The nexus between economic growth, financial development, trade openness, and CO2 emissions in European countries

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of previous empirical studies

Author(s)	Purpose	Country(ies)	Methodology	Results and conclusions
Panel A: Country-specific studies
Ang (2008)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	Malaysia	Granger causality based on VECM	Unidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP. Only CO2 affect economic growth
Halicioglu (2009)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	Turkey	Granger causality based on VECM	Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP
Soytas and Sari (2009)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	Turkey	Toda and Yamamoto (1995)	Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP
Fodha and Zaghdoud (2010)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	Tunisia	Granger causality based on ECM	Unidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP. Only GDP affect CO2 emissions
Ghosh (2010)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	India	Granger causality based on VECM	Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP
Saboori et al. (2012)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	Malaysia	EKC hypothesis	Unidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP. Only CO2 affect economic growth and Inverted U-shape curve is presented
Panel B: Multi-country studies
Richmond and Kaufmann (2006)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	36 countries	Panel cointegration	There is no relationship between CO2 emissions and GDP
Jaunky (2010)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	36 high-income economies	Panel unit root and cointegration tests	Unidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP. Only GDP affect CO2 emissions
Omri et al. (2014)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	54 countries	Dynamic simultaneous-equation panel data models	Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP
Omri et al. (2015)	Causal nexus between CO2 emissions and GDP	12 MENA countries	Dynamic simultaneous-equation panel data models	Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP

Note: This table summarizes the previous empirical studies which examine the causal nexus among GDP (economic growth) and environmental pollutants (CO2 emissions).

Table 2. Variables definition and source

Variable	Indicator name	Source
CO2	CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)	Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States
EC	Energy Consumption (kg of oil equivalent per capita)	International Energy Agency (IEA Statistics©OECD/IEA, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp)
FDI	Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)	International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics and Balance of Payments databases, World Bank, International Debt Statistics, and World Bank and OECD GDP estimates
GDP	GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$)	World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files
INF	Inflation, consumer prices (annual %)	International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics and data files
K	Capital stock, total value (% of GDP)	Standard & Poor’s, Global Stock Markets Factbook and supplemental S&P data
T	Trade (% of GDP)	World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files
U	Urban population growth (annual %)	World Bank Staff estimates based on United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects
FD	Domestic credit to private sector by banks (% of GDP)	International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics and data files, and World Bank and OECD GDP estimates

Table 3. List of European countries used in this paper

Rank	Name of country	Area (km^2)	Population (2014)	Population density (per km^2)	Capital
1	Albania	28,748	3,020,209	105.1	Tirana
2	Armenia	29,743	3,018,854	101.5	Yerevan
3	Austria	83,879	8,504,850	101.4	Vienna
4	Belarus	207,595	9,475,100	45.6	Minsk
5	Belgium	30,528	11,198,638	366.8	Brussels
6	Bosnia and Herzegovina	51,197	3,871,643	75.6	Sarajevo
7	Bulgaria	110,994	7,364,570	66.4	Sofia
8	Croatia	56,594	4,284,889	75.7	Zagreb
9	Cyprus	9,251	1,117,000	120.7	Nicosia
10	Czech Republic	78,866	10,513,209	133.3	Prague
11	Denmark	42,916	5,655,750	131.8	Copenhagen
12	Estonia	45,227	1,315,819	29.1	Tallinn
13	Finland	338,424	5,470,820	16.2	Helsinki
14	France	551,695	66,030,000	115.8	Paris
15	Georgia	69,700	4,935,880	70.8	Tbilisi
16	Germany	357,168	80,716,000	226.0	Berlin
17	Greece	131,957	10,816,286	82.0	Athens
18	Hungary	93,030	9,877,365	106.2	Budapest
19	Iceland	103,001	325,671	3.2	Reykjavík
20	Ireland	70,273	4,609,600	65.6	Dublin
21	Italy	301,338	60,782,668	201.7	Rome
22	Latvia	64,589	1,990,300	30.8	Riga
23	Lithuania	65,300	2,944,459	45.1	Vilnius
24	Luxembourg	2,586	549,680	212.6	Luxembourg
25	Macedonia	25,713	2,058,539	80.1	Skopje
26	Moldova	33,846	3,557,600	105.1	Chişinău
27	Netherlands	41,543	16,856,620	405.8	Amsterdam
28	Norway	385,178	5,136,700	13.3	Oslo
29	Poland	312,679	38,483,957	123.1	Warsaw
30	Portugal	92,212	10,427,301	113.1	Lisbon
31	Romania	238,391	19,942,642	83.7	Bucharest
32	Russia	17,075,400	143,700,000	8.3	Moscow
33	Slovakia	49,035	5,415,949	110.5	Bratislava
34	Slovenia	20,273	2,061,085	101.7	Ljubljana
35	Spain	504,645	46,704,314	92.6	Madrid
36	Sweden	449,964	9,716,962	21.6	Stockholm
37	Switzerland	41,285	8,183,800	198.2	Bern
38	Turkey	783,562	76,667,864	97.8	Ankara
39	Ukraine	603,628	44,291,413	73.4	Kiev
40	United Kingdom	243,610	64,100,000	263.1	London

