Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and

economic growth
⁎
Sofien Tibaa, Anis Omrib,c,
a
Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Sfax, Tunisia
b
Faculty of Economics and management of Nabeul, University of Carthage, Tunisia
c
College of Business and Economics, Qassim University, KSA

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The aim of this study is to exhibit an exhaustive survey which is related to the great flight of the literature of
Literature survey energy- environment-growth nexus at the individual and regional scale studies covering the period from 1978 to
Economic growth 2014. The survey takes into consideration the sample (country, region, etc.), periods covering, econometric
Energy consumption strategies, and conclusions. Our survey is based on the causality direction among (i) the energy use variables
Environment
(electricity, nuclear, renewable and non-renewable) and output growth; (ii) between economic growth and
environment; and between the three variables at the same time. Globally, these surveys provide paradoxical and
not conclusive results which energy consumption can boost economic growth through the productivity
enhancement and it can boost also the environmental damages through the enhancement of pollutant
emissions. Our survey sheds more the lights on the energy-environment-growth literature by giving an
extensive listing (1978–2014) of these causal linkages among the energy use variables, environment and
economic growth for both individual and collective cases. There is a unanimous consensus about the importance
of dealing with such dynamic relationship, which is seems to be a cornerstone element in setting any ambition
strategies (energy, ecological and economics).

1. Introduction impressive body of literature which has as a subject the three-way

For a several decades, economic growth is the ultimate aim for each
and every policy makers which it considers the only tool for a
sustainable development. Since the third millennium, precisely when
the Kyoto protocol under the supervision of the United Nations in the
background of climate change agreement on December 1997 which this
protocol includes the environmental quality as a crucial variable to
determine the sustainability of development consistent with the fifth
generation of human rights. Indeed, the summit of Johannesburg and
Rio de Janeiro are organized in the same field. However, economic
growth can exert a pressure on environmental quality, through energy
consumption as a transmission channel, which it seem to conflicting in
terms of goals and may the economic growth policy adopted at odds to
environmental aims who policy makers have a great challenging to
arbitrate between growth and environment. In fact, the interaction
between economic growth, energy consumption and environmental
quality was the subject of significant academic debates that linked to
the energy economics literature (e.g [22,26,161]) and thus revitalizing
the long debate in both academic and policy spheres about their
advantages and related costs caused by their interactions. There is an
linkages economic growth, environmental quality and energy consump-
tion. This relationship has attracted the attention of many debates an
academic research in different countries and for a long time. Indeed
environmental quality may generate positive or negative externalities.
Consequently it stimulates economic growth via the bias of human
health which can potentially affected by the emissions. The linkage
among energy variables, growth and environmental quality was the
subject of conflicting and paradoxical aims wished by the policy
makers. This postulates, understanding this dynamic linkage is crucial
to understanding the current energy and environmental policy, is a
cornerstone for new insight about energy and environmental policy,
and this relationship is the basis for making sound economic policy,
consistent with their objectives in terms of environmental and energy
policy. The past empirical works on the three way linkage causality
between energy-growth-environment can be categorized into three
lines of research. The first line looks at the nexus between energy
variables and economic growth. This relationship postulates that great
economic performance needs great energy use level and efficient energy
consumption requires a great economic growth. Based on the seminal
survey of Kraft and Kraft [122], Granger causality test procedure has

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Economics and management of Nabeul, University of Carthage, Tunisia.
E-mail addresses: sofienetiba@gmail.com (S. Tiba), elomrianis@gmail.com (A. Omri).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.113
Received 29 August 2015; Received in revised form 14 September 2016; Accepted 25 September 2016
Available online xxxx
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Tiba, S., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.113
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 1
Summary of the existing literature on energy consumption-growth nexus.

No. Study Periods Country Methodologies Conclusions

1 Kraft and Kraft [122] 1947−1974 United States Granger causality tests. GDP = > EC.
2 [4]) 1950–1970 United States Sim's technique. EC≠GDP.
3 Yu and Hwang [253] 1947–1979 United States Sim's technique. EC≠GDP.
4 Abosedra and Baghestani [1] 1947−1187 United States Cointegration, Granger causality tests. GDP = > EC.
5 Ramcharran [186] 1970–1986 Jamaica Granger causality test. ECC= > GDP.
6 Hwang and Gum [107] 1961−1990 Taiwan Cointegration, ECM. EC < = > GDP.
7 Yu and Jin [254] 1974−1990 United States Cointegration, Granger causality tests. EC≠GDP.
8 Stern [218] 1947−1990 United States MVAR model. EC= > GDP.
9 Cheng [51] 1947−1990 United States Cointegration, Granger causality tests. EC≠GDP.
10 Cheng and Lai [53] 1954−1993 Taiwan Granger causality tests. GDP= > EC.
11 Cheng [54] 1952−1995 Japan Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. GDP= > EC.
12 Cheng [55] 1952−1995 India Cointegration, ECM Granger causality tests. GDP= > EC.
13 Stern [219] 1948−1994 United States Cointegration, Granger causality tests. EC= > GDP.
14 Yang [243] 1954–1997 Taiwan Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. ECC⇔GDP.
15 Aqeel and Butt [28] 1955−1996 Pakistan Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. EC= > GDP.
16 Soytas et al. [214] 1960−1995 Turkey Cointegration, Granger causality tests. EC= > GDP.
17 Fatai et al. (2002) 1960−1999 New Zealand Granger causality, ARDL bounds testing, Toda and Yamamoto EC≠GDP.
procedure.
18 Ghosh [87] 1950–1997 India Granger causality test. GDP= > ECC.
19 Glasure (2002) 1961−1990 South Korea Vector Error Correction Model. EC⇔GDP.
20 Hondroyiannis et al.[99] 1960−1996 Greece Cointegration, ECM, Variance decomposition. EC⇔GDP.
21 Oh and Lee (2004) 1970−1999 South Korea VECM methodology. EC⇔GDP.
22 Altinay and Karagol[17] 1950−2000 Turkey Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. EC≠GDP.
23 Ghali and El-Sakka (2004) 1961−1997 Canada Hsiao's version of Granger causality. EC≠GDP.
24 Jumbe[121] 1970–1999 Malawi Granger causality, ECM. ECC⇔GDP.
25 Morimoto 1960–1998 Sri Lanka OLS regression model, Granger causality test. ECC= > GDP.
26 Paul and Bhattacharya[178] 1950−1996 India Granger causality tests, ECM. EC= > GDP.
27 Shiu and Lam[211] 1971–2000 China Cointegration, ECM. GDP= > ECC.
28 Wolde-Rufael[237] 1952−1999 Shanghai A modified version of Granger causality. EC= > GDP.
29 Lee and Chang[129] 1954−2003 Taiwan Johansen-Juselius procedure, Cointegration, VECM. EC= > GDP.
30 Narayan and Smyth[154] 1966−1999 Australia Cointegration, Granger causality ECM. GDP= > ECC.
31 Yoo[249] 1970−2002 South Korea VECM methoodology. EC⇔GDP.
32 Yoo and Jung[247] 1972–2002 Korea VECM methoodology. NEC= > GDP.
33 Yoo and Kim[248] 1971−2002 Indonesia Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. GDP= > EC.
34 Halicioglu[95] 1968−2005 Turkey Granger causality test. GDP= > EC.
35 Jobert and Karanfil[120] 1960−2003 Turkey Cointegration and Granger causality test. EC≠GDP.
36 Lise and Montfort (2007) 1970−2003 Turkey VECM methoodology. GDP= > EC.
37 Soytas et al.[216] 1972−2004 United States GMM EC≠GDP.
38 Ang[21] 1960–2000 France Cointegration, VECM methodology. EC= > GDP.
39 Ho and Siu[102] 1966–2002 Hong Kong Cointegration, VECM methodology. EC= > GDP.
40 Ewing et al.[75] 2001−2005 United States VAR and forecast error variance decomposition. GDP= > EC.
41 Mozumder Marathe[150] 1971–1999 Bangladeh Cointegration, VECM methodology.. GDP= > ECC.
42 Narayan and Smyth (2007) 1966–1999 Australia Multivariate Granger causality test. GDP= > ECC.
43 Narayan and Singh[155] 1971–2002 Fiji Islands Cointegration, Granger causality test. ECC= > GDP.
44 Yuan et al.[255] 1978–2004 China Cointegration techniques. ECC= > GDP.
45 Zachariadis and Pashouortidou[259] 1960–2004 Cyprus Cointegration, Granger causality, VEC. EC⇔GDP.
46 Zamani[260] 1967–2003 Iran Granger causality, Cointegration, VECM methodology. GDP= > EC.
47 Ang[22] 1971–1999 Malaysia Johansen cointegration, VECM. GDP= > EC.
48 Erdal et al.[73] 1970−2006 Turkey Granger causality test. EC⇔GDP.
49 Hu and Lin[106] 1982–2006 Taiwan Hansen-Seo threshold cointegration, VEC. GDP= > ECC.
50 Sari et al.[197] 2001−2005 United States ARDL bounds testing approach GDP= > REC.
51 Tang[224] 1972–2003 Malaysia ARDL approach, ECM, Granger causality ECC < = > GDP.
52 Yuan et al.[256] 1963–2005 China Johansen cointegration, VEC. ECC= > GDP.
53 Abosedra et al.[2] 1995–2005 Lebanon Granger cauality. ECC= > GDP.
54 Akinlo[10] 1980–2006 Nigeria Johansen-Juselius, cointegration, VEC. ECC= > GDP.
55 Ghosh[88] 1985–2005 India ARDL bounds testing approach, cointegration Granger GDP= > ECC.
causality.
56 Odhiambo[160] 1971–2006 South Africa Granger causality test EC⇔GDP
57 Tang[223] 1970–2005 Malaysia ARDLbonds test; Granger causality EC⇔GDP.
58 Ziramba[264] 1980−2005 South Africa ARDL bounds testing approach EC⇔GDP.
59 Payne[179] 1949−2006 United States Toda-Yamamoto procedure EC≠GDP.
60 Belloumi[39] 1971−2004 Tunisia Granger causality tests EC⇔GDP.
61 Bowden and Payne[43] 1949−2006 United States Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC= > GDP.
62 Halicioglu[96] 1960–2005 Turkey Granger causality, ARDL, Cointegration. EC≠GDP.
63 Odhiambo[160] 1971–2006 Tanzania ARDLbonds test; Granger causality-VECM. EC= > GDP.
64 Soytas and Sari[217] 1960−2000 Turkey Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC≠GDP.
65 Zhang and Cheng[257] 1960–2007 China Granger causality test. GDP= > EC.
66 Acaravci[3] 1968–2005 Turkey Cointegration, VECM methodology. EC⇔GDP.
67 Bartleet and Gounder[36] 1960–2004 NewZealand Granger causality test. GDP= > EC.
68 Chang[48] 1981–2006 China Multivariate causality test based on VECM methodology. EC= > GDP.
69 Chandran et al.[49] 1971–2003 Malaysia ARDL bonds test. ECC= > GDP.
70 Ighodaro[110] 1970–2005 Nigeria Cointegration, Granger causality. ECC= > GDP.
71 Jamil and Ahmad[115] 1960−2008 Pakistan Vector Error Correction Model GDP= > EC.
72 Lorde et al.[136] 1960–2004 Barbados VAR models, Granger causality. ECC⇔GDP.
(continued on next page)

2
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

been the most commonly used tool for investigating the nexus between
growth and energy consumption (e.g. [39,44,176]). Bozoklu and Yilanci
[44] have been investigated the causal linkage among output and
energy consumption and find that income Granger causes energy
consumption (conservation hypothesis) and also, their results reveal
that energy consumption Granger causes income level for the case of 20
OECD countries. While Pao and Fu [176] using the co-integration tests
found unidirectional causality running from income to energy con-
sumption for Brazil covering the period from 1980 to 2010.
While, the second strand of research looks at the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. The EKC hypothesis assumes an
inverted U-curve between economic growth and the environmental
quality (e.g. [21,29,189]). That is, environmental degradation rises
conjointly with the income level, but begins to decline after reaching a
threshold. However, a higher level of economic growth does not
automatically warrant greater implies environmental damages. Arouri
et al. [29] investigated the validity of EKC assumption in the context of
MENA region during the period 1981–2005. Their results reveal the
existence of a quadratic nexus between economic growth and environ-
ment proxy for the region as a whole. While, the long-run estimated
coefficients have verified the EKC hypothesis for the majority of MENA
countries, the existence of turning points with varied magnitude, hence
giving poor evidence in support of the EKC hypothesis. Also,
Govindaraju and Tang (2013) examined the nexus of environment,
income level and coal consumption in China and India. In the case of
China Granger causality test for China reveal a strong evidence of
unidirectional causality relationship running from income level to CO2
emissions. Moreover, there is evidence of a bidirectional relationship
among income and coal consumption as well as environmental quality
and coal consumption in the short-and-long run. In the case of India,
only a short-run causality is detected. The causal relationship among
income and environment as well as environment and coal consumption
are bidirectional.
Finally, the last one focuses on the three-way linkages between
energy consumption (renewable, non-renewable energy and nuclear)
and CO2 emissions. More recently, Apergis and Payne [27] investigated
this causality using the VECM and find that output, renewable energy
consumption, and CO2 emissions are co-integrated.
The existing literature that looks at the three way-linkages “energy-
economics-environment” nexus reveals three pioneering works by
Payne [180] which reviewed the nexus between electricty and income
as well as the nexus between energy consumption and income. Then,
Ozturk, [168] surveyed the relationship between electricity and income
and the relationship between energy consumption and income. More
recently, Omri [162] surveyed the energy-growth nexus for individual
cases. We go further beyond the analysis of energy-growth nexus in this
survey by including the environmental variable. Thus, the aim of our
current work is to give an extensive survey of the existent literature
which dealing with the “energy-environment-growth” nexus for both
specific- and multi-country studies covering the period from 1978 to
2014. To the best of our knowledge, our survey seems to be the first one
that investigates the three way-linkages “energy-growth-environment”
each of which relationship has major implications for the researchers in
the energy and environment economics field. The rest of this paper is
structured as follows: following the introduction, which is portrayed in
the first section above, we move to Section 2 to exhaustively survey and
discuss the literature for both the county-specific and multi-countries
studies on the nexus between (i) energy use-income; (ii) between
environment and economic growth; (iii) and the three way-linkages
between environment-energy-growth. The paper conclusion is pre-
sented in the last section.
2. Growth-energy-environment nexus: a literature survey
Since the pioneer work of Kraft and Kraft [122], who investigated
the energy-growth nexus for the case of the United States, various

