Submitted:
15 June 2023
Posted:
15 June 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:Â
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis
3. Data, Model and Methodology
3.1. Data and Model
- Pollution Haven/ Halo Hypothesis: and have to bear a positive sign as it might imply that FDI contributes to air quality degradation and to increase the ecological footprint respectively, while has to be negative. For the pollution Halo the opposite is expected.
- EKC hypothesis: is positive while is negative; same relationship holds for and . The previously stated coefficients would imply an inverted U-shape relationship, as higher values of GDP contribute to a decrease in environmental degradation.
- LCC hypothesis: has to be negative while is expected to be positive. This is the inverse of the EKC hypothesis, following a U-shaped relationship between income and environmental sustainability.
3.2. Methodology
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Carbon Emissions
4.2. Ecological Footprint
4.3. Environmental Load Capacity Factor
5. Conclusions
Appendix
| Min | Mean | Max | Standard Deviation | Jarque-Bera |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | 5.36 | 2.20 | 3.70 | 8.60 | 1.98 (0.37) |
| EF | 2.30 | 4.12 | 5.86 | 0.90 | 1.03 (0.59) |
| LCF | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.065 | 9.52 (0.00) |
| FDI | 3.36 | 1.87 | 7.51 | 2.50 | 11.36 (0.00) |
| Ln GDP | 2.33 | 2.63 | 2.81 | 1.43 | 5.21 (0.07) |
| NUC | 0.00 | 34.74 | 63.71 | 26.17 | 8.47 (0.01) |
| REC | 16.52 | 43.17 | 110.94 | 26.69 | 18.97 (0.00) |
| Note: | |||||
| 1. In brackets is the p-value for the Jarque-Bera test, representing the null hypothesis of normality of the series. | |||||

References
- Adebayo, T.S.; Oladipupo, S.D.; Adeshola, I.; Rjoub, H. (2022). Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO2 emissions: Evidence from Portugal. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, Z.; Zafar, M.W.; Ali, S. ; Danish. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 0206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amri, F. (2018). Carbon dioxide emissions, total factor productivity, ICT, trade, financial development, and energy consumption: Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apergis, N.; Pinar, M.; Unlu, E. (2022). How do foreign direct investment flows affect carbon emissions in BRICS countries? Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis using bilateral FDI flows from OECD to BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awosusi, A.A.; Kutlay, K.; AltuntaĆ, M.; Khodjiev, B.; Agyekum, E.B.; Shouran, M.; Elgbaily, M.; Kamel, S. (2022). A Roadmap toward Achieving Sustainable Environment: Evaluating the Impact of Technological Innovation and Globalization on Load Capacity Factor. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batschauer da Cruz, C.B.; Eliete Floriani, D.; Amal, M. (2022). The OLI Paradigm as a comprehensive model of FDI determinants: A sub-national approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets. [CrossRef]
- Bozoklu, S.; Demir, A.O.; Ataer, S. (2020). Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve: A summability approach for emerging market economies. Eurasian Economic Review. [CrossRef]
- 8. Danish, Ozcan, B.; Ulucak, R. (2021). An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: Bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. [CrossRef]
- 9. Danish, Ulucak, R.; Erdogan, S. (2022). The effect of nuclear energy on the environment in the context of globalization: Consumption vs production-based CO2 emissions. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. [CrossRef]
- De Beule, F.; Schoubben, F.; Struyfs, K. (2022). The pollution haven effect and investment leakage: The case of the EU-ETS. Economics Letters, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Destek, M.A.; Sarkodie, S.A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. Science of The Total Environment, 2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, K.; Sun, R.; Jiang, H.; Zeng, X. (2018). CO2 emissions, economic growth, and the environmental Kuznets curve in China: What roles can nuclear energy and renewable energy play? Journal of Cleaner Production. [CrossRef]
- Driffield, N.; Jones, C.; Kim, J.-Y.; Temouri, Y. (2021). FDI motives and the use of tax havens: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Business Research. [CrossRef]
- Dunning, J.H. (1979). Explaining Changing patterns of international production: In defence of eclectic theory. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. [CrossRef]
- Dunning, J.H. (1981). Explaining the international direct investment position of countries: Towards a dynamic or developmental approach. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv. [CrossRef]
- Elliott, G.; Rothenberg, T.J.; Stock, J.H. (1996). Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root. Econometrica. [CrossRef]
- Esmaeili, P.; Balsalobre Lorente, D.; Anwar, A. (2023). Revisiting the environmental Kuznetz curve and pollution haven hypothesis in N-11 economies: Fresh evidence from panel quantile regression. Environmental Research, 1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 18. European Commission. (2020). Integrated National Energy And Climate Plan. 2021-2030, 2020.
