4.6 Article

A survey of literature on energy consumption and economic growth

Journal

ENERGY REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages 9150-9239

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.10.107

Keywords

Energy consumption; Economic growth; Causality; Panel studies

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study uses meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between energy consumption and economic growth, finding mixed results with no consensus, mainly focusing on the growth hypothesis for debate.
This study is a meta-analytic investigation of energy consumption and economic growth. It makes a literature survey on the dynamic causal relationship between broad variables of energy and economic growth for the period 1974-2021. The objective of this study is to investigate stationarity, cointegration and direction of causality between energy consumption and economic growth. It uses survey methods to profile related literature of the energy consumption-economic growth nexus. It tests four established hypotheses, feedback, growth, conservation and neutrality. It concentrates on both country as well as multi-country panel based studies. The variables chosen, econometric as well as theoretical models, time periods has contributed to the increased level of disagreement. The results are thoroughly mixed with no agreement, some studies are explicit on the degree to which results are contentious. There is no consensus for both country specific as well as panel based studies. On the whole the growth hypothesis is the most dominant outcome for country based studies. Our findings indicate that this debate is inconclusive with growth hypothesis accounting for 43.8%, feedback 18.5%, conservation 27.2%, and neutrality hypothesis 10.5% for country specific studies. This study gives a footprint of the state of the art and stimulates the level of debate for researchers on energy consumption and economic growth. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available