Table 1 (continued)

No. Study Periods Country Methodologies Conclusions

73 Lotfalipour et al..[137] 1967−2007 Iran Toda-Yamamoto procedure. GDP= > EC.

74 Mandal and Madheswaran[141] 1979–2005 India Cointegration, ECM. EC⇔GDP.
75 Menyah and Wolde-Rufael[148] 1960–2007 United States Toda–Yamamoto causality test. NEC≠GDP.
76 Ozturk and Acaravci[170] 1968−2005 Turkey ARDL bounds test. EC≠GDP.
77 Payne and Taylor[181] 1957–2006 United States Toda–Yamamoto procedure. NEC≠GDP.
78 Tsani[229] 1960–2006 Greece Toda–Yamamoto procedure. EC⇔GDP.
79 Wolde-Rufael[239] 1969–2006 India Toda–Yamamoto procedure. NEC= > GDP.
80 Shahbaz et al.[203] 1971–2009 Portugal ARDL bonds test; UECM. ECC⇔GDP.
81 Ahamad and Islam[5] 1971−2008 Bangladesh Vector Error Correction Model. EC⇔GDP.
82 Fallahi[76] 1960–2005 United States Markov-switching vector autoregressive models (MS-VAR), EC⇔GDP.
Grager causality.
83 Kouakou[125] 1971−2008 Cote d’Ivoire Cointegration, Granger causality, ECM. ECC < = > GDP; ECC= > GDP
(short-run).
84 Wang et al.[234] 1995−2007 China Cointegration, VECM methodology. EC⇔GDP.
85 Wang et al.[235] 1972−2006 China Cointegration, ARDL bounds test EC= > GDP.
86 Zhang[258] 1970−2008 Russia Cointegration, Granger causality tests. EC⇔GDP.
87 Zhixin and Xin[262] 1980–2008 China Cointegration, Granger causality test. EC⇔GDP.
88 Alam et al.[13] 1972−2006 Bangladesh ARDL bounds test. EC⇔GDP.
89 Dagher and Yacoubian[65] 1980–2009 Lebanon Hsiao’s Granger causality, Toda-Yamamoto, VECM. EC⇔GDP.
90 Shahbaz et al..[205] 1972−2011 Pakistan VECM methodology. EC⇔GDP.
91 Shahbaz and Feridun[204] 1971–2008 Pakistan ARDL bonds test. GDP= > ECC.
92 Shahbaz and Lean[206] 1972−2009 Pakistan VECM methodology. EC⇔GDP.
93 Wolde-Rufael[241] 1977–2007 Taiwan Toda–Yamamoto’s Granger causality. NEC≠GDP.
94 Yildirim et al.[245] 1949−2010 United States Toda–Yamamoto procedure. REC≠GDP.
95 Aslan and Çam[30] 1985–2009 Israel bootstrap-corrected causality. NEC= > GDP.
96 Baranzini et al.[35] 1950−2010 Switzerland ARDL bounds tests VECM methodology. GDP= > EC.
97 Ocal and Aslan,[159]. 1990−2010 Turkey ARDL bonds testing, Toda–Yamamoto procedure. GDP= > REC.
98 Shahbaz et al.[207] 1971−2011 China ARDL bounds tests VECM methodology. EC= > GDP.
99 Shahbaz et al.[209] 1975–2011 Indonesia ARDL bounds tests, VECM, IAA. EC⇔GDP.
100 Pao and Fu[176] 1980−2010 Brazil VECM methodology. REC < = > GDP.

Note: EC= > GDP means that the causality runs from energy consumption to growth. GDP= > EC means that the causality runs from growth to energy consumption. EC⇔GDP means
that bi-directional causality exists between energy consumption and growth. EC≠GDP means that no causality exists between energy consumption and growth. REC: renewable energy
consumption, and ECC: electricity consumption and NEC: nuclear energy consumption.

3
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 2
Summary of the existing empirical studies on energy consumption-growth nexus.

No. Study Periods Countries Methodologies Conclusions

1 Yu and Choi[251] 1950−1976 5 countries Granger causality test. EC= > GDP; GDP= > EC; EC≠GDP.
2 Erol and Yu[74] 1952–1982 6 industrialized countries Granger causality test. EC⇔GDP; GDP= > EC; EC= > GDP; EC≠GDP.
3 Nachane et al. (1988) 1950–1985 16 countries Co-integration, Sims and Granger causality EC⇔GDP.
test.
4 Ebohon (1996) 1960–1984 Nigeria, Tanzania Engle–Granger causality approach. EC⇔GDP.
5 Murray and Nan[153] 1970−1990 15 countries Granger causality test. GDP= > EC; EC= > GDP; EC≠GDP; EC < = >
GDP.
6 Masih and Masih[142] 1955−1990 6 countries Johansen-Juselius cointegration test. EC⇔GDP; GDP= > EC; EC≠GDP.

7 Masih and Masih[143] 1952–1992 Taiwan Co-integration, VEC, variance EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP.
1955–1991 Korea decomposition.
8 Glasure and Lee[91] 1961−1990 South Korea Singapoor Error Correction Model. EC⇔GDP.
9 Cheng[52] 1949−1993 Mexico Brazil and Venezuela Hsiao’s version of Granger Causality. EC≠GDP.
10 Glasure and Lee (1998) 1961–1990 South Korea, Singapore Cointegration, ECM. EC≠GDP.

11 Asafu-Adjaye (2000) 1971−1995 Indonesia and Philippines VECM methodology. EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP
1973−1995 india Tailand
12 Soytas and Sari[215] 1950−1992 G−7 countries VECM methodology. GDP= > EC; EC⇔GDP
13 Fatai et al.[81] 1960−1999 6 countries Granger and Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP.
14 Lee[127] 1975–2001 18 developing countries Panel VECM methodology. EC= > GDP.
15 Wolde-Rufael[238] 1971−2001 19 African countries Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP; GDP= > EC; EC≠GDP.
16 Al-Iriani[18] 1970–2002 6 countries of GCC Panel co-integration, GMM. GDP= > EC.
17 Lee[128] 1947−1974 11 major industrialized Toda-Yamamoto procedure. GDP= > EC; EC⇔GDP; EC≠GDP.
countries
18 Soytas and Sari (2006) 1960–2004 G−7 countries Co-integration, ECM, generalized variance EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP; GDP= > EC.
decompositions.
19 Wolde-Rufael (2006) 1971–2001 17 African countries Toda Yamamoto procedure. GPD= > ECC; ECC= > GDP; ECC < = > GDP.
20 Yoo (2006) 1971–2002 4 countries Standard Granger causality test and GDP= > ECC; ECC < = > GDP.
Hsiao's version of Granger causality
method.
21 Chen et al.[50] 1971−2001 10 Asian countries VECM methodology. EC= > GDP; GDP= > EC.
22 Francis et al.[86] 1971–2002 Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and BVAR models, cointegration technique EC⇔GDP; EC≠GDP.
Tobago

23 Lee and Chang(2007) 1965–2002 22 Developed countries Panel VARs and GMM. GDP= > EC (developing countries); EC < = > GDP
1971–2002 18 Developing Countries (developed countries).
24 Mahadevan and Asafu- 1971–2002 20energy importers and Panel ECM methodology. EC= > GDP (developing countries); EC⇔GDP
Adjaye (2007) exporters (developed countries).
25 Mehrara[145] 1971–2002 11 Oil Exporting countries Panel cointegration technique. GDP= > EC
26 Squalli (2007) 1980−2003 11 OPEC countries Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP.

27 Zachariadis[261] 1960–2004 G−7 countries: Germany, UK, ARDL approch, VECM, Toda and GDP= > EC; EC < = > GDP; EC≠GDP.
US Yamamoto.
1970–2004 Italy
1971–2004 Canada and France
1960–2003 Japan
28 Akinlo[9] 1980−2003 11 Sub Sahara African ARDL bounds testing approach. GDP= > EC; EC⇔GDP; EC≠GDP.
countries
29 Ciarreta and Zarraga[58] 1970–2004 12 European countries Panel cointegration, GMM, Panel ECC= > GDP; ECC≠GDP.
causality.
30 Huang et al..[100] 1972−2002 82 countries GMM system. GDP= > EC.
31 Chiou-Wei et al.[57] 1954–2006 8 countries VAR. GDP= > EC; EC= > GDP.
32 Chontanawat et al.[59] 1971−2000 30OECD and 78 non OECD Granger causality test. EC= > GDP.
countries
33 Lee and Chang(2008) 1971–2002 16 Asian countries Panel cointegration and Panel ECM. EC= > GDP (long-run); EC≠GDP (short-run).
34 Lee et al. (2008) 1960–2001 22 OECD countries Panel cointegration, Panel VEC model. EC⇔GDP.
35 Narayan and Smyth[156] 1972−2002 G7 countries Panel co-integration and Granger EC= > GDP.
causality.
36 Narayan and Prasad[157] 1954−2006 30 OECD countries Bootstrapped Toda-Yamamoto procedure. EC⇔GDP; EC≠GDP.
37 Payne[179] 1980−2004 6 Central American countries Pedroni Panel cointegration and Granger EC= > GDP.
causality.
38 Chang et al.[46] 1997−2006 G7 countries Threshold estimation. GDP= > EC.
39 Narayan and Smyth(2009) 1974–2002 6 MENA countries Panel cointegration, VECM methodology. ECC⇔GDP.
40 Sadorsky[193] 1980−2005 G7 countries Panel cointegration. REC= > GDP.
41 [194] 1994–2003 18 emerging countries Bivariate panel error correction model. GDP= > REC.
42 Wolde-Rufael (2009) 1971–2004 Algeria, Benin, South Africa Toda and Yamamoto procedure. EC⇔GDP.

43 Yoo and Ku[250] 1965–2005 6 countries: France, Co-integration, Granger causality. NEC < = > GDP; GDP= > NEC; NEC≠GDP.
1969–2005 Switzerland
1971–2005 Germany
1972–2005 Pakistan
1974–2005 Argentina
1977–2005 Korea
44 Apergis and Payne[24] 1885−2005 20 OECD countries Panel cointegration and error correction EC⇔GDP.
(continued on next page)

4
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

works attempted to develop the relationship between different other
variables by applying divers modeling strategies. Thus, in this current
section we attempt to investigate these questions by giving an extensive
survey of the existing works which they are categorized by author,
sample, study period, modeling strategy, and conclusions.
2.1. A literature survey on the causality between energy consumption
and economic growth
The topic of economic growth-energy consumption nexus is widely
discussed in the energy economic literature. As known this nexus was
structured around four hypotheses. First, the growth hypothesis refers
to a case in which the energy use performs a vital role in the economic
performance directly: there is evidence of unidirectional causality
relationship running from energy use to income, therefore, energy

Table 2 (continued)

No. Study Periods Countries Methodologies Conclusions

model.
45 Apergis and Payne[25] 1992−2007 13 Eurasian countries Panel co integration and Error correction EC⇔GDP.
approach.
46 Apergis et al.[23] 1984–2007 19 developed and developing Panel VECM methodology. NEC= > GDP (short-run); NEC⇔GDP (long-run).
countries
47 Apergis and Payne[26] 1980–2005 16developed and newly Panel VECM methodology. NEC= > GDP (long-run); NEC⇔GDP (short-run).
developing countries
48 Esso (2010) 1970–2007 7 African countries Threshold cointegration approach. EC⇔GDP; GDP= > EC; EC≠GDP.
49 Wolde-Rufael and 1971–2005 Nine developed countries Toda-Yamamoto procedure. NEC= > GDP; GDP= > NEC; NEC < = > GDP.
Menyah[240]
50 Odhiambo (2010) 1971–2006 South Africa, Kenya, Congo ARDL bounds test EC= > GDP; GDP= > EC
RD
51 Ozturk et al.[169] 1971−2005 51 countries Panel co integration and causality tests. GDP= > EC; EC⇔GDP
52 Belke et al..[38] 1981−2007 25 OECD countries Panel co integration and VECM EC⇔GDP.
methodology
53 Eggoh et al.[72] 1970−2006 21 African countries Panel co integration and Panel Causality EC⇔GDP.
tests.
54 Fuinhas and Marques 1965−2009 5 Eurasian countries ARDL bounds testing EC⇔GDP
(2011)
55 Lau et al. (2011) 1980–2006 17 Asian countries FMOLS EC= > GDP (short-run); GDP= > EC (long-run);
EC < = > GDP.
56 Lee and Chiu[131] 1965–2008 6 highly industrialized Toda-Yamamoto procedure. GDP= > NEC; NEC < = > GDP; NEC≠GDP.
countries
57 Lee and Chiu[131] 1971–2006 6 developed countries Cointegration, Granger causality test. GDP= > NEC (long run); NEC≠GDP (short run).
58 Nazlioglu et al. (2011) 1980–2007 14 OECD countries Panel Granger causality, Toda-Yamamoto NEC≠GDP.
approach.
59 Tiwari (2011) 1965−2009 16 European and Eurasian Panel VAR approach. EC⇔GDP.
countries
60 Menegak[146] 1997−2007 27 European countries Random effect model. EC≠GDP.
61 Wang et al..(2011) 1995–2007 28 provinces in China Cointegration and VECM methodology. EC < = > GDP.
62 Apergis and Payne (2012a) 1990−2007 6 Central American countries Panel co integration technique. EC⇔GDP.
63 Apergis and Payne (2012b) 1990–2007 80 countries Panel ECM methodology. REC⇔GDP.
64 Chu and Chang[61] 1971–2010 G−6 countries Granger causality test. NEC≠GDP; NEC= > GDP.
65 Yildirim and Aslan[246] 1970−2009 17 OECD countnries Bootstrap-corrected causality tests. EC≠GDP.
66 Fuinhas and Marques 1965−2009 Turkey Portugal Italy Greece ARDL bounds test. GDP= > EC.
(2012) Spain
67 Salim and Rafiq[196] 1980–2006 6 countries Granger causality test. REC⇔GDP (short-run); GDP= > REC (long-run).
68 Tugcu et al.[230] 1980–2009 G−7 countries Hatemi-J causality tests. REC⇔GDP; GDP= > REC; REC≠GDP.
69 Hossein et al.[105] 1980−2008 12 OPEC member countries Panel cointegration, VECM Granger EC= > GDP.
causality.
70 Akhmat and Zaman[15] 1975–2010 8 South Asian countries Bootstrap panel Granger causality method. NEC= > GDP; EC= > GDP; ECC= > GDP; GDP=
> NEC; GDP= > ECC.
71 Ben Aïssa et al., (2013) 1980−2008 11 African countries Panel error correction model. REC≠GDP.
72 Bozoklu and Yilanci[44] 1965–2011 20 OECD countries Granger causality tests. EC= > GDP; GDP= > EC.
73 Damette and Seghir[66] 1990−2010 12 oil-exporting countries Panel cointegration techniques. EC= > GDP.
74 Ouedraogo[164] 1980–2008 15 African countries VAR. GDP= > EC (short-run); EC= > GDP (long-run).
75 Al-mulali (2014) 1990−2010 30 countries Pedroni co-integration test, VECM NEC= > GDP; NEC= > CO2.
Granger causality tests.
76 Chang et al.,[47] 1971–2011 G6 countries Granger causality procedure. NEC⇔GDP; GDP= > NEC; NEC≠GDP; NEC= >
GDP.
77 Mohammadi and 1980−2008 14 oil-exporting countries Panel panel estimation techniques, EC⇔GDP.
Parvaresh[149] dynamic fixed effect, pooled and mean-
group techniques.
78 Pao et al.[177] 1990–2010 MIST countries Panel cointegration tests. EC⇔GDP (long-run); REC= > GDP (long-run);
REC < = > GDP (long-run); NEC < = > GDP (long-
run); EC= > GDP (long-run).
79 Śmiech and Papież[213] 1993–2011 25European Union member Bootstrap Granger panel causality EC≠GDP.
states approach.
80 Yildirim et al.[252] 1971−2010 11 countries Bootstrapped Autoregressive Metric EC≠GDP; EC= > GDP.
Causality Approach.