- 19. European Commission. (2023a). A green deal Industrial Plan for the Net-Zero Age.
- 20. European Commission. (2023b, March 21). Commission welcomes new IPCC climate change report highlighting the urgency of more ambitious climate action, 21 March.
- Fareed, Z.; Salem, S.; Adebayo, T.S.; Pata, U.K.; Shahzad, F. (2021). Role of Export Diversification and Renewable Energy on the Load Capacity Factor in Indonesia: A Fourier Quantile Causality Approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 0152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedlingstein, P.; OâSullivan, M.; Jones, M.W.; Andrew, R.M.; Gregor, L.; Hauck, J.; Le QuĂ©rĂ©, C.; Luijkx, I.T.; Olsen, A.; Peters, G.P.; Peters, W.; Pongratz, J.; Schwingshackl, C.; Sitch, S.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Alin, S.R.; Alkama, R. , ⊠Zheng, B. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. ( 14(11), 4811â4900. [CrossRef]
- Fu, X. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment and Managerial Knowledge Spillovers through the Diffusion of Management Practices. Journal of Management Studies. [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.; Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, 3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, P.; Ning, J.; Yu, Z.; Xiong, H.; Shen, H.; Jin, H. (2019). Can Environmental Tax Policy Really Help to Reduce Pollutant Emissions? An Empirical Study of a Panel ARDL Model Based on OECD Countries and China. Sustainability, 4384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H.; Ali, S.; Solangi, Y.A. (2023). Analysis of the Impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Environmental Sustainability in Developed and Developing Economies. Sustainability, 5860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, H.; Huang, C.; Tian, Z. (2019). The Heterogeneous Effects of FDI and Foreign Trade on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. [CrossRef]
- IEA, I.E.A. (2021). Spain 2021, Energy Policy Review.
- Jiang, W.; Cole, M.; Sun, J.; Wang, S. (2022). Innovation, carbon emissions and the pollution haven hypothesis: Climate capitalism and global re-interpretations. Journal of Environmental Management, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.; Temouri, Y.; Kirollos, K.; Du, J. (2023). Tax havens and emerging market multinationals: The role of property rights protection and economic freedom. Journal of Business Research, 1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kartal, M.T. (2023). Production-based disaggregated analysis of energy consumption and CO2 emission nexus: Evidence from the USA by novel dynamic ARDL simulation approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 6864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokko, A. (1994). Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics. [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Li, X. (2011). The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, C.; Luo, Q.; Zeng, S. (2022). Bilateral tax agreement and FDI inflows: Evidence from Hong Kong investment in the Mainland China. China Economic Review, 0178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeed, M. (2020). Reexamination of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: The Role of Biocapacity, Human Capital, and Trade. SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
- Menegaki, A.N. (2019). The ARDL Method in the Energy-Growth Nexus Field; Best Implementation Strategies. Economies. [CrossRef]
- Menyah, K.; Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy, 2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgado, E.; Victoriai, G.A. (2021). Climate Action in Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Murshed, M.; Saboori, B.; Madaleno, M.; Wang, H.; DoÄan, B. (2022). Exploring the nexuses between nuclear energy, renewable energy, and carbon dioxide emissions: The role of economic complexity in the G7 countries. Renewable Energy. [CrossRef]
- Nathaniel, S.P.; Alam, Md. S.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Ahmad, P. (2021). The roles of nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth in the abatement of carbon dioxide emissions in the G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 4795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 41. OECD. (2002). New Horizons for Foreign Direct Investment. [CrossRef]