Notes: This table summarizes the list of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) employed in this study during the period of study from 1985 to 2014.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics

	ln CO2	ln EC	ln FDI	ln GDP	ln INF	ln K	ln T	ln U	ln FD
Mean	7.397460	3,398.665	4.098018	199,37.06	108.6164	22.65638	89.18206	0.510334	65.94835
Median	7.004315	3,021.391	2.104713	12779.06	4.026683	3.741646	82.38176	0.463411	54.63906
Maximum	27.42196	18,774.97	430.6407	86,127.24	4734.914	372.3756	371.4397	5.657103	311.0630
Minimum	0.486455	384.5950	−57.42970	565.1557	−4.479938	0.000000	26.25670	−6.547706	1.383941
Std. Dev.	3.935124	2,180.304	13.76219	18263.42	532.3235	42.57108	42.70703	1.114888	51.51523
Skewness	1.292063	2.542899	25.22483	0.944021	7.059702	3.241657	2.270208	−0.498009	1.327324
Kurtosis	7.191020	15.25300	775.6845	3.201342	55.39772	16.69964	12.69614	7.374851	5.171778
Jarque–Bera	1,206.057	8,756.071	29,829425	179.3606	14,6507.7	11,428.25	5,702.868	1,001.536	585.2480
Probability	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*	0.000000*
Observations	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194	1,194

Notes: This table reports the descriptive statistics of all indicators utilized in this paper. We employ annually panel data of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) throughout the period from 1985 to 2014.

* Statistical implication at the threshold level of 1 %.

Table 5. Matrix of Pearson correlation

	ln CO2	ln EC	ln FDI	ln GDP	ln INF	ln K	ln T	ln U	ln FD
ln CO2	1.000000
ln EC	0.6202(0.0000)*	1.000000
ln FDI	−0.0286(0.3231)	−0.0230(0.4263)	1.000000
ln GDP	0.6245(0.0000)*	0.6879(0.0000)*	0.0978(0.0007)*	1.000000
ln INF	−0.1731(0.0000)*	−0.1647(0.0000)*	−0.3692(0.0000)*	−0.4931(0.0000)^*	1.000000
ln K	0.4591(0.0000)*	0.4831(0.0000)*	0.2249(0.0000)*	0.7119(0.0000)*	−0.4802(0.0000)*	1.000000
ln T	0.1361(0.0000)*	0.1672(0.0000)*	0.4318(0.0000)*	0.0496(0.0858)**	−0.1808(0.0000)*	−0.0804(0.0053)*	1.000000
ln U	−0.1559(0.0000)*	−0.1143(0.0001)*	0.0286(0.3231)	−0.0782(0.0067)*	0.1091(0.0002)*	−0.0861(0.0028)*	0.0921(0.0014)*	1.000000
ln FD	0.3746(0.0000)*	0.3944(0.0000)*	0.0935(0.0012)*	0.6836(0.0000)*	−0.5115(0.0000)*	0.5306(0.0000)*	0.1300(0.0000)*	−0.0127(0.6609)	1.000000

Notes: This table recapitulates the estimated coefficients of correlation among all indicators. We utilize annually panel data of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) during the period of study through 1985–2014.