Note: EC= > GDP means that the causality runs from energy consumption to growth. GDP= > EC means that the causality runs from growth to energy consumption. EC⇔GDP means
that bi-directional causality exists between energy consumption and growth. EC≠GDP means that no causality exists between energy consumption and growth. REC: renewable energy
consumption, and ECC: electricity consumption and NEC: nuclear energy consumption.

5
S. Tiba, A. Omri
conservation policies aimed at reducing energy consumption will have
adverse effect on economic growth. Second, the conservation hypoth-
esis suggests that there is evidence of unidirectional nexus running
from growth to energy use. This means that energy use performs a vital
role in the economic development process both directly and indirectly,
including with labor and capital. So, based on these facts energy is a
sensitive element with respect to economic growth and, hence, shocks
of energy supply may have a weak or no adverse impact on growth.
Third, the feedback hypothesis stipulates the existence of bidirectional
relationship between output and energy use. In this case, energy
conservation strategies aimed at decreasing energy consumption may
decrease economic growth performance, likewise, changes in economic
growth are reflected back to energy consumption. Finally, the neutral-
ity hypothesis that the absence of causal relationship among growth
and energy consumption which supports the presence of neutrality
hypothesis. In this case energy conservation strategies designed to
minimize the consumption of energy seem to be ineffective with respect
to economic growth.
In Tables 1 and 2, we attempt to survey exhaustively the literature
that dealing with the energy-growth nexus for both country-specific
and multi-country studies. These works are categorized by author, time
span, sample, modeling strategy, and conclusions.
2.1.1. Country-specific studies on energy consumption–growth nexus
For the country-specific case, the analysis of the energy-growth
nexus has generate the attention of policy makers to understanding this
linkage, and the conditioning variables which lead economic develop-
ment to monitoring tools as well as rationing the use of energy and
controlling environmental degradation. Then, various works have
investigated the topic of energy-growth nexus which their findings
seem to be mixed, paradoxical and not conclusive. The absence of
consensus can be explained by time span, included variables, modeling
construction, and methodologies adopted.
In this context, Squalli (2007) using the the Toda-Yamamoto
procedure, the results show the presence of the growth and the
feedback hypothesis for Indonesia and Iran, respectively.
Nevertheless, Soytas and Sari (2007) found the growth hypothesis for
Turkey by applying Vector Error Correction Model. Belloumi [39]
investigated the linkage between output and energy consumption for
the case of Tunisia covering the period from 1971 to 2004, by applying
the Granger causality tests and VECM, which he has been found the
evidence of bidirectional relationship between output and energy
consumption supported the feedback hypothesis in the long run and
he has been also found the presence of unidirectional relationship
which he supports the growth hypothesis. Furthermore, Halicioglu [96]
examined the nexus among energy consumption and income, over the
period of 1960–2005, for Turkey by applying the Granger causality
tests, ARDL and cointegration. The highlights revealed the absence of
causal relationship which is consistent with the neutrality hypothesis.
In addition, Zhang and Cheng [257] have been examined this relation-
ship for China during the period from 1960 to 2007 by applying the
Granger causality tests, which the findings show that output Granger
causes energy use supporting the conservation hypothesis.
Nevertheless, Soytas and Sari [217] investigated this linkage by
applying the Toda-Yamamoto procedure For Turkey over the period
1960–2000. The results show the absence of causality proving the
neutrality hypothesis. Moreover, Jamil and Ahmad [115] have been
studied the linkage among energy consumption and income in the case
of Pakistan using the VECM during the period from 1960 to 2008 and
they found a unidirectional causality running from income to energy
variable supporting the conservation hypothesis. Also, Lotfalipour et al.
[137] have studied this linkage for Iran which they employed Toda-
Yamamoto procedure for the study period 1967–2007, the results show
the presence of conservation hypothesis. Besides, Ahamad and Islam
[5] investigated this relationship using the VECM methodology in the
case of Bangladesh over the period 1971–2008 which they found a
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
bidirectional relationship in line with the feedback hypothesis. Also,
Kaplan et al. (2011), where they applied Johansen -Juselius and
Granger causality, covering the period of 1971–2006 for Turkey.
They confirmed the feedback hypothesis.
Recently, Yildirim and Aslan [246] have been investigated this
linkage for Turkey applying the bootstrapped Toda-Yamamoto proce-
dure covering the period from 1970 to 2009, the findings show that no
causal relationship is found supported the neutrality hypothesis.
Shahbaz et al. [205] have been examined this linkage using the
VECM methodology in the case of Pakistan during the period from
1972 to 2011 which their findings show bidirectional causality among
output and energy use consistent with the feedback hypothesis.
Moreover, Shahbaz and Lean [206] examined this causality for
Pakistan during the period 1972–2011 using the VECM methodology
and their findings are in line with the feedback hypothesis. More
recently, Shahbaz et al. [207] examined1 the energy-growth nexus for
the case of China. The findings show that energy use Granger causes
output. Shahbaz et al. [209] supported the feedback hypothesis in the
case of Indonesia. In fact, the energy use may have dramatic damages
to economic growth by affecting the productivity through human
health. Many studies include renewable energy consumption in their
empirical results such as, sari et al. [197], Payne [179], Menyah and
Wolde-Rufael [148], among others, Shahbaz et al. [205], Yildirim et al.
[245], and Pao and Fu [176].
The highlights of the empirical surveys on the energy consumption-
economic growth nexus for country-specific studies are summarized in
Table 1.
2.1.2. Multi-country studies on energy consumption–growth nexus
About the multi-countries studies, Chen et al. [50] studied this
linkage using VECM over the period 1971–2007. The results show the
presence of the growth and the conservation hypothesis for Indonesia,
South Korea, and Philippines, respectively. Although Squalli (2007)
using the Toda-Yamamoto procedure, the results show the presence of
the growth and the feedback hypothesis for Indonesia and Iran,
respectively. Also, Narayan and Prasad [157] examined this linkage
for a panel of three countries using Bootstrapped Toda-Yamamoto and
they found the feedback for South Korea and neutrality hypothesis for
Mexico and Turkey. Additionally, Ozturk et al. [169] investigated the
energy-income nexus using panel co-integration and causality tests for
a sample of 51 countries covering the period from 1971 to 2005. Their
results reveal the existence of unidirectional causality which running
from energy use to income level and the existence of bidirectional
causality supported the conservation one and the feedback hypothesis,
respectively. Nevertheless, Eggoh et al. [72] used the co-integration
procedure during the period from 1981 to 2007 for a panel 25 OECD
countries which their findings are consistent with the feedback
hypothesis. Also, Fuinhas and Marques (2011) employed the autore-
gressive distributed lag ARDL for a panel of 5 countries namely Greece,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey covering the period of 1965–2009.
They found the feedback hypothesis.
Moreover, Tiwari (2011) treated this nexus by applying Panel
vector autoregressive approach for a sample of 16 European and
Eurasian countries during the period from 1965 to 2009. The findings
supported the existence of feedback hypothesis. Recently, Yildirim and
Aslan [246] studied this linkage for the case of 17 economies members
of OECD by using bootstrapped-corrected causality test covering the
period from 1970 to 2009. The empirical results have supported the
existence of the neutrality hypothesis. Further, Bozoklu and Yilanci
[44] examined this linkage for 20 OECD countries by employing the
Granger causality test. They found unidirectional causality from
1
Every attempt was made to include all the studies published in refereed academic
journals that examine the causality among energy consumption and economic growth. If
a study has been overlooked or misinterpreted, I extend my apologies to the author(s).
S. Tiba, A. Omri
income to energy use, there is a short run relationship for Australia,
Austria, Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the
UK, the USA, and a long run relationship for Belgium, Finland, Greece,
Italy, Japan, and Portugal. The empirical studies have been summar-
ized in the Table 2 below.2
Further the high level of economic growth which generate by an
industrials’ process through the high level of energy consumption that
may generate a high level of greenhouse gas and pollutants emissions
as a negative externalities that it can affected the level of economic
growth through the bias of human health. In this context the environ-
mental quality has constituted a relevant variable in the determining of
the growth level aimed by the policy makers. The environment-growth
nexus constitute the topic of several previous studies in the past few
decades that they lighting the big challenge for both high- and-middle-
income countries and for many policy makers in terms of growth level
and environmental quality.
2.2. A literature survey on the validity of the EKC hypothesis
The environment-growth nexus has been the topic of several
previous studies and attracted the attention of researchers for the past
few decades. The EKC postulates that the nexus between environment
and economic growth resembles an inverted U- shaped (e.g.
[21,189,161]). That is, environmental damage increase as with output
until a threshold was reached it begins to decline. First this curve was
illustrated the nexus between income and inequality as Kuznets (1955)
deducted. Then, this pattern has been inspired to describe the long-run
environment-growth nexus. Initially, Grossman and Krueger [92],
Stern [221] and Dinda [222] have been suggested and validated this
assumption. Friedl and Getzner [85], Dinda and Coondoo [69], and
Managi and Jena [140], among others, have been stressed also this
assumption.
In Tables 3, 4, we attempt to give exhaustive lists of works that
dealing with the EKC hypothesis for both country-specific and multi-
country studies. These works are categorized by author, time span,
sample, modeling strategy, and conclusions.
2.2.1. Country-specific studies on environment-growth nexus
In this framework, Friedl and Getzner [85] investigated the
economic growth-CO2 emissions nexus for Australia covering the
period 1960–1999. The empirical evidence showed an N-shaped nexus.
Martinez-Zarzoso and Begochea-Morancho (2004) findings revealed a
quadratic relationship between income and environment, supporting
the EKC assumption. Also, Coondoo and Dinda [63], Akbostanci et al.
[8], and Lee and Lee [130], among others, investigated this nexus. The
empirical results appear to be inconclusive. Akbostanci et al. [8] tested
for this hypothesis for the case of Turkey using co-integration
techniques for time series and provincial data over the periods
1968–2003 and 1992–2001. The findings show that a monotonically
nexus for times series analysis. He and Richard [101] investigated the
nexus among CO2 emissions and income in the Canadian context over
the period 1948–2004. They found little evidence in favor of the EKC.
In stark contrast to He and Richard [101], Ang [21] and Iwata et al.
[111] supported the hypothesis of EKC for France and China,
respectively. Copeland and Taylor (2004), Grossman and Krueger
[93], Machado (2000), Ang [22], Halicioglu [96], and Jalil and
Mahmud [116] examined the EKC hypothesis by including the impact
of trade liberalization. Their empirical findings reveal a positive link
between trade and carbon dioxide emissions was found by Halicioglu
[96], Ang [22] and Jalil and Mahmud [116] for Turkey, Malaysia, and
China, respectively. Similarly, Fodha and Zaghdoud [82] investigated
2 3
Every attempt was made to include all the studies published in refereed academic
journals that examine the causality among energy consumption and economic growth. If
a study has been overlooked or misinterpreted, I extend my apologies to the author(s).
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
this linkage for Tunisia over the period from 1961 to 2004. They found
that CO2 is co-integrated with per capita output, but their results for
CO2 indicated a monotonically increasing relationship relative to
economic growth. More recently, Lau et al. [126] examined this
relationship including FDI and trade, in the case of Malaysia during
the period from 1970 to 2008 by applying the Bounds tests and
Granger causality methodology. Their results show the existence of
inverted-U shaped nexus among economic growth and environment in
both the short-and long-run for Malaysia.
2.2.2. Multi-country studies on environment–growth nexus
For the multi-country surveys, De Bruyn et al. [68] studied the
linkage among income and pollutant emissions using dynamic time
series models for a sample of four countries which namely the
Netherlands, West Germany, the UK, and the US, respectively. They
found that income has a positive significant impact on the environ-
ment. Additionally, Jaunky (2010) examined the Environmental
Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for a sample of 36 high-income countries
(including Bahrain, Oman and UAE) covering the period 1980–2005,
the findings pointed out the presence of unidirectional link from
income to environment in the short-and the long-run. While, Holtz-
Eakin and Selden [103] and Shafik [202] pointed out a monotonic
relationship and an N-shaped curve has been found by Friedl and
Getzner [85]. In addition, Richmond and Kaufmann [187] recorded the
absence of significant causality among income and pollutant emissions.
Moreover, Pao and Tsai [172] studied the growth-environment nexus
for the BRIC economies over the period 1971–2005, the empirical
findings find a unidirectional causality from emissions to income.
More recently, Lopez et al. (2014) studied the relationship between
income and environment for Ecuador during the period 1980–2010 by
applying the co-integration techniques. The empirical results not
support the fulfillment of the EKC hypothesis. Nevertheless,
Onafowora and Owoye [163] examine this linkage for eight countries
using the ARDL bounds test. The empirical results show that the
inverted U-shaped EKC hypothesis holds in Japan and South Korea.
For the remaining countries, the environment-economic growth nexus
seems to be monotonically follows an N-shaped. Besides, Farhani et al.
[79] investigated the linkage growth-environment by studying two
different EKC specifications for 10 MENA economies covering the
period from 1990 to 2010 applying panel data methods. The results
show the existence of inverted U-shaped relationship among emissions
and output.3
2.3. A literature survey on energy-environment-growth nexus
Based on the EKC literature, the economic development process
resulting from the consumption of energy may exert a significant
pressure on the environmental quality. The economic growth-energy
consumption nexus and economic growth-environment nexus were the
topic of several academic debates during the six past decades. In Tables
5, 6, we attempt to give exhaustive lists of works that dealing with the
three way-linkages between environment-energy consumption-eco-
nomic growth for both country-specific and multi-country studies.
These works are categorized by author, time span, sample, modeling
strategy, and conclusions.
2.3.1. Country-specific studies on energy-environment–growth nexus
In this context, Ang [21] investigated this relationship in the case of
France over the period 1960–2000 using the cointegration testing and
VECM methodology. Their findings record the presence of long-run
link among the environment-energy-growth. Also, the highlights reveal
Every attempt was made to include all the studies published in refereed academic
journals that examine the EKC. If a study has been overlooked or misinterpreted, I
extend my apologies to the author(s).
 Table 3
Summary of the existing empirical studies on Environmental Kuznets Curve.