- Orlic, E.; Hashi, I.; Hisarciklilar, M. (2018). Cross sectoral FDI spillovers and their impact on manufacturing productivity. International Business Review. [CrossRef]
- Pao, H.-T.; Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): Evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy. [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K. (2021). Do renewable energy and health expenditures improve load capacity factor in the USA and Japan? A new approach to environmental issues. The European Journal of Health Economics, 1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Exploring the impact of tourism and energy consumption on the load capacity factor in Turkey: A novel dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K.; Caglar, A.E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K.; Isik, C. (2021). Determinants of the load capacity factor in China: A novel dynamic ARDL approach for ecological footprint accounting. Resources Policy, 0231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K.; Kartal, M.T. (2023). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. [CrossRef]
- Pata, U.K.; Samour, A. (2022). Do renewable and nuclear energy enhance environmental quality in France? A new EKC approach with the load capacity factor. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics. [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.C.B.; Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika. [CrossRef]
- Qashou, Y.; Samour, A.; Abumunshar, M. (2022). Does the Real Estate Market and Renewable Energy Induce Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Novel Evidence from Turkey. Energies. [CrossRef]
- Saidi, K.; Ben Mbarek, M. (2016). Nuclear energy, renewable energy, CO 2 emissions, and economic growth for nine developed countries: Evidence from panel Granger causality tests. Progress in Nuclear Energy. [CrossRef]
- Samour, A.; Moyo, D.; Tursoy, T. (2022). Renewable energy, banking sector development, and carbon dioxide emissions nexus: A path toward sustainable development in South Africa. Renewable Energy, 1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, S.; Genç, S.Y.; Kamran, H.W.; Dinca, G. (2021). Role of green technology innovation and renewable energy in carbon neutrality: A sustainable investigation from Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, Y.; Razzaq, A.; Chupradit, S.; Binh An, N.; Abdul-Samad, Z. (2022). The role of renewable energy consumption and health expenditures in improving load capacity factor in ASEAN countries: Exploring new paradigm using advance panel models. Renewable Energy. [CrossRef]
- Sharif, A.; Bhattacharya, M.; Afshan, S.; Shahbaz, M. (2021). Disaggregated renewable energy sources in mitigating CO2 emissions: New evidence from the USA using quantile regressions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhania, M.; Saini, N. (2021). Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal of Business Research. [CrossRef]
- Ullah, S.; Luo, R.; Adebayo, T.S.; Kartal, M.T. (2023). Dynamics between environmental taxes and ecological sustainability: Evidence from top-seven green economies by novel quantile approaches. Sustainable Development. [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Dong, C.; Liu, Y. (2019). Beijing direct investment to its neighbors: A pollution haven or pollution halo effect? Journal of Cleaner Production, 1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Tang, W. (2023). Additional social welfare of environmental regulation: The effect of environmental taxes on income inequality. Journal of Environmental Management, 1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilanci, V.; Cutcu, I.; Cayir, B.; Saglam, M.S. (2023). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Sign | Variables | Metric | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | Carbon dioxide emissions | Annual COâ emissions (per capita) | Friedlingstein et al., 2022 |
| EF | Ecological footprint | Global hectare per capita (gha per capita) | Footprint Network (https://data.footprintnetwork.org) |
| LCF | Load Capacity factor | Biocapacity / Ecological footprint (gha per capita) | Footprint Network (https://data.footprintnetwork.org) |
| FDI | Foreign Direct Investment | Stock of FDI in current US$ | UNCTAD database (https://unctadstat.unctad.org/) |
| GDP | Economic growth | Gross Domestic Product in current US$ | World Bank database (https://data.worldbank.org/) |
| NUC | Nuclear Energy | Terawatt per hour (TWh) | BP Statistical Review of World Energy (https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/) |
| REC | Renewable energy consumption | Terawatt per hour (TWh) | BP Statistical Review of World Energy (https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/) |
| Levels | ||||||
| ADF | DF-GLS | PP | ||||
| Intr. | Intr. +Trend | Intr. | Intr. + Trend | Intr. | Intr. + Trend | |
| t-stat | t-stat | t-stat | t-stat | t-stat | t-stat | |
| CO2 | -4.64* | -1.53 | -0.46 | -1.34 | -3.80* | -1.57 |
| EF | -2.05 | -1.99 | -0.50 | -1.75 | -2.53 | -1.78 |
| LCF | -2.89*** | -2.78 | -0.93 | -2.35 | -2.81*** | -2.65 |
| FDI | -1.79 | -1.85 | 0.35 | -1.95 | -1.53 | -1.37 |
| GDP | -2.08 | -1.74 | 0.36 | -1.46 | -2.74*** | -1.28 |
| NUC | -2.12 | -0.35 | -0.81 | -2.05 | -1.84 | -0.79 |
| REC | 0.02 | -1.98 | 0.48 | -2.03 | 0.03 | -1.62 |
| DIFF | ||||||
| -5.28* | -6.50* | -2.16** | -6.48* | -5.59* | -6.70* | |
| đ« EF | -3.37** | -3.40*** | -2.45** | -3.35** | -7.01* | -7.33* |
| đ« LCF | -9.96* | -10.21* | -10.05* | -10.15* | -10.03* | -10.47* |
| đ« FDI | -4.41* | -4.68* | -3.88* | -4.32* | -4.39* | -4.67* |
| đ« GDP | -4.36* | -4.73* | -4.12* | -4.81* | -4.32* | -4.54* |
| đ« NUC | -2.25 | -6.42* | -2.13** | -6.20* | -6.28* | -6.56* |
| đ« REC | -10.18* | -10.24* | -10.15* | -10.18* | -10.30* | -10.40* |
| Notes: | ||||||
|
||||||
| K = 4 | CO2 | EF | LCF |
| ARDL (1,1,2,2,3,1) | ARDL (1,4,1,3,0,2) | ARDL (3,2,1,4,0,2) | |
| F-statistic | 6.51* | 5.86* | 5.27* |
| Narayan (2005) Asymptotic critical values | |||
| CV | 1 | 5 | 10 |
| I(0) | 3.06 | 2.39 | 2.08 |
| I(1) | 4.15 | 3.38 | 3.00 |
| Diagnostic check | |||
| Jarque-Bera | 2.93 (0.23) | 0.94 (0.62) | 0.46 (0.79) |
| White | 1.44 (0.17) | 3.55 (0.00) | 1.70 (0.08) |
| ARCH | 0.81 (0.36) | 0.96 (0.33) | 1.21 (0.27) |
| BG-LM | 0.19 (0.66) | 0.06 (0.93) | 0.41 (0.66) |
| Notes: | |||
| 1. *, ** and *** denote 1, 5 and 10% significance level respectively.Values in parenthesis () represent probability values | |||
| CO2 | EF | LCF | |||||||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |||||||
| Long run | |||||||||
| (Levels) | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. |
| FDI | 0.080*** | 0.042 | 0.05 | 0.266* | 0.042 | 0.00 | -0.043* | 0.011 | 0.00 |
| GDP | 5.262* | 0.807 | 0.00 | 3.078* | 1.167 | 0.01 | -1.161* | 0.208 | 0.00 |
| GDPSQ | -0.096* | 0.016 | 0.00 | -0.062* | 0.022 | 0.00 | 0.022* | 0.004 | 0.00 |
| NUC | -0.057 | 0.041 | 0.17 | -0.087** | 0.046 | 0.04 | 0.044* | 0.011 | 0.00 |
| REC | -0.051 | 0.052 | 0.32 | -0.005* | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.056* | 0.013 | 0.00 |
| Constant | -53.144* | 10.445 | 0.00 | -38.28* | 15.210 | 0.01 | 15.82* | 2.687 | 0.00 |
| Short run (Error Correction Model) | |||||||||
| (Differences) | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. | Coef. | St. Er. | Prob. |
| FDI | -0.012 | 0.029 | 0.66 | 0.134* | 0.039 | 0.00 | 0.094 | 0.058 | 0.11 |
| - | - | - | -0.141* | 0.044 | 0.00 | -0.361* | 0.057 | 0.00 | |
| - | - | - | -0.029 | 0.040 | 0.48 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | -0.108* | 0.034 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
| GDP | -1.820 | 1.121 | 0.11 | -0.876 | 0.767 | 0.26 | -9.081* | 1.471 | 0.00 |
| 3.228* | 1.043 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| GDPSQ | 0.032 | 0.020 | 0.12 | 0.019 | 0.014 | 0.19 | 0.168* | 0.028 | 0.00 |
| -0.058* | 0.019 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.21 | 0.002*** | 0.001 | 0.05 | |
| - | - | - | 0.003* | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.28 | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | -0.005* | 0.001 | 0.00 | |
| NUC | -0.037 | 0.026 | 0.15 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 0.035 | 0.026 | 0.18 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| -0.063* | 0.026 | 0.02 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| REC | -0.002* | 0.0004 | 0.00 | -0.001* | 0.0004 | 0.00 | 0.006* | 0.0007 | 0.00 |
| - | - | - | 0.0008 | 0.0005 | 0.15 | 0.004* | 0.0008 | 0.00 | |
| -0.051* | 0.007 | 0.00 | -0.532* | 0.077 | 0.00 | -0.152* | 0.023 | 0.00 | |
| Notes | |||||||||
| 1. *, ** and *** denote 1, 5 and 10% significance level respectively. | |||||||||
Disclaimer/Publisherâs Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).