* Statistical significance at 1%.

** Statistical significance at 10%.

Table 6. Unit root tests

Variables	Levin–Lin–Chu (LLC)				Im–Pesaran–Shin (IPS)
	Level		First difference		Level		First difference
	t-statistic	p-value	t-statistic	p-value	t-statistic	p-value	t-statistic	p-value
ln CO2	−27.8613	0.0000*	−38.6790	0.0000*	−20.4508	0.0000*	−29.4184	0.0000*
ln EC	−25.9521	0.0000*	−36.4681	0.0000*	−21.1006	0.0000*	−27.9519	0.0000*
ln FDI	−16.2314	0.0000*	−21.1148	0.0000*	−21.3708	0.0000*	−18.7527	0.0000*
ln GDP	−24.3884	0.0000*	−25.0094	0.0000*	−21.4157	0.0000*	−26.5651	0.0000*
ln INF	−13.8674	0.0000*	−16.0891	0.0000*	−20.4920	0.0000*	−17.0321	0.0000*
ln K	−6.1144	0.0000*	−8.4216	0.0000*	−14.5658	0.0000*	−11.0766	0.0000*
ln T	−9.0501	0.0000*	−10.9903	0.0000*	−18.3855	0.0000*	−12.0632	0.0000*
ln U	−19.8526	0.0000*	−20.5643	0.0000*	−20.7354	0.0000*	−22.4053	0.0000*
ln FD	−24.0630	0.0000*	−26.3711	0.0000*	−23.0861	0.0000*	−28.5783	0.0000*

Notes: This table recapitulates the results of stationary test. In this test the calculate p-value is compared to 10%. If the calculate p-value < 10% therefore, we refuse the hypothesis H0 and if the calculate p-value > 10%, then we accept the hypothesis H0. With the hypothesis H0: all variables are non-stationary.

* Statistical meaning at 1%.

Table 7. Estimation results of OLS

Dependent variable: ln GDP
Independent variables	Fixed effects				Random effects
	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value
ln CO2	0.1186958	0.0487767	2.43	0.015**	0.1420525	0.0488323	2.91	0.004*
ln FD	0.4091634	0.0264496	15.47	0.000*	0.3913427	0.0243529	16.07	0.000*
ln EC	0.7364884	0.0533456	13.81	0.000*	0.7619257	0.0530863	14.35	0.000*
ln FDI	0.0094266	0.015697	0.60	0.548	−0.007584	0.0150958	−0.50	0.615
ln INF	−0.1132431	0.0123947	−9.14	0.000*	−0.099471	0.011678	−8.52	0.000*
ln K	0.1355512	0.0104439	12.98	0.000*	0.1254517	0.0099242	12.64	0.000*
ln T	−0.1421228	0.0556689	−2.55	0.011*	−0.204454	0.0534739	−3.82	0.000*
ln U	0.0414276	0.0206529	2.01	0.045**	0.0362993	0.0204926	1.77	0.077***
Cons	2.378503	0.3812851	6.24	0.000*	2.469117	0.3781798	6.53	0.000*
Obs.	1,200
R^2	0.9055
Prob > F	0.0000
Prob > χ^2	0.0000
Prob Hausman test	0.0000
Estimation chosen	Model with fixed effects

Notes: This table recapitulates the estimated coefficients from OLS of GDP (Economic growth) as a dependent variable. To examine empirically this model, we utilize annually data panel of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) throughout the period starting 1985 to 2014.