No. Study Periods Country Methodologies Conclusions

S. Tiba, A. Omri

1 Roca et al.[188]
2 Day and Grafton[67]
3 Haisheng et al.[94]
4 Paudel et al. (2005)
1973−1996 Spain Time series analysis. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
1974–1997 for carbon monoxide (CO) emission. 1958–1995 For CO2 Canada Johansen cointegration, OLS model, and VAR Granger No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
emission. 1974–1997 for SO2 emission. 1974–1997 for Total causality.
suspended particulate (TSP)
1990–2002 China Random and fixed effect model. Support the EKC hypothesis.
1985−1999 the state of Louisiana Fixed and random effects models; parametric and No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
(USA) semiparametric models.

5 Plassmann and Khanna[185] 1990 United States of Poisson regression. Support the EKC hypothesis.
America
1975–1999 Canada Fixed effects and random effects model.
6 Ang[21] 1960–2000 France Johansen cointegration test, The ARDL bounds testing Support the EKC hypothesis.
approach, VECM Granger causality.

7 Akbostanci et al.[8] 1968−2003 Turkey Cointegration techniques. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.

1992−2001 58 Turkish provinces panel data estimation techniques.
8 Halicioglu[96] 1960–2005 Turkey ARDL methodology Support the EKC hypothesis.
9 Fodha and Zaghdoud[82] 1961–2004 Tunisia Cointegration, Granger causality. Support the EKC hypothesis.
10 Ghosh[89] 1971−2006 India ARDL methodology and Johansen–Juselius. Support the EKC hypothesis.
11 Iwata et al.[111] 1960–2003 France The ARDL bounds testing approach, Pair wise Granger Support the EKC hypothesis.
causality.
12 Ozturk and Acaravci[170] 1968–2005 Turkey The ARDL bounds testing approach, Granger causality. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
13 Pao et al.[175] 1990–2007 Russia Johansen cointegration, OLS model, and VECM Granger No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
causality.
14 Pao and Tsai[174] 1980–2007 Brazil Cointegration, Granger causality No evidence of EKC hypothesis.

8
15 Jalil and Feridun[117] 1953–2006 China The ARDL bounds testing approach, VECM Granger Support the EKC hypothesis.
causality.
16 Nasir and Rehman[158] 1972–2008 Pakistan Johansen cointegrat ion, VECM Granger causality. Support the EKC hypothesis.
17 Ahmed and Long[6] 1971−2008 Pakistan ARDL bounds testing methodology. Support the EKC hypothesis.
18 Akpan and Akpan[16] 1970−2008 Nigeria Vector Error Correction Modeling. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
19 Alam et al.[13] 1972−2006 Bangladesh ARDL bounds testing methodology. Support the EKC hypothesis.
20 Du et al.[71] 1995–2009 China Fixed effect (FE) and the generalized method of moments No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
(GMM).
21 Esteve and Tamarit (2012) 1857–2007 Spain Threshold cointegration tests. Support the EKC hypothesis.
22 Fosten et al.,[84] 1850−2002 United Kingdom Non-linear threshold cointegration and error correction Support the EKC hypothesis.
methodology.
23 Franklin and Ruth (2012) 1900−2000 Uunited States Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). Support the EKC hypothesis.
24 Hamit-Haggar[97] 1990–2007 Canada Pedroni cointegration test, fully modified OLS (FMOLS), Support the EKC hypothesis.
VECM Granger causality.
25 Jayanthakumaran and 1990–2007 China Fixed effects and random effects model. Support the EKC hypothesis.
Liu[119]
26 Saboori et al.,[189] 1980−2009 Malaysia ARDL bounds testing methodology. Support the EKC hypothesis.
27 Shahbaz et al.[205] 1971–2009 Pakistan cointegration, Granger causality. Support the EKC hypothesis.
28 Pao et al. (2012) 1980−2008; 1980−2009 China Nonlinear grey Bernoulli model; cointegration testing. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
29 Ahmed and Long[7] 1971–2008 Pakistan The ARDL bounds testing approach. No evidence of EKC hypothesis (short-
run); support EKC hypothesis (long-run).
30 Alkhathlan and Javid[20] 1980−2011 Saudi Arabia ARDL bounds testing Granger causality test. Support the EKC hypothesis.
31 Baek and Kim[34] 1971–2007 Korea ARDL bounds testing approach. Support the EKC hypothesis
32 Giovanis[90] 1991–2009 United Kingdom Dynamic panel data. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
33 Kanjilal and Ghosh (2013) 1971−2008 India Threshold cointegration tests. Support the EKC hypothesis.
34 Kohler[123] 1960–2009 South Africa Johansen cointegration, ARDL bounds testing, and vector Support the EKC hypothesis.
error correction model (VECM) Granger causality.
35 Ozturk and Acaravci[171] 1960–2007 Turkey The ARDL bounds testing approach. Support the EKC hypothesis.
36 [191] 1980−2009 Malaysia ARDL, methodology and Johansen–Juselius. Support the EKC hypothesis.
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

a unidirectional causal relationship from energy consumption to out-

put. Moreover, Ang [22] examined the three-way linkages for Malaysia
over the period from 1971 to 1999 using the co-integration and the

No evidence of EKC hypothesis.

recent causality test. The highlights pointed out that pollutant emis-
Support the EKC hypothesis.

hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
hypothesis.

Support the EKC hypothesis.

Support the EKC hypothesis.
Support the EKC hypothesis.

Support the EKC hypothesis.

Support the EKC hypothesis.
sions and energy are significantly positively related to the economic
growth. In addition, Alam et al. [12] examined these three way-linkages
for the case of India using a multivariate framework of Toda and
EKC
EKC
EKC
EKC
EKC
EKC
EKC
EKC
Yamamoto procedure covering the period from 1971 to 2006. Their
findings provide that there is evidence of bidirectional (feedback) long-
Conclusions

the
the
the
the
the
the
the
the
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support run relationship among environment and energy use while neither
energy use nor environment exerts a significant impact on economic
growth. Besides, Ozturk and Acaravci [171] investigated the environ-
ment-energy-growth nexus by including the financial development and
Maki’s (2012) cointegration test with multiple structural

the trade openness in case of Turkey over the period from 1960 to 2007
The ARDL bounds testing approach, VECM Granger

The ARDL bounds testing, VECM, IAA approaches.

using co-integration techniques. The results prove the presence of a

Nonlinear cointegration; Threshold cointegration.
The ARDL bounds testing approach and VECM.

The ARDL bounds testing approach and VECM.

The ARDL bounds testing approach and VECM.

Johansen cointegration tests, Gregory-Hansen

long-run linkage between all variables. Furthermore, Shahbaz et al.
cointegration test, OLS and FMOLS model.
[207] studied the output-energy-environment relationship by including
financial development and trade liberalizations for Malaysia covering
The ARDL bounds testing approach.
ARDL bounds testing methodology.

the period from 1975 to 2011 using VECM Granger causality and
ARDLbounds testing methodology.

ARDL Bounds tests and Innovative Accounting Approach (IAA). The

VECM, Granger causality test.

VECM, Granger causality test.

empirical findings reveal that The VECM causality analysis has shown
Cointegration techniques.

the feedback hypothesis between environment and energy use. Output

and environment are also interrelated implying that there is evidence
Granger causality.

of bidirectional causality. Financial development Granger causes CO2

Methodologies

emissions. More recently, Yang and Zhao [244] studied these linkages
for India during the period 1970–2008 by using Granger causality tests
causality.

breaks.

and directed acyclic graphs (DAG), and they show that energy use
Granger causes carbon emissions and output, however there is
bidirectional causal link among CO2 emissions and economic growth.
The United Kingdom

Also, they find that trade openness is fundamental determinants of the

consumption of energy and carbon emissions.
South Africa

Singapore
Romania
Malaysia

Malaysia

Malaysia

2.3.2. Multi-country studies on energy-environment–growth nexus

Ecuador
Country

Tunisia

Tunisia
Turkey

Turkey
India

India

Apergis and Payne [26] studied the environment-energy-growth

Iran

nexus for eleven countries of Commonwealth of Independent States

over the period from 1992 to 2004 within a panel VECM methodology.
Their highlights record the existence of unidirectional causality run-
ning from energy use to environmental quality, and from economic
growth to environmental quality also they record bidirectional relation-
ship among economic growth and energy use. In addition, they pointed
out a long-run bidirectional relationship among environment and
energy use. Also, Pao and Tsai [172] examined the environment-
energy-growth nexus for the BRIC countries during the period 1971–
2005. The panel causality results indicate there are evidence of
bidirectional causality among environment and energy use and be-
tween energy use and output, moreover the results pointed out the
existence of short-run unidirectional causality running from environ-
ment and energy use, respectively, to output. Among other, Arouri et al.
[29] using Co-integration techniques for 12 MENA countries, Mensah
[147] examines this linkage for emerging African countries, [190] for
ASEAN countries. The results show that the EKC hypotheses are
1971–2011

1970–2010
1965−2008
1980–2010
1980−2009
1966−2009
1976−2006
1971−2008
1971–2010

1970−2008
1857–2007
1971–2010
1980−2025
1970−2008
1960–2007

satisfied in the region as a whole. Recently, Omri [161] investigated

Periods

the environment-energy-growth nexus for a sample of 14 MENA

countries during the period from 1990 to 2011 applying the simulta-
neous-equations models. The highlights pointed out the existence of
bidirectional causality among output and energy use. Also, the results
Esmaeili and Nasrnia (2014)

Robalino-López et al. (2014)

Sephton and Mann (2014)

support the existence of unidirectional nexus without feedback that

Sulaiman et al., (2013)

running form energy use to CO2 emissions, and the results record
Yang and Zhao[244]
Shahbaz et al.,[208]
Shahbaz et al.[207]

Shahbaz et al.[209]
Shahbaz et al.[207]

Shahbaz et al.[210]

bidirectional causality among output and environmental quality for the

Farhani et al.[79]
Tiwari et al.[227]

Katircioğlu[83]

Lau et al.[126]

region as a whole. Furthermore, Saboori et al. [192] investigated the

Yavuz (2014)
Table 3 (continued)

environment-energy-growth nexus in the transport sector for the

OECD countries using Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares Co-
Study

integration approach over the period 1960–2008, and they find

bidirectional causality among environment and output, road sector
No.

energy use and output and CO2 emissions and road sector energy
37

38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

46
47
48
49
50
51

consumption for the panel as a whole.

9
 Table 4
Summary of the existing empirical studies on Environmental Kuznets Curve.

No. Author (s) Period Country (ies) Methodologies Conclusions

S. Tiba, A. Omri

1 Grossman and Krueger[92] 1977, 1982,1988 52 cities of 32 countries Fixed effects and random effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
2 Shafik and Bandyopadhyay[201] 1972–1988 47 cities in 31 countries Fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
3 Selden and Song[200] 1979–1987 22 OECD and 8 developing Fixed effects and random effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
countries
4 Shafik[202] 1972–1988 47 cities in 31 countries Fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
5 Cole et al.[62] 1970–1992 11 OECD countries Generalized and ordinary least square, fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
6 Panayotou (1997) 1982–1994 30 developed and developing Generalized least square. Support the EKC hypothesis.
countries
7 Torras and Boyce[228] 1977–1991 18–52 cities in 19–42 countries Ordinary least square, Fixed effects models. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
8 List and Gallet[135] 1929–1994 US States Fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
9 Dinda et al.[70] 1979–1982, 1983–1986 and 1987–1990 39 cities in 26 countries Ordinary least square, Fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
10 Stern and Common[220] 1960–1990 73 developed and developing Fixed effects models. Support the EKC hypothesis.
countries
11 Hill and Magnani[98] 1975–1995 156 countries Generalized least square. Support the EKC hypothesis.
12 Martínez-Zarzoso and Bengochea- 1975–1998 22 OECD countries The Pooled Mean Group (PMG) method. Support the EKC hypothesis.
Morancho (2004)
13 Liu (2005) 1975–1990 24 OECD countries simultaneous equation system Support the EKC hypothesis.
14 Richmond and Kaufman (2006) 1973–1997 20 OECD countries 11 non-OECD Panel analysis (random effect). EKC holds for OECD countries.
coutries
15 Bagliani et al. (2008) 2001 141 countries Ordinary Least Squares and Weighted Least Squares techniques Support the EKC hypothesis.
16 Payne[179] 1971–2004 6 Central American countries The Pedroni cointegration test and the Fully Modified Ordinary Support the EKC hypothesis.
Least Square (FMOLS).
17 Atici[31] 1980–2002 Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Random and fixed effects model. Support the EKC hypothesis.
Turkey
18 Llorca and Meunié[138] 1985–2003 28 Chinese provinces Fixed effects model. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.

