4.7 Article

The inward FDI-Energy intensity nexus in OECD countries: A sectoral R&D threshold analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 287, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112290

关键词

FDI; Energy intensity; R& D; Threshold analysis; Economic sectors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals a significant impact of foreign direct investment on energy intensity, particularly in non-primary sectors. Specifically, in non-primary sectors, when the sectoral R&D level is below a certain threshold, foreign direct investment inflows increase the energy intensity level, but this effect decreases when the R&D level is above the threshold.
Over recent years, concerns about the need to reduce energy intensity have intensified due to the increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions that has amplified problems related to global climate change and environmental pollution. At the same time, foreign direct investment (FDI) has been found to have a prominent effect on energy intensity. This study empirically examines the relationship between sectoral FDI inflows and energy intensity by investigating the possibility of a threshold effect of research and development (R&D) technological absorptive capacity. Our sample covers 34 OECD countries over 1987?2013, with FDI and R&D data disaggregated at three sectoral levels (primary, secondary and tertiary sectors), an analysis that is absent in existing literature. We uncover a significant R&D input threshold in the relationship between FDI inflows to non-primary sectors and energy intensity. FDI inflows to non-primary sectors increase the level of energy intensity when the level of sectoral R&D is below the threshold, but such effect decreases when the sectoral R&D level is above the threshold point. Important implications flow from our findings with respect to the type of FDI and the level of indigenous R&D to be encouraged (or discouraged) by policymakers to effectively reduce energy intensity.

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