4.7 Article

Evaluating the environmental effects of economic openness: evidence from SAARC countries

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 24, 页码 24542-24551

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05750-6

关键词

Foreign direct investment; Trade liberalization; Economic growth; Environmental effects

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71774071, 71690241, 71810107001, 71834003, 71673230]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M601568]
  3. Soft Science Project in Zhenjiang [YJ2018004]
  4. Young Academic Leader Project of Jiangsu University [5521380003, 15JDG107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the possible environmental effects of economic openness, such as economic growth, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, and trade liberalization in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. The study employed panel autoregressive lag distribution (ARDL) model to evaluate the environmental effects of economic openness; causality test was also conducted to confirm short- and long-run causality among the variables under discussion. The results show that trade, FDI, capital, and economic growth in the long run have a positive correlation with environmental degradation in SAARC countries while FDI, capital, and trade inflows have a negative relation with CO2 emissions in the short run. Furthermore, economic growth by creating new job opportunities improved emissions also in the short run. FDI, trade, capital, and GDP have long-run causality with CO2 emissions. Bidirectional causality was found between GDP and CO2 emissions, unidirectional causality was also running from FDI inflows to economic growth, unidirectional causality running from capital to FDI and trade to capital. Finally, trade and economic growth also have unidirectional causality in the short run. This study concludes, therefore, that SAARC countries should invest in green energy and promote green trade liberalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据