* Statistical significance at 1% level.

** Statistical significance at 5% level.

*** Statistical significance at 10% level.

Table 8. Estimation results of OLS

Dependent variable: ln FD
Independent variables	Fixed effects				Random effects
	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value
ln GDP	0.4173739	0.0269804	15.47	0.000*	0.4420743	0.0278041	15.90	0.000*
ln CO2	0.0484607	0.0493686	0.98	0.326	0.0197546	0.0515641	0.38	0.702
ln EC	−0.1959674	0.0578443	−3.39	0.001*	−0.204249	0.060281	−3.39	0.001*
ln FDI	−0.0871192	0.0156488	−5.57	0.000*	−0.087493	0.0158716	−5.51	0.000*
ln INF	−0.0917273	0.0126779	−7.24	0.000*	−0.100534	0.012575	−7.99	0.000*
ln K	0.0452491	0.0112085	4.04	0.000*	0.0429098	0.011228	3.82	0.000*
ln T	0.2145157	0.0560298	3.83	0.000*	0.3055958	0.0565071	5.41	0.000*
ln U	0.0444171	0.0208545	2.13	0.033**	0.045418	0.0216328	2.10	0.036**
cons	0.6406899	0.3910353	1.64	0.102	0.1474694	0.4064127	0.36	0.717
Obs.	1,200
R^2	0.6650
Prob > F	0.0000
Prob > χ^2	0.0000
Prob Hausman test	0.0000
Estimation chosen	Model with fixed effects

Notes: This table recapitulates the estimated coefficients from OLS of financial sector development as a dependent variable. To examine empirically this model, we utilize annually data panel of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) throughout the period starting 1985–2014.

* Statistical significance at 1% level.

** Statistical significance at 5% level.

Table 9. Estimation results of OLS

Dependent variable: ln T
Independent variables	Fixed effects				Random effects
	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value
ln FD	0.0580725	0.0151681	3.83	0.000*	0.0853593	0.0142553	5.99	0.000*
ln GDP	−0.0392467	0.0153728	−2.55	0.011**	−0.05930	0.0155113	−3.82	0.000*
ln CO2	0.0778764	0.0255955	3.04	0.002*	0.0639533	0.0263284	2.43	0.015**
ln EC	0.2339443	0.0294559	7.94	0.000*	0.2297742	0.0302412	7.60	0.000*
ln FDI	0.1155892	0.0075209	15.37	0.000*	0.1358809	0.0071143	19.10	0.000*
ln INF	−0.0118243	0.0067343	−1.76	0.079***	−0.027599	0.0064288	−4.29	0.000*
ln K	−0.0733263	0.0054644	−13.42	0.000*	−0.067610	0.0053445	−12.65	0.000*
ln U	0.0485669	0.0107781	4.51	0.000*	0.0456258	0.0109722	4.16	0.000*
cons	0.577594	0.1891361	13.63	0.000*	0.728854	0.1916209	14.24	0.000*
Obs.	1,200
R^2	0.6659
Prob > F	0.0000
Prob > χ^2	0.0000
Prob Hausman test	0.0000
Estimation chosen	Model with fixed effects

Notes: This table recapitulates the estimated coefficients from OLS of Trade openness as a dependent variable. To examine empirically this model, we utilize annually data panel of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) throughout the period starting 1985–2014.

* Statistical significance at 1% level.