10
19 Luzzati and Orsini[139] 1971–2004 113 countries Semi-parametric and parametric estimates. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
20 Tamazian et al.[231] 1992–2004 the US, Japan, Brazil, Russia, Random-effect method. Support the EKC hypothesis.
India and China
21 Vollebergh et al.[232] 1960–2000 24 OCED countries Panel data analysis. Support the EKC hypothesis.
22 Apergis and Payne[26] 1992–2004 11 Commonwealth of Vector Error Correction Model. Support the EKC hypothesis.
Independent States
23 Acaravci and Ozturk[11] 1970−2005 for Germany, 1965−2005 for 19 European countries ARDL bounds testing approach. Support the EKC hypothesis in
Hungary and 1960−2005 for the rest of Denmark and Italy.
countries
24 Lean and Smyth (2010) 1980–2006 5 ASEAN countries JohansenFisher panel cointegration test, panel DOLS. Support the EKC hypothesis in the
Philippines.
25 Musolesi et al.[152] 1959−2001 109 countries Bayesian approach. Support the EKC hypothesis.
26 Tamazian and Rao[226] 1993–2004 24 transition economies GMM approach. Support the EKC hypothesis.
27 Pao and Tsai[172] 1971−2005 BRIC countries Vector auto-regression (VAR) and ECM. Support the EKC hypothesis.
28 Brajer et al.[45] 1990−2006 139 Chines cities Random-effects generalized least squares (GLS) estimator. Support the EKC hypothesis.
29 Hossain[104] 1971–2007 9 newly industrialized countries Johansen Fisher panel cointegration test and GMM. Support the EKC hypothesis in the
Philippines.
30 Iwata et al.[112] 1960–2003 28 countries Panel analysis (pooled mean group). Support the EKC hypothesis.
31 Jaunky (2011) 1980−2005 36 high-income countries Vector error-correction mechanism (VECM). Support the EKC hypothesis.
32 Orubu and Omotor[165] 1990−2002 47 African countries Longitudinal panels data. Support the EKC hypothesis.
33 [173,174] 1992–2007 BRIC countries Pedroni, Kao, and Fisher cointegration, OL S model, and VECM Support the EKC hypothesis.
Granger causality.
34 Zilio and Recalde (2011) 1970–2007 Latin America and the Caribbean Pedroni cointegration, No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
35 Arouri et al.,[29] 1981−2005 12 MENA countries Bootstrap panel and cointegration techniques Support the EKC hypothesis.
36 Hamit-Haggar[97] 1990–2007 21 Canadian industrial sectors Panel cointegration tets; panel causality tests. Support the EKC hypothesis.
37 Iwata et al.[113] 1960–2003 11 OECD countries ARDL methodology. EKC does not hold for most
countries.
38 Jayanthakumaran et al.[118] 1971–2007 China and India The ARDL bounds testing approach. Support the EKC hypothesis.
39 Rehman et al. (2012) 1984–2008 Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Fixed Effects Model. Support the EKC hypothesis.
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 4 (continued)

No. Author (s) Period Country (ies) Methodologies Conclusions

Sri Lanka
S. Tiba, A. Omri

40 Zhu et al.[263] 1992−2008 20 emerging countries STIRPAT framework. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
41 Govindaraju and Tang (2013) 1965–2006 China and India System based test of Johansen, ECM-based F-test of Boswijk, No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
ECM- based t-test of Banerjee coinegration, and VECM Ganger
causality.
42 Liao and Cao[132] 1971−2009 132 countries Panel OLS estimation. Support the EKC hypothesis.
43 Liddle[133] 1971−2007 31 OECD countries and 54 non- STIRPAT framework. Support the EKC hypothesis.
OECD countries.
44 Babu and Datta[33] 1980–2008 Developing countries Fixed effects model. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
45 Chandran and Tang (2013) 1971–2008 ASEAN−5 economies Johansen cointegration test, VECM Granger causality. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
46 Ozcan[167] 1990–2008 12 Middle East countries Westerlund (2008) panel cointegration test and the FMOLS Support the EKC hypothesis in UAE,
Egypt, and Lebanon.
47 [190] 1971–2009 5 ASEAN countries. The ARDL bounds testing approach, and VECM Granger causality. Support the EKC hypothesis for
Singapore and Thailand.
48 Wang et al.[236] 2005−2011 150 nations Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
49 Al-mulali and Sheau-Ting (2014) 1990−2011 189countries Panel fully modified OLS. Support the EKC hypothesis.
50 Apergis and Payne[26] 1980−2010 7 Central American countries Panel cointegration tets. Support the EKC hypothesis.
51 Bölük and Mert[42] 1990−2008 16 European Union countries Panel fixed effect model. No evidence of EKC hypothesis.
52 Chow and Li (2014) 1992–2004 132 developed and developing OLS model Support the EKC hypothesis
countries
53 Cho et al.[60] 1971–2000 22 OECD countries Pedroni cointegration and FMOL S. Support the EKC hypothesis
54 Cowan et al. (2014) 1990−2010 the BRICS countries Panel causality tests Support the EKC hypothesis
55 Farhani and Shahbaz[80] 1980–2009 10 MENA countries Panel FMOLS and DOLS Support the EKC hypothesis
56 Farhani et al.[79] 1990−2010 10 MENA countries Panel data methods Support the EKC hypothesis
57 Farhani et al.[79] 1990−2009 9 MENA countries Panel FMOLS and DOLS, causality Support the EKC hypothesis
58 Kivyiro and Arminen[124] 1971–2009 6 Sub Saharan African countries ARDL bounds testing and VECM Granger causality Support the EKC hypothesis

11
59 Mazzanti and Musolesi[144] 1960−2001 4 groups of countries Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) Support the EKC hypothesis
60 Mensah[147] 1980–2000 6 African countries Toda-Yamamoto procedure and Granger causality test Support the EKC hypothesis
61 Onafowora and Owoye[163] 1970−2010 8 countries ARDL methodology Support the EKC hypothesis for 2
countries and not for the rest.
62 Osabuohien et al.[166] 1995–2010 50 African countries Pedroni cointegration, and dynamic OLS (DOLS). Support the EKC hypothesis
63 Shafiei and Salim[212] 1980–2011 29 OECD countries GMM, VECM Granger causality, and stochastic impact by Support the EKC hypothesis
regression on population, affluence, and technology
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 S. Tiba, A. Omri

Table 5
Summary of the existing empirical studies on energy-environment–growth nexus.

No. Study Periods Country Methodologies Conclusions

1 Ang[21] 1960−2000 France Co-integration and vector error correction modeling. (GDP= > EC); (EC= > GDP); (GDP= > CO2).
2 Soytas et al.[216] 1960–2004 United States Granger causality test. EC= > CO2; GDP≠CO2.
3 Ang[22] 1971−1999 Malaysia Co-integration and the causality test. (GDP= > EC) short-run (EC⇔GDP) long-run;( CO2= > GDP) long-run.
4 Halicioglu[96] 1960–2005 Turkey ARDL bounds test, Johansen–Juselius, VECM. CO2= > EC; CO2 < = > GDP2; CO2⇔GDP.
5 Jalil and Mahmud[116] 1975−2005 China ARDL bounds test, ECM and Granger causality. GDP= > CO2, EC= > CO2
6 Soytas and Sari[217] 1960–2000 Turkey Toda and Yamamoto procedure, Granger causality. CO2= > EC.
7 Zhang and Cheng[257] 1960−2007 China VAR, Toda and Yamamoto procedure. GDP= > EC; EC= > CO2; CO2≠GDP; EN≠GDP.
8 Chang[48] 1981−2006 China Johansen cointegration VEC Granger causality. NEC= > CO2; NEC= > GDP.
9 Lotfalipour et al.[137] 1967–2007 Iran Toda and Yamamoto procedure, Granger causality. GDP= > CO2; EC= > CO2.
10 Menyah and Wolde-Rufael[148] 1965–2006 South Africa the Granger causality test. CO2= > GDP; EC= > GDP; EC= > CO2.
11 Menyah and Wolde-Rufael[148] 1960−2007 United States Modified version of Granger causality test. NEC= > CO2; REC≠CO2.
12 Ozturk and Acaravci[170] 1968–2005 Turkey The ARDL bounds testing approach, Granger causality. GDP= > CO2; CO2≠EC.
13 Alam et al.[12] 1971−2006 India VAR model of Toda and Yamamoto procedure. EC < = > CO2; GDP≠EC.
14 Pao and Tsai[173] 1980−2007 Brazil Johansen cointegration test, Granger causality VECM, Grey prediction CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > CO2.
model.
15 Pao et al.[175] 1990−2007 Russia cointegration technique and causality test. GDP= > CO2; EC= > CO2.
16 Alam et al.[13] 1972−2006 Bengladesh Johansen bi-variate co-integration model, auto-regressive distributed EC= > GDP; EC⇔GDP (long-run); EC= > CO2 (short-run); EC⇔CO2 (long-
lag model. run).

12
17 Alkhathlan et al.[19] 1980−2008 Saudi Arabia ARDL bounds testing, ECM Granger causality test. CO2≠GDP; EC≠GDP.
18 Azlina and Mustapha[32] 1970−2010 Malaysia Cointegration techniques and vector error correction modeling. GDP= > EC; CO2= > EC; CO2= > GDP.
19 Bloch et al.[40] 1977−2008; 1965 China Cointegration techniques and VECM. EC= > GDP; GDP= > EC; EC < = > CO2.
−2008
20 Jahangir Alam et al.[114] 1972−2006 Bengladesh Cointegration, Granger causality. EC= > GDP; EC= > CO2; CO2= > GDP.
21 Alkhathlan and Javid[20] 1980−2011 Saudi Arabia ARDL bounds testing Granger causality test. EC < = > GDP; CO2 < = > GDP; CO2 < = > EC.
22 Kohler[123] 1960–2009 South Africa ADRL bounds test Granger causality test. EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2 (long-run); EC < = > CO2; EC < = > GDP (short-run).
23 Saboori and Sulaiman (2013) 1980–2009 Malaysia ARDL methodology, Johansen–Juselius VECM. GDP < = > CO2; EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2 (long-run); EC≠GDP (short-run).
24 Shahbaz et al.[207] 1975–2011 Indonesia The VECM Granger causality technique. EC < = > CO2; GDP < = > CO2.
25 Shahbaz et al.[207] 1975−2011 Malaysia Granger causality and ARDL Bounds tests and Innovative Accounting EC⇔CO2; GDP⇔CO2; FD= > CO2.
Approach (IAA).
26 Ozturk and Acaravci[171] 1960 −2007 Turkey Co-integration techniques. EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2; GDP2= > CO2 (long-run), FD= > EC; FD= > GDP;
FD= > GDP2 (short-run).
27 Mudakkar et al.[151] 1975–2011 Pakistan Granger causality test. NEC= > GDP; NEC= > CO2.
28 Azlina et al. (2014) 1975 − 2011 Malaysia Granger causality test. CO2= > EC; CO2= > GDP; CO2= > REC; GDP= > EC; GDP= > REC.
29 Farhani et al.[79] 1971–2008 Tunisia ARDLbounds testing methodology. GDP= > CO2; GDP2= > CO2; EC= > CO2.
30 Hwang and Yoo[108] 1965−2006 Indonesia Cointegration, ECM Granger causality. EC < = > CO2; GDP= > EC; GDP= > CO2.
31 Lim et al.[134] 1965−2010 the Philippines ECM Granger causality test. EC < = > GDP; EC < = > CO2; CO2= > GDP.
32 Sbia et al.[198] 1975–2011 UEA ARDL methodology and VECM Granger causality. CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > CO2.
33 Yang and Zhao[244] 1970−2008 India Granger causality tests and directed acyclic graphs (DAG). EC= > CO2; EC= > GDP; CO2⇔GDP.

Note: EC= > GDP means that the causality runs from energy consumption to growth. GDP= > EC means that the causality runs from growth to energy consumption. EC⇔GDP means that bi-directional causality exists between energy
consumption and growth. EC≠GDP means that no causality exists between energy consumption and growth. REC: renewable energy consumption, and T: trade openness.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 6
S. Tiba, A. Omri

Summary of the existing empirical studies on energy-environment-growth nexus.

No. Study Periods countries Methodologies Conclusions

1 Payne[179]
2 Lean and Smyth (2009)
3 Acaravci and Ozturk[11]
4 Apergis and Payne[26]
5 Apergis and Payne[26]
6 Apergis et al.[23]
7 Pao and Tsai[172]
8 Al-mulali (2011)
9 Hossain[104]
10 Wang et al. (2011)
11 Arouri et al.[29]
12 Al-mulali and Che Sab
(2012)
13 Farhani and Ben Rejeb[78]
1971–2004 6 central American countries Panel VECM methodology. CO2 < = > GDP; EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2.
1980–2006 5 ASEAN countries JohansenFisher panel cointegration test, ELC= > GDP; CO2= > GDP; CO2= > ELC.
panel DOLS.
1960−2005 19 European countries ARDL bounds testing approach of EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2 (long-run); GDP= > CO2; GDP= > EC; EC < = > GDP (short-run).
cointegration, ECM.
1972−2004 11countries of Commonwealth of Panel vector error correction model. EC⇔GDP (long-run); EC= > GDP (short-run)
Independent States
1984–2007 19 developed and developing countries Larsson panel cointegration, VEC Granger NEC < = > CO2
causality.
1984−2007 19 developed and developing countries Panel error correction model, Granger NEC < = > GDP; REC < = > CO2; GDP= > CO2; NEC= > CO2; REC= > CO2; CO2= > NEC;
causality. GDP= > NEC;CO2= > REC; GDP= > REC;RECC= > GDP;NEC= > GDP; CO2= > GDP.
1971−2005 BRIC countries Vector autoregression (VAR) and ECM. EC⇔CO2; EC⇔GDP (long-run); CO2= > EC; CO2= > GDP(short-run).
1980−2009 MENA countries Panel cointegration methodology, Granger EC < = > CO2; CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > GDP.
causality.
1971−2007 9 newly industrialized countries Granger causality test. GDP≠CO2;T≠CO2; T≠GDP;(long-run) GDP= > CO2; T= > CO2; GDP= > EC; T= > GDP; (
short-run).
1995–2007 28 provinces in China Cointegration and VECM methodology. CO2 < = > EC; EC < = > GDP.
1981–2005 12 MENA countries Bootstrap panel and cointegration techniques. GDP= > CO2 (the long-run).
1980−2008 30 Sub Saharian countries Panel cointegration methodology, Granger EC < = > CO2; CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > GDP.
causality.
1973−2008 15 MENA countries Panel cointegration methodology, Panel GDP≠EC; CO2≠EC (short run); GDP= > EC; CO2= > EC (long-run).

13
causality.
14 Hamit-Haggar[97] 1990–2007 21 Canadian industrial sectors Panel cointegration tets; panel causality. EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2; CO2= > EC; GDP= > EC (short run); EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2 (long
run).
15 Salim and Rafiq[196] 1980−2006 6 emerging economies ARDL bounds testing, FMOLS and DOLS and REC < = > GDP; REC < = > CO2.
Granger causality.
16 Al-mulali et al.[14] 1980−2008 32 Latin American and the Caribbean Canonical cointegrating regression EC < = > CO2; CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > GDP (long-run).
countries techniques.
17 Cowan et al.[64] 1990–2010, BRICS countries panel causality analysis. ECC < = > GDP; GDP= > ECC; GDP < = > CO2; GDP= > CO2; CO2= > GDP; GDP≠CO2; ECC=
> CO2; ECC≠CO2.
18 Omri[161] 1990–2011 14 MENA countries Simultaneous equations models. EC < = > GDP; EC= > CO2; CO2 < = > GDP.
19 Ozcan[167] 1990–2008 12 Middle East countries Panel data model. GDP≠CO2; GDP= > EC (short-run); EC= > CO2; GDP= > CO2 (long-run).
20 [190] 1971–2009 5 ASEAN countries. ARDL bounds testing approach, and VECM EC < = > CO2; CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > GDP (long-run).
Granger causality.
21 Apergis and Payne[27] 1980−2010 7 Central American countries Non-linear panel cointegration, Granger GDP < = > CO2; GDP < = > REC; CO2 < = > REC.
causality.
22 Al-mulali (2014) 1990−2010 30 countries The Granger causality test. NEC= > GDP; NEC= > CO2.
23 Farhani et al.[79] 1990−2009 9 MENA countries Panel cointegration methodology. GDP= > CO2, EC= > CO2.
24 Kivyiro and Arminen[124] 1971−2009 6 Sub Saharan African countries Cointegration and Granger causality test. GDP= > CO2; EC= > CO2.
25 Saboori et al.[192] 1960−2008 27 OECD countries. Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares CO2 < = > GDP; EC < = > GDP; EC < = > CO2
cointegration approach.
26 Salahuddin and Gow[195] 1980−2012 GCC countries Granger causality test. GDP≠CO2; EC < = > CO2; GDP= > EC.
27 Sebri and Ben-Salha[199] 1971–2010 BRICS countries ARDL bounds testing, cointegration VECM. GDP < = > REC; CO2 = > GDP.
28 Xue et al.[242] 1970−2008 9 European countries Granger causality test. CO2 < = > GDP; GDP < = > EC; EC < = > CO2.

Note: EC= > GDP means that the causality runs from energy consumption to growth. GDP= > EC means that the causality runs from growth to energy consumption. EC⇔GDP means that bi-directional causality exists between energy
consumption and growth. EC≠GDP means that no causality exists between energy consumption and growth. REC: renewable energy consumption, and T: trade openness.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
S. Tiba, A. Omri
According to several previous studies are proved that environmen-
tal degradation was strongly linked to the consumption of energy then
more energy use contributes in enhancing economic performance via
the productivity improvements while it conjointly contributes in rising
greenhouses gases emissions. This important conclusion may be it
supported the role of alternatives energies such as renewable and
nuclear energy in the fulfillment of the both purpose in terms of level of
economic growth and environmental quality. The seminal role that
played by renewable energy in the duality between economic growth
and environment, and this ability to solve the arbitration growth-
environment consist the topic of several academic and scientist
research in past few decades and in the starting point of the third
millennium. In this same context, the renewable energy consumption
has been introduced in the analytical framework in order to prove the
ability to release the both objectives growth and sustainable environ-
mental quality. There is a several studies are investigated the relation-
ships among renewable energy consumption, output and environment
such as [56,76,193]; Mengaki, 2011; [182,77,225,196,230]; Ben Aïssa
et al.., 2013. Also, Apergis et al. [23] investigated the linkages among
environment, output, renewable energy, and nuclear energy for 19
countries over the period from 1984 to 2007 by applying panel error
correction methodology. Their results suggest that nuclear energy has
statistically significant negative impact on the CO2 emissions, however
renewable energy has a positive statistically significant effect on
environmental quality. This implies that, the nuclear energy contribute
in mitigating the environmental damage while the renewable energy
does not play a role in mitigating the environmental damage. More
recently, Apergis and Payne [27] investigated the three way-linkages
between environment, growth and renewable energy by including the
fossil fuel prices for a sample of seven Central American countries over
the period 1980–2010.
3. Concluding remarks
The aim of our current work is to give an extensive survey of the
existent literature which dealing with the “energy-environment-
growth” nexus for both specific- and multi-country studies covering
the period from 1978 to 2014 and gives some implications that could
be useful for futures works. There is a unanimous consensus about the
importance of dealing with such dynamic relationship, which is seems
to be a cornerstone element in setting any ambition strategies (energy,
ecological and economics).
Globally, these works are unable to reach a verdict consensus about
the existence and the sense of causality in literature which looks at this
three-way linkage. These paradoxical highlights may due to the data
availability, chosen measures and sample, time span and modeling
methodologies which are employed [162,168,180]. In order to avoid
these paradoxical findings, the researchers must take into considera-
tion other innovative methodology, relevant variables enlarging their
samples by including divers countries from different regions and their
spanning time to provide conclusive and consistent findings and more
appreciate the conflicting linkage between economic environment-
energy-growth. Furthermore, one important critique for the existing
studies on the EKC literature is that they are based on a reduced from
model where they suppose no feedback effect from the ecological
measure to the wealth variable and therefore ecological aspect is
invariably viewed as the outcome of economic growth [101,231]. In
all of the EKC empirical literature, the impact of output on environ-
ment is estimated directly. However, it is well known that, as well to the
impact of output on environmental quality, environmental degradation
may directly impact upon economic growth through a restriction or
reduction in production [37,184] and adverse effects upon production
factors [233] or indirectly through higher emissions reduction costs.
Generally, the economic growth and the environment are jointly
determined ([183]; [109]). It is therefore in appropriate to estimate a
single equation of unidirectional relationship that running from
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
income to environmental quality. Hence, “a simultaneous-equations
model may be more appropriate for understanding the environment-
income relationship” [41].
References
[1] Abosedra S, Baghestani H. New evidence on the causal relationship between
United States energy consumption and gross national product. J Energy Dev
1989;14:285–92.
[2] Abosedra S, Dah A, Ghosh S. Electricity consumption and economic growth. The
case of Lebanon. Appl Energy 2009;86:429–32.
[3] Acaravci A. Structural breaks, electricity consumption and economic growth:
evidence from Turkey. Rom J Econ Forecast 2010;2:140–54.
[4] Akarca AT, Long TV. On the relationship between energy and GNP: a reexami-
nation. J Energy Dev 1980;5:326–31.
[5] Ahamad MG, Islam AKMN. Electricity consumption and economic growth nexus
in Bangladesh: revisited evidences. Energy Policy 2011;39:6145–50.
[6] Ahmed K, Long W. Environmental Kuznets curve and Pakistan: an empirical
analysis. Procedia Econ Financ 2012;1:4–13.
[7] Ahmed K, Long W. An empirical analysis of CO2 emission in Pakistan using EKC
hypothesis. J Int Trade Law Policy 2013;12:188–200.
[8] Akbostanci E, Turut-Asik S, Tunc GI. The relationship between income and
environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy Policy
2009;37:861–7.
[9] Akinlo AE. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from 11 African
countries. Energy Econ 2008;30:2391–400.
[10] Akinlo A. Electricity consumption and economic growth in Nigeria: evidence from
cointegration and co-feature analysis. J Policy Model 2009;31:681–93.
[11] Acaravci A, Ozturk I. On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2
emissions and economic growth in. Eur Energy 2010;35:5412–20.
[12] Alam MJ, Begum IA, Buysse J, Rahman S, Huylenbroeck GV. Dynamic modeling
of causal relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic
growth in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3246–51.
[13] Alam MJ, Begum IA, Buysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G. Energy consumption, carbon
emissions and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh: cointegration and dynamic
causality analysis. Energy Policy 2012;45:217–25.
[14] Al-mulali U, Lee YMJ, Mohammed AH, Sheau-Ting L. Examining the link between
energy consumption, carbon dioxide emission, and economic growth in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:42–8.
[15] Akhmat G, Zaman K. Nuclear energy consumption, commercial energy con-
sumption and economic growth in South Asia: bootstrap panel causality test.
Renew Sustain Energy 2013;25:552–9.
[16] Akpan GE, Akpan UF. Electricity consumption, carbon emissions and economic
growth in Nigeria. Int J of Energy Econ Policy 2012;2(4):292–306.
[17] Altinay G, Karagol E. Structural break, unit root, and the causality betwenn energy
consumption and GDP in Turkey. Energy Econ 2004;26:985–94.
[18] Al-Iriani MA. Energy–GDP relationship revisited: an example from GCC countries
using panel causality. Energy Policy 2006;34:3342–50.
[19] Alkhathlan K, Alam M, Javid M. Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption
and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: a multivariate cointegration analysis. Br J
Econ Manag Trade 2012;2(4):327–39.
[20] Alkhathlan K, Javid M. Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic
growth in Saudi Arabia: an aggregate and disaggregate analysis. Energy Policy
2013;62:1525–32.
[21] Ang JB. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and output in France. Energy Policy
2007;35:4772–8.
[22] Ang JB. Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in
Malaysia. J Policy Model 2008;30:271–8.
[23] Apergis N, Payne JE, Menyah K, wolde-Rufael Y. On the causal dynamics between
emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ
2010;69:2255–60.
[24] Apergis N, Payne JE. Renewable energy consumption and economic growth:
evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy 2010:656–60.
[25] Apergis N, Payne JE. Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia.
Energy Econ 2010;32:1421–6.
[26] Apergis N, Payne JE. A panel study of nuclear energy consumption and economic
growth. Energy Econ 2010;32:545–9.
[27] Apergis N, Payne JE. Renewable energy, output, CO2 emissions, and fossil fuel
prices in Central America: evidence from a non linear panel smooth transition
vector error correction model. Energy Econ 2014;42:226–32.
[28] Aqeel A, Butt MS. The relationship between energy consumption and economic
growth in Pakistan. Asia-Pacific Develop J 2001;8:101–10.
[29] Arouri MH, Ben Youssef A, M’henni H, Rault C. Energy consumption, economic
growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy
Policy 2012;45:342–9.
[30] Aslan A, Çam S. Alternative and nuclear energy consumption economic growth
nexus for Israel: evidence based on bootstrap-corrected causality tests. Prog Nucl
Energy 2013;62:50–3.
[31] Atici C. Carbon emissions in Central and Eastern Europe: environmental Kuznets
curve and implications for sustainable development. Sustain Dev
2009;17:155–60.
[32] Azlina AA, Mustapha NHN. Energy, Economic Growth and Pollutant Emissions
Nexus: the Case of Malaysia. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2012;65:1–7.
[33] Babu SS, Datta SK. The relevance of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) in a
S. Tiba, A. Omri
framework of broad-based environmental degradation and modified measure of
growth – a pooled data analysis. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2013;20:309–16.
[34] Baek J, Kim HS. Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical
evidence from Korea. Energy Econ 2013;36:744–9.
[35] Baranzini A, Weber S, Bareit M, Mathys NA. The causal relationship between
energy use and economic growth in Switzerland. Energy Econ 2013;36:464470.
[36] Bartleet M, Gounder R. Energy consumption and economic growth in New
Zealand: results of trivariate and multivariate models. Energy Policy
2010;38:3508–17.
[37] Barbier EB. Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. Land Econ
1994;70:155–73.
[38] Belke A, Dobnik F, Dreger C. Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: new
Insights into the Co-integration Relationship. Energy Econ 2011;33:782–9.
[39] Belloumi M. Energy consumption and GDP in Tunisia: co-integration and
causality analysis. Energy Policy 2009;37:2745–53.
[40] Bloch H, Rafiq S, Salim RA. Coal consumption, CO2 emission and economic
growth in China: empirical evidence and policy responses. Energy Econ
2012;34:518–28.
[41] S. Borghesi, The environmental Kuznets Curve: a survey of the literature. Working
paper 85, Fondazione eni enrico Mattei; 1999.
[42] Bölük G, Mert M. Fossil and renewable energy consumption, GHGs (greenhouse
gases) and economic growth: evidence from a panel of EU (European Union)
countries. Energy 2014;74:439–46.
[43] Bowden N, Payne JE. The causal relationship between U.S. energy consumption
and real output: a disaggregated analysis. J Policy Model 2009;31:180–8.
[44] Bozoklu S, Yilanci V. Energy consumption and economic growth for selected
OECD countries: further evidence from the Granger causality test in the frequency
domain. Energy Policy 2013;63:877–81.
[45] Brajer V, Mead RW, Xiao F. Searching for an environmental Kuznets curve in
China’s air pollution. China Econ Rev 2011;22:383–97.
[46] Chang, T.H., Huang, C.M., Lee, M.C., 2009. Threshold effect of the economic
growth rate on the renewable energy development from a change in energy price:
evidence from OECD countries: Energy Policy 37, 5796–5802.
[47] Chang T, Gatwabuyege F, Gupta R, Inglesi-Lotz R, Manjezi NN, Simo-Kengne BB.
Causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in
G6 countries: evidence from panel Granger causality tests. Prog Nucl Energy
2014;77:187–93.
[48] Chang CC. A multivariate causality test of carbon dioxide emissions, energy
consumption and economic growth in China. Appl Energy 2010;87:3533–7.
[49] Chandran VGR, Sharma S, Madhavan K. Electricity consumption-growth nexus:
the case of Malaysia. Energy Policy 2010;38:606–12.
[50] Chen ST, Kuo HI, Chen CC. The relationship between GDP and electricity
consumption in 10 Asian countries. Energy Policy 2007;35:2611–21.
[51] Cheng B. An investigation of cointegration and causality between energy con-
sumption and economic growth. J Energy Dev 21 1995:73–84.
[52] Cheng BS. Energy consumption and economic growth in Brazil, Mexico and
Venezuela: a time series analysis. Appl Econ Lett 1997;4:671–4.
[53] Cheng BS, Lai TW. An investigation of co-integration and causality between
energy consumption and economic activity in Taiwan. Energy Econ
1997;19:435–44.
[54] Cheng BS. Energy consumption, employment and causality in Japan: a multi-
variate approach. Indian Econ Rev 1998;33:19–29.
[55] Cheng BS. Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India:
an application of cointegration and error-correction modeling. Indian Econ Rev
1999;34:39–49.
[56] Chien T, Hu JL. Renewable Energy and Macroeconomic Efficiency of OECD and
non OECD Economies. Energy Policy 2007;35:3606–15.
[57] Chiou-Wei SZ, Chen Ching-Fu, Zhu Z. Economic growth and energy consumption
revisited—evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality. Energy Econ
2008;30:3063–76.
[58] CiarretaAZarragaA. Economic growth and electricity consumption in 12 European
Countries: a causality analysis using panel data. Working Paper, Department of
Applied Economics III (Econometrics and Statistics), University of the Basque
Country. Available at: /〈http://www.et.bs.ehu.es/biltoki/EPS/ dt200804.pdfS〉;
2008.
[59] Chontanawat J, Hunt LC, Pierse R. Does energy consumption cause economic
growth? Evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries. J Policy Model
2008;30:209220.
[60] Cho CH, Chu YP, Yang HY. An environment Kuznets curve for GHG emissions: a
panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources Part B: Econ. Plan Policy
2014;9:120–9.
[61] Chu HP, Chang T. Nuclear energy consumption, oil consumption and economic
growth in G-6 countries: bootstrap panel causality test. Energy Policy
2012;48:762–9.
[62] Cole MA, Rayner AJ, Bates JM. The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical
analysis. Environ Dev Econ 1997;2:401–16.
[63] Coondoo D, Dinda S. The carbon dioxide emission and income: a temporal
analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecol Econ 2008;65:375–85.
[64] W.N. Cowan, T. Chang, R. Inglesi-Lotz, R. Gupta, 2013. The nexus of electricity
consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in the BRICS
countries.EnergyPolicy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.081i
[65] Dagher L, Yacoubian T. The causal relationship between energy consumption and
economic growth in Lebanon. Energy Policy 2012;50:795–801.
[66] Damette O, Seghir M. Energy as a driver of growth in oil exporting countries?.
Energy Econ 2013;37:193–9.
[67] Day KM, Grafton Q. Growth and the environment in Canada: an empirical
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
analysis. Can J Agric Econ 2003;51:197–216.
[68] De Bruyn S, Van Den Bergh J, Opschoor J. Economic growth and emissions:
reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves. Ecol Econ
1998;25:161–75.
[69] Dinda S, Coondoo D. Income and emission: a panel data based cointegration
analysis. Ecol Econ 2006;57:167–81.
[70] Dinda S, Coondoo D, Pal M. Air quality and economic growth: an empirical study.
Ecol Econ 2000;34(3):409–23.
[71] Du L, Wei Chu, Cai S. Economic development and carbon dioxide emissions in
China: provincial panel data analysis. China Econ Rev 2012;23:371–84.
[72] Eggoh JC, Bangake C, Rault C. Energy consumption and economic growth
revisited in African countries. Energy Policy 2011;39:7408–21.
[73] Erdal G, Erdal H, Esengûn K. The causality between energy consumption and
economic growth in Turkey. Energy Policy 2008;36:3838–42.
[74] Erol U, Yu ESH. On the causal relationship between energy and income for
industrialized countries. J Energy Dev 1987;13:113–22.
[75] Ewing BT, Sari R, Soytas U. Dissagregate energy consumption and Industrial
output in the United States. Energy Pollicy 2007;35:1274–81.
[76] Fallahi F. Causal relationship between energy consumption (EC) and GDP: a
Markov-switching (MS) causality. Energy 2011;36:4165–70.
[77] Fang Y. Economic welfare impacts from renewable energy consumption: the China
experience. Renew Sustan Energy Rev 2011;15:5120–8.
[78] Farhani S, Ben Rejeb J. Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and CO2
Emissions: evidence from Panel Data for MENA Region. Int J Energy Econ Policy
2 2012:71–81.
[79] Farhani S, Mrizak S, Chaibi A, Rault C. The environmental Kuznets Curve and
Sustainability: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 2014. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.030.
[80] Farhani S, Shahbaz M. What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity-
consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2emissions in
MENAregion?. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:80–90.
[81] Fatai K, Oxley L, Scrimgeour FG. Modelling the causal relationship between
energy consumption and GDP in New Zealand, Australia, India, Indonesia, the
Philippines and Thailand. Math Comput Simul 2004;64:431–45.
[82] Fodha M, Zaghdoud O. Economic growth and environmental degradation in
Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Energy Policy
2010;38:1150–6.
[83] Katircioğlu ST. Testing the tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: the case of
Singapore. Econ Model 2014;41:383–91.
[84] J. Fosten, B. Morley, T. Taylor, 2012.Dynamicmisspecification intheenviron-
mental Kuznetscurve:evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United
Kingdom. Ecol Econ, 76, pp. 25–33.
[85] B. Friedl, M. Getzner, 2003. Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open
economy. Ecol. Econ. 45, 133–148; 2003.
[86] Francis BM, Moseley L, Iyare SO. Energy consumption and projected growth in
selected Caribbean countries. Energy Econ 2007;29:1224–32.
[87] Ghosh S. Electricity consumption and economic growth in India. Energy Policy
2002;30:125–9.
[88] Ghosh S. Electricity supply, employment and real GDP in India: evidence from
cointegration and Granger-causality tests. Energy Policy 2009;37:2926–9.
[89] Ghosh S. Examining carbon emissions economic growth nexus for India: a
multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Policy 2010;38:3008–14.
[90] Giovanis E. Environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from the British Household
Panel Survey. Econ Model 2013;30:602–11.
[91] Glasure YU, Lee AR. Cointegration, error correction, and the relationship between
GDP and energy: the case of South Korea and Singapore. Resour Energy Econ
1997;20:17–25.
[92] Grossman G, Krueger A. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade
agreement [National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper, No. 3194].
Cambridge: NBER; 1991.
[93] Grossman GM, Krueger AB. Economic growth and the environment. Quaterly J
Econ 1995;110:353–78.
[94] Haisheng Y, Jia J, Yongzhang Z, Shugong W. The Impact on environmental
Kuznets curve by trade and foreign direct investment in China. Chin J Popul
Resour Environ 2005;3:14–9.
[95] Halicioglu F. Residential electricity demand dynamics in Turkey. Energy Econ
2007;29:199–210.
[96] Halicioglu F. An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption,
income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 2009;37:1156–64.
[97] Hamit-Haggar M. Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic
growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspec-
tive. Energy Econ 2012;34:358–64.
[98] Hill RJ, Magnani E. An exploration of the conceptual and empirical basis of the
environmental Kuznets curve. Aust Econ Pap 2002;41(2):239–54.
[99] Hondroyiannis G, Lolos S, Papapetrou E. Energy consumption and economic
growth: assessing the evidence from Greece. Energy Econ 2002;24:319–36.
[100] Huang BN, Hwang MJ, Yang CW. Causal relationship between energy consump-
tion and GDP growth revisited: a dynamic panel approach. Ecol Econ
2008;67:41–54.
[101] He J, Richard P. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada. Ecol Econ
2010;69:1083–93.
[102] Ho CY, Siu KW. A dynamic equilibrium of electricity consumption and GDP in
Hong Kong: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy 2007;35:2507–13.
[103] Holtz-Eakin D, Selden TM. Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic
growth. J Public Econ 1995;57:85–101.
[104] Hossain MS. Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic
S. Tiba, A. Omri
growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries.
Energy Policy 2011;39:6991–9.
[105] Hossein A, Yazdan GF, Ehsan AG. The relationship between energy consumption,
energy prices and economic growth: case study (OPEC countries). OPEC. Energy
Rev 2012;36(3):272–86.
[106] Hu JL, Lin CH. Disaggregated energy consumption and GDP in Taiwan: a
threshold co-integration analysis. Energy Econ 2008;30:2342–58.
[107] Hwang D, Gum B. The causal relationship between energy and GNP: the case of
Taiwan. J Energy Dev 16 1991:219–26.
[108] Hwang JH, Yoo SH. Energy Consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth:
evidence from Indonesia. Quality Quantity 2014;48:63–73.
[109] Huang CM, Shaw D. The impact of upstream catch and global warming on the
grey mullet fishery in Taiwan: a non-cooperative game analysis. Mar Resour Econ
2006;21:285–300.
[110] Ighodaro CAU. Co-integration and causality relationship between energy con-
sumption and economic growth: further empirical evidence for Nigeria. J Bus
Econ Manag 2010;11:97–111.
[111] Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S. Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets
Curve for CO2 in France: the role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy
2010;38:4057–63.
[112] Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S. A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2:
a pooled mean group approach. Appl Energy 2011;88:1986–96.
[113] Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S. Empirical study on the determinants of CO2
emissions: evidence from OECD countries. Appl Econ 2012;44:3513–9.
[114] Jahangir Alam M, Ara Begum I, Buysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G. Energy
consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh:
cointegration and dynamic causality analysis. Energy Policy 2012;45:217–25.
[115] Jamil F, Ahmad E. The relationship between electricity consumption, electricity
prices and GDP in Pakistan. Energy Policy 2010;38:6010–25.
[116] Jalil A, Mahmud SF. Environment Kuznets Curve for CO2 emissions: a co-
integration analysis for China. Energy Policy 2009;37:5167–72.
[117] Jalil A, Feridun M. The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the
environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ 2011;33:284–91.
[118] Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade
and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy
2012;42:450–60.
[119] Jayanthakumaran K, Liu Y. Openness and the environmental Kuznets curve:
evidence from China. Econ Model 2012;29(3):566–76.
[120] Jobert T, Karanfil F. Sectoral energy consumption by source and economic growth
in Turkey. Energy Policy 2007;35:5447–56.
[121] Jumbe CBL. Cointegration and causality between electricity consumption and
GDP: empirical evidence from Malawi. Energy Econ 2004;26:61–8.
[122] Kraft J, Kraft A. On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev
1978;3:401–3.
[123] Kohler M. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: a South
African perspective. Energy Policy 2013;63:1042–50.
[124] Kivyiro P, Arminen H. Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic
growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Energy 2014;74:595–606.
[125] Kouakou A. Economic growth and electricity consumption in Coted’Ivoire:
evidence from time series analysis. Energy Policy 2011;39:3638–44.
[126] Lau LS, Choong CK, Eng YK. Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for
carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter?.
Energy Policy 2014;68:490–7.
[127] Lee CC. Energy consumption and GDP in developing countries: a co-integrated
panel analysis. Energy Econ 2005;27:415–27.
[128] Lee CC. The causality relationship between energy consumption and GDP in G-11
countries revisited. Energy Policy 2006;34:1086–93.
[129] Lee CC, Chang CP. Structural breaks, energy consumption, and economic growth
revisited: evidence from Taiwan. Energy Econ 2005;27:857–72.
[130] Lee CC, Lee JD. Income and CO2 emissions: evidence from panel unit root and
cointegration tets. Energy Policy 2009;37:413–23.
[131] Lee CC, Chiu C, Y . Nuclear energy consumption, oil prices, and economic growth:
evidence from highly industrialized countries. Energy Econ 2011;33:236–48.
[132] Liao H, Cao HS. How does carbon dioxide emission change with the economic
development? Statistical experiences from 132 countries. Glob Environ Change
2013;23:1073–82.
[133] Liddle B. Population, affluence, and environmental impact across development:
evidence from panel cointegration modeling. Environ Model Softw
2013;40:255–66.
[134] Lim KM, Lim SY, Yoo SH. Oil Consumption, CO2 Emission, and Economic
Growth: evidence from the Philippines. Sustainability 2014;6:967–79.
[135] List JA, Gallet CA. The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all?. Ecol
Econ 1999;31(3):409–23.
[136] Lorde T, Waithe K, Francis B. The importance of electrical energy for economic
growth in Barbados. Energy Econ 2010;32:1411–20.
[137] Lotfalipour MR, Falahi MA, Ashena M. Economic growth, CO2 emissions, and
fossil fuels consumption in Iran. Energy 2010;35:5115–20.
[138] Llorca M, Meunié A. SO2 emissions and the environmental Kuznets curve: the
case of Chinese provinces. J Chin Econ Bus Stud 2009;7:1–16.
[139] Luzzati T, Orsini M. Natural environment and economic growth: looking for the
energy-EKC. Energy 2009;34:291–300.
[140] Managi S, Jena PR. Environmental productivity and Kuznets curve in India. Ecol
Econ 2008;65:432–40.
[141] Mandal SK, Madheswaran S. Causality between energy consumption and output
growth in the Indian cement industry: an application of the panel vector error
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
correction model (VECM). Energy Policy 2010;38:6560–5.
[142] Masih AMM, Masih R. Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality:
results from multi-country study based on cointegration and error-correction
modeling techniques. Energy Econ 1996;18:165–83.
[143] Masih AMM, Masih R. On temporal causal relationship between energy con-
sumption, real income and prices; some new evidence from Asian energy
dependent NICs based on a multivariate cointegration/vector error correction
approach. J Policy Model 1997;19(4):417–40.
[144] Mazzanti M, Musolesi A. Nonlinearity, heterogeneity and unobserved effectsin the
CO2-income relation for advanced countries. Stud Nonlinear Dyn Econ
2014;18:521–41.
[145] Mehrara M. Energy consumption and economic growth: the case of oil exporting
countries. Energy Policy 2007;35(5):2939–45.
[146] Menegak AN. Growth and renewable energy in Europe: a random effect model
with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Econ 2011;33:257–63.
[147] Mensah JT. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and output: a threshold
analysis on the causal dynamics in emerging African economies. Energy Policy
2014;70:172–82.
[148] K. Menyah, Y. Wolde-Rufael, 2010. Energy consumption, pollutant emissions and
economic growth in South.
[149] Mohammadi H, Parvaresh P. Energy consumption and output: evidence from a
panel of 14 oil-exporting countries. Energy Econ 2014;41:41–6.
[150] Mozumder P, Marathe A. Causality relationship between electricity consumption
and GDP in Bangladesh. Energy Policy 2007;35:395–402.
[151] Mudakkar SR, Zaman K, Khan MM, Ahmad M. Energy for economic growth,
industrialization, environment and natural resources: living with just enough.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;25:580–95.
[152] Musolesi A, Mazzanti M, Zoboli R. A Bayesian approach to the estimation of EKC
for CO2. Appl Econ 2010;42:2275–87.
[153] Murray DA, Nan GD. A definition of the gross domestic product-electrification
interrelationship. J Energy Dev 19 1996:275–83.
[154] Narayan PK, Smyth R. Electricity consumption, employment and real income in
Australia evidence from multivariate Granger causality tests. Energy Policy
2005;33:1109–16.
[155] Narayan PK, Singh B. The electricity consumption and GDP nexus dynamic Fiji
Islands. Energy Econ 2007;29:1141–50.
[156] Narayan PK, Smyth R. Energy consumption and GDP in G7 countries: new
evidence from panel co-integration with structural breaks. Energy Econ
2008;30:2331–41.
[157] Narayan PK, Prasad A. Electricity consumption-real GDP causality nexus:
evidence from a bootsrapped causality test for 30 OECD countries. Energy Policy
2008;36:910–8.
[158] Nasir M, Rehman FR. Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in
Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy 2011;39:1857–64.
[159] Ocal O, Aslan A. Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in
Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:494–9.
[160] Odhiambo NM. Energy consumption and economic growth nexus in Tanzania: an
ARDL bounds testing approach. Energy Policy 37, 617–622.Odhiambo, N.M.,
2009. Electricity consumption and economic growth in South Africa: a trivariate
causality test. Energy Econ 2009;31:635–40.
[161] Omri A. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus in
MENA countries: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Energy Econ
2013;40:657–64.
[162] Omri A. An international literature survey on energy-economic growth nexus:
evidence from country-specific studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;38:951–9.
[163] Onafowora OA, Owoye O. Bounds testing approach to analysis of the environment
Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Econ 2014;44:47–62.
[164] Ouedraogo NS. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from the
economic community of West African States (ECOWAS). Energy Econ
2013;36:637–47.
[165] Orubu O, Omotor DG. Environmental quality and economic growth: searching for
environmental Kuznets curves for air and water pollutants in Africa. Energy Policy
2011;39:4178–88.
[166] Osabuohien ES, Efobi UR, Gitau CMW. Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve
in Africa: evidence from panel cointegration. J Environ Policy Plan
2014;16:517–38.
[167] Ozcan B. The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and
economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy
2013;62:1138–47.
[168] Ozturk I. A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energy Policy
2010;38:340–9.
[169] Ozturk I, Aslan A, Kalyoncu H. Energy consumption and economic growth
relationship: evidence from panel data for low and middle income countries.
Energy Policy 2010;38:4422–8.
[170] Ozturk I, Acaravci A. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth
in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3220–5.
[171] Ozturk I, Acaravci A. The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth,
openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Econ
2013;36:262–7.
[172] Pao HT, Tsai CM. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in
BRIC countries. Energy Policy 2010;38:7850–60.
[173] Pao HT, Tsai CM. 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 2011;36:685–93.
S. Tiba, A. Omri
[174] Pao HT, Tsai CM. Modeling and forecasting the CO2 emissions, energy con-
sumption, and economic growth in Brazil. Energy 2011;36:2450–8.
[175] Pao HT, Yu HC, Yang YH. Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic
growth in Russia. Energy 2011;36:5094–100.
[176] Pao HT, Fu HC. Renewable energy, non-renewable energy and economic growth
in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;25:381–92.
[177] Pao HT, Li YY, Fu HC. Clean energy, non-clean energy, and economic growth in
the MIST countries. Energy Policy 2014;67:932–42.
[178] Paul S, Bhattacharya RN. Causality between energy consumption and economic
growyj in India: a notr on conflicting results. Energy Econ 2004;26:977–83.
[179] Payne JE. On the dynamics of energy consumption and output in the US. Appl
Energy 2009;86:575–7.
[180] Payne JE. A survey of the electricity consumption-growth literature. Appl Energy
2010;87:723–31.
[181] Payne JE, Taylor JP. Nuclear Energy consumption and economic growth in the
U.S.: an empirical note. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy 2010;5:301–7.
[182] Payne JE. On biomass energy consumption and real output in the US. Energy
Source 2011;6:47–52.
[183] Perrings C. Economy and environment: aa theoretical essay on the interdepen-
dence of economic and environmental systems. Cambridge University Press;
1987.
[184] Pearce DW, Warford JJ. World without end. economics, environment, and
sustainable development. Washington: World Bank; 1993. p. 440.
[185] Plassmann F, Khanna K. Household income and pollution implications for the
debate about the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. J Environ Dev
2006;14:22–41.
[186] Ramcharran H. Electricity consumption and economic growth in Jamaica. Energy
Econ 1990;12:65–70.
[187] Richmond AK, Kaufmann RK. Energy prices and turning points: the relationship
between income and energy use/carbon emissions. Energy J,Int Assoc Energy
Econ 2006;0:157–80.
[188] Roca J, Padilla E, Farre M, Galletto C. Economic growth and atmospheric
pollution in Spain: discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecol
Econ 2001;39(1):85–99.
[189] Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S. Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia:
a co-integration analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Energy Policy
2012;51:184–91.
[190] Saboori B, Sulaiman J. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth
in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries: a cointegration
approach. Energy 2013;55:813–22.
[191] Saboori B, Sulaiman J. Environmental degradation, economic growth and energy
consumption: evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. Energy
Policy 2013;60:892–905.
[192] Saboori B, Sapri M, Baba MB. Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2
emissions in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)’s
transport sector: a fully modified bi-directional relationship approach. Energy
2014;66:150–61.
[193] Sadorsky P. Renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil prices in the
G7 countries. Energy Econ 2009;31:456–62.
[194] Sadorsky P. Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies.
Energy Policy 2009;37:4021–8.
[195] Salahuddin M, Gow J. Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions
in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Energy 2014;73:44–58.
[196] Salim RA, Rafiq S. Why do some emerging economies proactively accelerate the
adoption of renewable energy?. Energy Econ 2012;34:1051–7.
[197] Sari R, Ewing BT, Soytas U. The relationship between disaggregate energy
consumption and industrial production in the United States: an ARDL approach.
Energy Econ 2008;30:2302–13.
[198] Sbia R, Shahbaz M, Hamdi H. A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean
energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand
in UAE. Econ Model 2014;36:191–7.
[199] Sebri M, Ben-Salha O. On the causal dynamics between economic growth,
renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: fresh
evidence from BRICS countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:14–23.
[200] Selden T, Song D. Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets
curve for air pollution emissions?. J Environ Econ Manag 1994;27:147–62.
[201] Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S. Economic growth and environmental quality: time-
series and cross-section evidence. Background Paper for the 1992 World
Development Report. Washington DC: The World Bank; 1992.
[202] Shafik N. Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric
analysis, 46. Oxford Economic Papers; 1994. p. 757–73.
[203] Shahbaz M, Tang CF, Shabbir MS. Electricity consumption and economic growth
nexus in Portugal using cointegration and causality approaches. Energy Policy
2011;39:3529–36.
[204] Shahbaz M, Feridun M. Electricity consumption and economic growth empirical
evidence from Pakistan. Qual Quant: Int J Methodol 2012;46:1583–99.
[205] Shahbaz M, Zeshan M, Afza T. Is energy consumption effective to spur economic
growth in Pakistan? New evidence from bounds test to level relationships and
Granger causality tests. Econ Model 2012;29:2310–9.
[206] Shahbaz M, Lean HH. The dynamics of electricity consumption and economic
growth: a revisit study of their causality in Pakistan. Energy 2012;39:146–53.
[207] Shahbaz M, Khanb S, Tahir MI. The dynamic links between energy consumption,
economic growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from
multivariate framework analysis. Energy Econ 2013;40:8–21.
[208] Shahbaz M, Mutascu M, Azim P. Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and
the role of energy consumption. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:165–73.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
[209] Shahbaz M, Ozturk I, Afza T, Ali A. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in
a global economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;25(2013):494–502.
[210] Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I. Environ Kuznets curve Open Econ: a
Bounds Test Causal Anal Tunis 2014;34:325–36.
[211] Shiu A, Lam P. Electricity consumption and economic growth in China. Energy
Policy 2004;32:47–54.
[212] Shafiei S, Salim RA. Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2
emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy
2014;66:547–56.
[213] Śmiech S, Papież M. Energy consumption and economic growth in the light of
meeting the targets of energy policy in the EU: The bootstrap panel Granger
causality approach. Energy Policy 2014;71:118–29.
[214] U. Soytas, R. Sari, O. ôzdemir, Energy consumption and GDP relation in Turkey: a
cointegration and vector error correction analysis. Economies and business in
transition: facilitating competitiveness and change in global environment pro-
ceedings. Global Business and Technology Association 1, 2001, pp. 838–844.
[215] Soytas U, Sari R. Energy consumpation and GDP: causality relationship in G-7
and emerging markets. Energy Econ 2003;25:33–7.
[216] Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT. Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions
in the United States. Ecol Econ 2007;62:482–9.
[217] Soytas U, Sari R. Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbone missions:
challenges faced an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 2009;68:1667–75.
[218] Stern DI. Energy and economic growth in the USA. A multivariate approach.
Energy Econ 1993;15:137–50.
[219] Stern DI. A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US
macroeconomy. Energy Econ 2000;22:267–83.
[220] Stern DI, Common MS. Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve for sulfur?. J
Environ Econ Manag 2001;41(2):162–78.
[221] Stern DI. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev
2004;32:1419–39.
[222] Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ
2004;49:431–55.
[223] Tang CF. Electricity consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and
population in Malaysia: new evidence from multivariate framework analysis. J
Econ Stud 2009;4:371–82.
[224] Tang CF. A re-examination of the relationship between electricity consumption
and economic growth in Malaysia. Energy Policy 2008;36:3067–75.
[225] Tiwari AK. A structural VAR analysis of renewable energy consumption, real GDP
and CO2 emissions: evidence from India. Econ Bull 2011;31:1793–806.
[226] Tamazian A, Rao B. Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter
for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy
Econ 2010;32:137–45.
[227] Tiwari AK, Shahbaz M, Hye QMA. The environmental Kuznets curve and the role
of coal consumption in India: cointegration and causality analysis in an open
economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:519–27.
[228] Torras M, Boyce JK. Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecol Econ 1998;25(2):147–60.
[229] Tsani SZ. Energy consumption and economic growth: a causality analysis for
Greece. Energy Econ 2010;32:582–90.
[230] Tugcu CT, Ozturk I, Aslan A. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption
and economic growth relationship revisited: evidence from G7 countries. Energy
Econ 2012;34:1942–50.
[231] Tamazian A, Chousa JP, Vadlamannati C. Does higher economic and financial
development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from the BRIC
countries. Energy Policy 2009;37:246–53.
[232] Vollebergh HRJ, Melenberg B, Dijkgraaf E. Identifying reduced-form relations
with panel data: the case of pollution and income. J Environ Econ Manag
2009;58:27–42.
[233] Van Ewijk C, van Wijnbergen S. Can abatement overcome the conflict between
environment and economic growth?. De Econ 1995;143:197–216.
[234] Wang SS, Zhou DQ, Zhou P, Wang QW. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and
economic growth in China: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 2011;39:4870–5.
[235] Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhou J, Zhu X, Lu G. Energy consumption and economic growth
in China: a multivariate causality test. Energy Policy 2011;39:4399–406.
[236] Wang Y, Kang L, Wu X, Xiao Y. Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for
ecological footprint at the global level: a spatial econometric approach. Ecol Indic
2013;34:15–21.
[237] Wolde-Rufael Y. Disaggregated industrial energy consumption and GDP: the case
of Shanghai. Energy Econ 2004;26:69–75.
[238] Wolde-Rufael Y. Energy demand and economic groth: the African experience. J
Policy Model 2005;27:891–903.
[239] Wolde-Rufael Y. Bounds test approach to cointegration and causality between
nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in India. Energy Policy
2010;38:52–8.
[240] Wolde-Rufael Y, Menyah K. Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in
nine developed countries. Energy Econ 2010;32:550–6.
[241] Wolde-Rufael Y. Nuclear Energy consumption and economic growth in Taiwan.
Energy Sources, Part B: Econ Plan Policy 2012;7:21–7.
[242] Xue B, Geng Y, Müller K, Lu C, Ren W. Understanding the Causality between
Carbon Dioxide Emission, Fossil Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in
Developed Countries: an Empirical Study. Sustainability 2014;6:1037–45.
[243] Yang HY. A note on the causal relationship between energy and GDP in Taiwan.
Energy Econ 2000;22:309–17.
[244] Yang Z, Zhao Y. Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in
India: evidence from directed acyclic graphs. Econ Model 2014;38:533–40.
[245] Yildirim E, Sarac S, Aslan A. Energy consumption and economic growth in the
S. Tiba, A. Omri Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

