مصرف انرژی و رشد اقتصادی: شواهد از کشورهای مستقل مشترک المنافع
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|11082||2009||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6456 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Economics, Volume 31, Issue 5, September 2009, Pages 641–647
This study examines the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth for eleven countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States over the period 1991–2005 within a multivariate panel data framework. Based on Pedroni, 1999 and Pedroni, 2004 heterogeneous panel cointegration test and corresponding error correction model, cointegration is present between real GDP, energy consumption, real gross fixed capital formation, and labor force with the respective coefficients positive and statistically significant. The results of the error correction model reveal the presence of unidirectional causality from energy consumption to economic growth in the short-run while bidirectional causality between energy consumption and economic growth in the long-run. Thus, the results lend support for the feedback hypothesis associated with the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth.
Formed in 1991, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is comprised of twelve countries of the former Soviet Union.1 Though many of the countries within the CIS maybe considered transition economies, these countries play an important role in world energy markets both as producers of oil and natural gas and as transit centers for the distribution of these natural resources. In light of this region's importance within world energy markets, it is surprising there have been no published empirical studies which explore the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth for this group of countries.2 The task of this study is to fill this void in the empirical literature. Such an investigation will not only provide insights with respect to the role of energy consumption in economic development for these countries, but also serve as a basis for discussion of energy and environmental policies. Table 1 provides an overview of the composition of energy production and usage, the environmental impact of energy consumption, and level of economic development within the CIS region.3 Russia dominates the CIS with respect to oil production and serves as a major oil producer in the world. While Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan are net exports of oil, the remaining CIS countries are net importers. In regards to natural gas production, Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, nearly twice the reserves of Iran which has the second largest natural gas reserves.4 Moreover, Russia is the world's largest natural gas producer as well as the world's largest exporter of natural gas. Though Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan follow Russia in terms of natural gas production, both of these countries have struggled to bring their sizeable oil and natural gas reserves to world markets due in large part to an insufficient pipeline infrastructure for the export of natural gas to end-use markets. In regards to natural gas consumption, over half of Ukraine's energy consumption is from natural gas.5 The rest of the CIS countries rely upon natural gas imports from Russia to meet their natural gas consumption needs. Relative to oil and natural gas production, coal production and consumption in the CIS is not as significant. Coal production in the CIS is concentrated in Russia (who has the world's second largest recoverable coal reserves behind the U.S.), Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine.The energy sources underlying electricity production varies quite a bit across CIS countries as well. The percentage of electricity production from oil ranges from 27.68% in Azerbaijan to 0.00% in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan; the percentage of electricity production from natural gas ranges from 98.14% in Moldova to 2.35% in Tajikistan; the percentage of electricity production from coal ranges from 70.34% in Kazakhstan to 0.00% in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Tajikistan; the percentage of electricity production from hydroelectric power ranges from 97.65% in Tajikistan to 0.11% in Belarus; and the percentage of electricity production from nuclear power ranges from 47.74% in the Ukraine to 0.00% in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. In addition to the variation in energy sources and consumption patterns across CIS countries, there is a great deal of variation in the efficiency of energy usage as measured by GDP per unit of energy use, ranging from 1.12 in Uzbekistan to 4.91 in Armenia and Georgia. As noted by the Energy Information Agency, the variation in the efficiency of energy usage is not surprising given that many of the CIS countries have an aging and inefficient energy infrastructure that are in critical need of capital investment and modernization. On the environmental front, CIS countries face tremendous challenges in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As a measure of the environmental consequences of energy production and consumption, Table 1 reports carbon dioxide emissions in metric tons per capita. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita range from a low of 0.77 MT/capita in Tajikistan to a high of 13.33 MT/capita in Kazakhstan. It is interesting to note that the countries with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per capita (Tajikistan 0.77, Georgia 0.86, and Kyrgyzstan 1.12) have the highest percentage of electricity production from hydroelectric power (Tajikistan 97.65%, Kyrgyzstan 86.87%, and Georgia 85.81%). Finally, the level of economic development in CIS countries exhibits a wide disparity in part due to the success to which individual countries have made the transition towards a market-based economy. As reported in Table 1, real GDP per capita ranges from $1,727 in Kyrgyzstan to $11,858 in Russia. Given the brief overview of the composition of energy production and usage, the environmental impact of energy consumption, and the level of economic development within the CIS region, Section 2 discusses the four hypotheses associated with the causal relationship between energy consumption and economic growth. Section 3 discusses the data, methodology, and empirical results. Section 4 provides concluding remarks.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Understanding the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth is vital in the effective design and implementation of energy and environmental policies. In the case of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the data reveals a great deal of variation across countries in terms of the level of economic development as well as variation in the composition of energy production and usage. The CIS is dominated by Russia in terms of oil and natural gas production with many of the smaller countries serving as net importers of Russia's oil and natural gas production as well as serving as transit centers for the distribution of these natural resources to global energy markets. This study employs a panel data set for eleven countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) over the period 1991–2005 to examine the causal relationship between energy consumption and economic growth taking into account the role of capital and labor in the growth process. Given the dominance of Russia among the CIS countries, the analysis is undertaken using two panel data sets: one with Russia included and the other excluding Russia. In both panel data sets heterogeneous panel cointegration tests reveal there is a long-run equilibrium relationship between real GDP, energy consumption, real gross fixed capital formation, and the labor force. The long-run elasticity estimates with respect to each factor of production are generally larger in magnitude with the inclusion of Russia, reflecting the dominant role Russia plays in the region's economic development. Furthermore, the estimation of a panel vector error correction models suggest there is short-run unidirectional causality from energy consumption to economic growth whereas in the long-run there is bidirectional causality between energy consumption and economic growth indicative of the feedback hypothesis. The feedback hypothesis asserts that energy policies which improve the efficiency in the production and consumption of energy may not have a detrimental impact on economic growth, but may also enhance environmental quality as such policies will curb excessive energy consumption and inefficient energy production methods.