** Statistical significance at 5% level.

*** Statistical significance at 10% level.

Table 10. Estimation results of OLS

Dependent variable: ln CO2
Independent variables	Fixed effects				Random effects
	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value	Coef.	Std. err.	t-statistic	p-value
ln T	0.1014909	0.0333568	3.04	0.002*	0.0770824	0.0317334	2.43	0.015**
ln FD	0.0170971	0.0174174	0.98	0.326	0.0022682	0.015884	0.14	0.886
ln GDP	0.0427166	0.0175539	2.43	0.015**	0.0496647	0.0170729	2.91	0.004*
ln EC	0.7344532	0.0269798	27.22	0.000*	0.7444134	0.0262759	28.33	0.000*
ln FDI	−0.0169603	0.009405	−1.80	0.072***	−0.020876	0.0089064	−2.34	0.019**
ln INF	0.0029364	0.0076976	0.38	0.703	0.0076503	0.0071088	1.08	0.282
ln K	0.0184807	0.0066821	2.77	0.006*	0.0164313	0.0062312	2.64	0.008*
ln U	−0.0512633	0.0123197	−4.16	0.000*	−0.048879	0.0120501	−4.06	0.000*
Cons	−0.946018	0.1817104	−27.22	0.000*	−0.929481	0.1771715	−27.82	0.000*
Obs.	1,200
R^2	0.6870
Prob > F	0.0000
Prob > χ^2	0.0000
Prob Hausman test	0.3027
Estimation chosen	Model with random effects

Notes: This table recapitulates the estimated coefficients from OLS of CO2 emissions as a dependent variable. To examine empirically this model, we utilize annually data panel of 40 European countries (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom) throughout the period starting 1985–2014.

* Statistical significance at 1% level.

** Statistical significance at 5% level.

*** Statistical significance at 10% level.

Table 11. Panel causality

Short run

Long run

Dependent Variable

ΔLEC

ΔLCO2

ΔLFD

ΔLT

ΔLK

ΔLFDI

ΔLINF

ΔLU

ΔLECT

ΔLGDP

3.027*

1.812***

2.425**

3.928*

5.001*

6.748*

4.290*

3.827*

3.192*

Short run

Long run

Dependent Variable

ΔLEC

ΔLGDP

ΔLCO2

ΔLT

ΔLK

ΔLINF

ΔLFDI

ΔLU

ΔLECT

ΔLFD

4.920*

4.384*

3.001*

6.379*

7.290*

3.039*

7.230*

5.829*

4.578*

Short run

Long run

Dependent Variable

ΔLEC

ΔLGDP

ΔLFD

ΔLCO2

ΔLK

ΔLFDI

ΔLINF

ΔLU

ΔLECT

ΔLT

6.021*

2.928*

1.991**

4.018*

7.273*

5.389*

5.190*

5.111*

5.019*

Short run

Long run

Dependent Variable

ΔLEC

ΔLGDP

ΔLFD

ΔLT

ΔLK

ΔLFDI

ΔLINF

ΔLU

ΔLECT

ΔLCO2

2.09**

1.772***

2.224**

5.378*

6.278*

8.495*

5.485*

4.112*

5.902*

Note: ECT represents error correction term.

* Significant at 10%.

** Significant at 5%.

*** Significant at 10%.

Figure 1. The causal relationship between CO2 emissions, GDP, the financial sector development, and trade openness.

Ang, J. B. (2008). Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30, 271–278.10.1016/j.jpolmod.2007.04.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37, 1156–1164.10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soytas, U., & Sari, R. (2009). Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: Challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecological Economics, 68, 2706–2712.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225–250.10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fodha, M., & Zaghdoud, O. (2010). Economic growth and environmental degradation in Tunisia: An empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 38, 1150–1156.10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghosh, S. (2010). Examining carbon emissions-economic growth nexus for India: A multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Policy, 38, 2613–3130.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saboori, B., Sulaiman, J., & Mohd, S. (2012). Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: A cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 51, 184–191.10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.065

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56, 176–189.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jaunky, V. C. (2010). The CO2 emissions–income nexus: Evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy, 39, 1228–1240.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K., & Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, foreign direct investment, and economic growth: Evidence from dynamic simultaneous equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382–389.10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.026

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Omri, A., Daly, S., Rault, C., & Chaibi, A. (2015). Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: What causes what in MENA countries. Energy Economics, 48, 242–252.10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar