ABSTRACT
This study examines the long-run and short-run causal relationships among energy consumption, real gross domestic product (GDP) and CO2 emissions using aggregate and disaggregate (sectoral) energy consumption measures utilising annual data from 1971 to 2011. The autoregressive distributed lag bounds test reveals that there is a long-run relationship among the variables concerned at both aggregate and disaggregate levels. The Toda–Yamamoto causality tests, however, reveal that the long-run as well short-run causal relationship among the variables is not uniform across sectors. The weight of evidences of the study indicates that there is short-run causality from electricity consumption to economic growth, and to CO2 emissions. The results suggest that India should take appropriate cautious steps to sustain high growth rate and at the same time to control emissions of CO2. Further, energy and environmental policies should acknowledge the sectoral differences in the relationship between energy consumption and real gross domestic product.
Acknowledgments
We have benefited from valuable comments during the Workshop on Sustaing High Growth in India in July 2013 at Institute of Economic Growth in New Delhi. The authors also would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier version of this paper the usual disclaimer applies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. CO2 is a major GHG and is being considered as one of the most important factors responsible for an increase in global warming (Bruce, Houghton, and Watson Citation1996), (CO2 constitutes 70% of GHG emission in India (INCCA Citation2010).
2. The word disaggregated and sectoral refers to the same meaning and has been used interchangeably for each other in the study.
3. Nain, Ahmad, and Kamiah (Citation2012) have analysed the energy use–growth relationship at the sectoral level, but they have used a bivariate framework excluding CO2 emissions.
7. It may be pertinent to note that the empirical framework underlying the cointegrating eqaution is based on the studies by Sari and Soytas (Citation2004), Soytas, Sari and Ewing (Citation2007), Sari, Ewing and Soytas (Citation2008) and Soytas and Sari (Citation2009).
8. To conserve the space, the details of these tests are not explained, interested reader may refer to Maddala and Kim (Citation1999).
9. Those studies differ from our study in terms of time span, methodologies and variables considered.
10. Similar results are reported by Nain, Ahmad, and Kamaiah (Citation2012), the only study that has analysed relationship at the disaggregated level in the Indian context.
11. Integrated Energy Policy 2008, Planning Commission, Govt. of India.
12. However, we should admit that in general context these two variables seem not related directly as both are determined some other variables. But in this particular context it reflects some meaningful association as described in various studies.
Bruce, J. P., J. T. Houghton, and R. T. Watson. 1996. Climate Change 1995. The Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INCCA (Indian Network of Climate Change Assessment). 2010. India Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2007. India: Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India. Nain, M. Z., W. Ahmad, and B. Kamaiah. 2012. “Energy Consumption and India's Economic Growth. A Disaggregated Analysis.” The Indian Economic Journal: The Quarterly Journal of the Indian Economic Association 60 (3). Emran, M. S., F. Shilpi, and M. I. Alam. 2007. “Economic Liberalization and Price Response of Aggregate Private Investment: Time Series Evidence from India.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique 40 (3): 914–934. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.00436.x. Nain, M. Z., and B. Kamaiah. 2012. “On the Relationship Between Nominal and Real Effective Exchange Rates in India: Evidence from the ARDL Bounds Tests.” The IUP Journal of Applied Economics XI (4): 50–59. Shahbaz, M., R. Sbia, H. Hamdi, and I. Ozturk. 2014b. “Economic Growth, Electricity Consumption, Urbanization and Environmental Degradation Relationship in United Arab Emirates.” Ecological Indicators 45 (October): 622–631. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.022. Shahbaz, M., S. A. Solarin, H. Mahmood, and M. Arouri. 2013c. “Does Financial Development Reduce CO2 Emissions in Malaysian Economy? A Time Series Analysis.” Economic Modelling 35: 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.06.037 Ahmad, W., M. Z. Nain, and B. Kamaiah. 2014. “On the Role of the Trend and Cyclical Components in Electricity Consumption and India's Economic Growth: A Cointegration and Co feature Approach.” OPEC Energy Review 38 (1): 107–126. doi:10.1111/opec.12028. Tang, C. F., and M. Shahbaz. 2013. “Sectoral Analysis of the Causal Relationship Between Electricity Consumption and Real Output in Pakistan.” Energy Policy 60 (September): 885–891. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.077. Shahbaz, M., G. Salah Uddin, I. Ur Rehman, and K. Imran. 2014a. “Industrialization, Electricity Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Bangladesh.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31: 575–586. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.028 Shahbaz, M., H. H. Lean, and M. S. Shabbir. 2012. “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger Causality.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 2947–2953. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.015 Shahbaz, M., I. Ozturk, T. Afza, and A. Ali. 2013b. “Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve in a Global Economy.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25: 494–502. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021 Sari, R., and U. Soytas. 2004. “Disaggregate Energy Consumption, Employment and Income in Turkey.” Energy Economics 26 (3): 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.014. Soytas, U., and R. Sari. 2009. “Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, and Carbon Emissions: Challenges Faced by and EU Candidate Member.” Ecological Economics 68 (6): 1667–1675. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.014. Sari, R., B. T. Ewing, and U. Soytas. 2008. “The Relationship Between Disaggregate Energy Consumption and Industrial Production in the United States: An ARDL Approach.” Energy Economics 30 (5): 2302–2313. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.10.002. Sims, C. A., J. H. Stock, and M. W. Watson. 1990. “Inference in Linear Time Series Models with Some Unit Roots.” Econometrica 58 (1): 113–144. doi:10.2307/2938337. Maddala, G. S., and I.-M. Kim. 1999. Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nain, M. Z., W. Ahmad, and B. Kamaiah. 2012. “Energy Consumption and India's Economic Growth. A Disaggregated Analysis.” The Indian Economic Journal: The Quarterly Journal of the Indian Economic Association 60 (3). Jahangir Alam, M., I. A. Begum, J. Buysse, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2012. “Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth Nexus in Bangladesh: Cointegration and Dynamic Causality Analysis.” Energy Policy 45: 217–225. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.022 Tang, C. F., and M. Shahbaz. 2013. “Sectoral Analysis of the Causal Relationship Between Electricity Consumption and Real Output in Pakistan.” Energy Policy 60 (September): 885–891. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.077.