Biomass energy consumption and financial development: evidence from some developing countries

Figures & data

Table 1. Information on the data set of the study.

Abbreviation of variables	Variables used in the study	Unit of the variables	Researches using the variables
BEC	Biomass energy consumption	Used Extraction of Biomass (ktoe: kilotons of oil equivalent)	Bilgili and Ozturk (2015), Öztürk and Bilgili (2015), Shahbaz et al. (2016), Bildirici and Özaksoy (2018), Destek (2017), and Aydin (2019)
FD	Financial development index	Index Consisting of Banking Sector Development, Bond Market Development, Stock Market Development	Tang and Tan (2014), Shahbaz et al. (2016), Topcu and Payne (2017), and Destek (2017)

Table 2. Slope homogeneity test.

	Δ	P-value	Δadj	P-value
BEC	7.144	0.00	7.596	0.00
FD	6.886	0.00	7.298	0.00

Table 3. Cross-sectional dependency test results.

	CDLM	P-value	CDLMadj	P-value
BEC	88.03	0.00	9.53	0.00
FD	61.027	0.056	9.99	0.00

Table 4. Lee, Wu, and Yang (2015) results of Panel ADF unit root test with Fourier function.

	Fourier frequency	Level	First difference
BEC	1	−3.27	−4.64***
	2	−2.36	−4.37***
	3	−2.17	−4.42***
FD	1	−1.89	−3.72***
	2	−0.97	−3.44***
	3	−0.76	−2.99***

Note: Critical values are taken as – 3.64 for 1 Fourier frequency, −3.37 for 2 Fourier frequency, −2.97 for 3 Fourier frequency obtained from this study and *** expresses with 99% reliability.

Table 5. Westerlund (2006) panel cointegration test with multiple breaks.

	LM Stat	Asymptotic P-value	Bootstrap P-value
BEC-FD	572704.446	0.000	0.113
Structural breaks dates
	First break	Second break	Third break
Argentina	1997	2002	–
Bolivia	1996	2001	2007
Chile	1997	2003	2009
Colombia	1997	2003	–
Mexico	1999	2004	2009
Peru	1999	2004	2009
Turkey	1998	2010	–
Uruguay	1996	2001	2007
Panama	2000	2005	–
El Salvador	1998	2007	–

Table 6. CCE and AMG mean group estimation results.

	Coefficient	Standard deviation	T statistics
CCE	12.478	0.68	−3.69
AMG	12.469	0.70	−3.65

Table 7. From FD to BEC bootstrap panel causality test results.

	Wald statistics	Bootstrap p-value	Critical values
			%1	%5	%10
Argentina	1.452	0.37	5.225	3.559	3.065
Bolivia	0.282	0.88	14.188	10.234	6.911
Chile	0.185	0.94	6.323	6.117	5.042
Colombia	0.097	0.60	4.792	2.376	2.163
Mexico	0.087	0.76	6.977	3.567	2.478
Peru	1.379	0.64	7.234	5.731	5.233
Turkey	0.857	0.78	8.759	7.388	5.213
Uruguay	1.199	0.36	5.153	3.046	2.488
Panama	0.000	0.99	7.112	4.993	3.614
El Salvador	0.487	0.40	2.838	2.074	1.530
Panel Fisher	9.224		p-Value	0.98

Table 8. From BEC to FD bootstrap panel causality test results.

	Wald statistics	Bootstrap p-value	Critical values
			%1	%5	%10
Argentina	10.582***	0.00	9.094	5.813	4.077
Bolivia	12.941**	0.02	19.393	10.847	8.66
Chile	0.002	0.99	8.299	5.402	4.189
Colombia	0.796	0.20	4.167	2.740	1.530
Mexico	31.021***	0.01	15.032	9.526	7.733
Peru	0.285	0.99	18.797	15.424	13.764
Turkey	4.135	0.46	26.254	11.671	9.767
Uruguay	9.934***	0.01	5.592	3.545	2.742
Panama	0.781	0.43	11.956	5.197	3.828
El Salvador	2.257**	0.04	3.821	2.051	1.804
Panel Fisher	39.162		p-Value	0.006

Note: *** 99% and ** 95% represent level of significance with reliability.

Bilgili, F., and I. Ozturk. 2015. “Biomass Energy and Economic Growth Nexus in G7 Countries: Evidence from Dynamic Panel Data.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49: 132–138. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.098.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Öztürk, I., and F. Bilgili. 2015. “Economic Growth and Biomass Consumption Nexus: Dynamic Panel Analysis for Sub-Sahara African Countries.” Applied Energy 137: 110–116. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahbaz, M., G. Rasool, K. Ahmed, and M. K. Mahalik. 2016. “Considering the Effect of Biomass Energy Consumption on Economic Growth: Fresh Evidence from BRICS Region.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60: 1442–1450. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.037.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bildirici, M., and F. Özaksoy. 2018. “An Analysis of Biomass Consumption and Economic Growth in Transition Countries.” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 31 (1): 386–405. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2018.1427610.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Destek, M. A. 2017. “Biomass Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from Top 10 Biomass Consumer Countries.” Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy. doi:10.1080/15567249.2017.1314393.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aydin, M. 2019. “The Effect of Biomass Energy Consumption on Economic Growth in BRICS Countries: A Country-specific Panel Data Analysis.” Renewable Energy 138: 620–627. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tang, C. F., and B. W. Tan. 2014. “The Linkages among Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, Relative Price, Foreign Direct Investment and Financial Development in Malaysia.” Quality & Quantity 48 (2): 781–797.

 Google Scholar

Topcu, M., and J. E. Payne. 2017. “The Financial Development–Energy Consumption Nexus Revisited.” Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 12 (9): 822–830. doi:10.1080/15567249.2017.1300959.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, C., J. L. Wu, and L. Yang. 2015. “A Simple Panel Unit-Root Test with Smooth Breaks in the Presence of a Multifactor Error Structure.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 78 (3): 365–393.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westerlund, J. 2006. “Testing for Panel Cointegration with Multiple Structural Breaks*.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 68: 101–132.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar