of the series.

^***and ^* respectively denote statistical significance at 1% and 10%.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 7. Cointegration test results.

Model	Westerlund (2007) test
	Statistic	Value	Z-value	Prob.	Prob. (Robust)
A	Gt	−2.4020	1.1380	0.8720	0.4800
	Ga	−1.9070***	3.9980	1.0000	0.0000
	Pt	−4.5260	1.3510	0.9120	0.2400
	Pa	−2.2020**	3.3050	0.9990	0.0400
B	Gt	−3.5850**	−2.2610	0.0120	0.0400
	Ga	−7.9770**	2.1010	0.9820	0.0400
	Pt	−8.3540*	−3.0230	0.0010	0.0800
	Pa	−9.9890	0.6660	0.7470	0.1200

Notes: Statistical significance confirms cointegration among the model’s variables; Bootstrapped replications = 5000.

^***, ^**, and ^* respectively denote statistical significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 8. Results from CS-ARDL analysis.

	Model A		Model B
Regressor	Short-run	Long-run	Short-run	Long-run
FD	0.0422	0.0695**	0.0449	0.0710**
	(0.0440)	(0.0344)	(0.0407)	(0.0354)
FD^2	−0.0008	−0.0006**	−0.0009*	−0.0007***
	(0.0007)	(0.0003)	(0.0005)	(0.0003)
lnTI	−0.1720**	−0.2040**	–	–
	(0.0805)	(0.1019)
RES	–	–	0.0021	−0.0056***
			(0.0018)	(0.0017)
FDI	0.0616*	0.0473**	0.0641**	0.0454***
	(0.0313)	(0.0232)	(0.0320)	(0.0183)
ECT(-1)	−0.3690***		−0.4040***
	(0.1480)		(0.1300)
Adj. R-sq.	0.501		0.490

Notes: ECT(-1) denotes one period-lagged error-correction term; standard errors are presented within parentheses.

^***, ^**, and ^* respectively denote statistical significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 9. Robustness test results.

Regressor	Model A		Model B
	Coefficient	Probability	Coefficient	Probability
FD	0.0184*	0.0010	0.0113*	0.0065
FD^2	−0.0002*	0.0001	−0.0005*	0.0002
lnTI	−0.0101**	0.0049	–	–
RES	–	–	−0.0082***	0.0014
FDI	0.0890**	0.0444	0.0798**	0.0370

Notes: ^***, ^**, and ^* respectively denote statistical significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%.

Source: Authors' computation.

Table 10. Causality test results.

Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) test
Null Hypo.	W-bar stat.	Z-bar statistic	Z-bar tilde statistic
FD ≠ lnCF	12.4488	6.6793* (0.1000)	1.6994 (1.000)
lnCF ≠ FD	4.1759	2.4327 (0.7000)	1.3510 (0.7000)
lnTI ≠ lnCF	16.7917	10.1129* (0.1000)	2.8439* (0.1000)
lnCF ≠ lnTI	1.1048	0.1657 (1.000)	−0.0596 (0.9000)
RES ≠ lnCF	4.9019	3.2445 (0.3000)	1.9033 (0.3000)
lnCF ≠ RES	7.0784	2.4337 (0.4000)	0.2842 (0.7000)
FDI ≠ lnCF	2.9049	1.0117 (0.4000)	0.3811 (0.9000)
lnCF ≠ FDI	1.8589	−0.1587 (0.9000)	−0.4117 (0.6000)

Notes: ‘≠ implies does not Granger cause; Statistical significance confirms rejection of the null hypothesis; Bootstrapped replications = 5000; probability values are presented within parentheses; ^* denotes statistical significance at 1%’.

Source: Authors' computation.

Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blomquist, J., & Westerlund, J. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121(3), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.012

 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

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

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

Data availability statement

Data will be made available upon request.