USA: evidence from renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev China: cointegration and co-feature analysis. Energy Econ 2007;29:1179–91.
2012;16:6770–4. [256] Yuan J, Kang JG, Zhao C, Hu Z. Energy consumption and economic growth:
[246] Yildirim E, Aslan A. Energy consumption and economic growth nexus for 17 evidence from China at both aggregated and disaggregated levels. Energy Econ
highly developed OECD countries: further evidence based on bootstrap-corrected 2008;30:3077–94.
causality tests. Energy Policy 2012;51:985–93. [257] Zhang XP, Cheng XM. Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic
[247] Yoo SH, Jung KH. Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in Korea. growth in China. Ecol Econ 2009;68:2706–12.
Prog Nucl Energy 2005;46:101–9. [258] Zhang YJ. Interpreting the dynamic nexus between energy consumption and
[248] Yoo SH, Kim Y. Electricity generation and economic growth in Indonesia. Energy economic growth: empirical evidence from Russia. Energy Policy
2006;31:2890–9. 2011;39:2265–72.
[249] Yoo S. Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Korea. [259] Zachariadis T, Pashouortidou N. An empirical analysis of electricity consumption
Energy Policy 2005;33:1627–32. in Cyprus. Energy Econ 2007;29:183–98.
[250] Yoo SH, Ku SJ. Causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and [260] Zamani M. Energy consumption and economic activities in Iran. Energy Econ
economic growth: a multi-country analysis. Energy Policy 2009;37:1905–13. 2007;29:1135–40.
[251] Yu SH, Choi JY. The causal relationship between energy and GNP: an interna- [261] Zachariadis T. Exploring the relationship between energy use and economic
tional comparison. J Energy Dev 1985;10:249–72. growth with bivariate models: new evidence from G-7 countries. Energy Econ
[252] Yildirim E, Sukruoglu D, Aslan A. Energy consumption and economic growth in 2007;29(6):1233–53.
the next 11 countries: the bootstrapped autoregressive metric causality approach. [262] Zhixin Z, Xin R. Causal relationships between energy consumption and economic
Energy Econ 2014;44:14–21. growth. Energy Procedia 2011;5:2065–71.
[253] Yu ESH, Hwang BK. The relationship between energy and GNP: further results. [263] Zhu HM, You WH, Zeng ZF. Urbanization and CO2 emissions: a semi- parametric
Energy Econ 1984;6:186–90. panel data analysis. Econ Lett 2012;117:848–50.
[254] Yu ESH, Jin JC. Cointegration tests of energy consumption, income, and [264] Ziramba E. Disaggregate energy consumption and industrial production in South
employment. Resour Energy 1992;14:259–66. Africa. Energy Policy 2009;37:2214–20.
[255] Yuan J, Zhao C, Yu S, Hu Z. Electricity consumption and economic growth in

18