4.7 Article

An inquiry into the nexus between energy poverty and income inequality in the light of global evidence

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105289

关键词

Energy poverty; Income inequality; Clean fuels and technologies; Energy efficiency; Human capital; Energy prices

资金

  1. University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the significant relationship between energy poverty and income inequality through empirical analysis and global data. The findings suggest that an increase in income inequality tends to exacerbate energy poverty, while reducing energy poverty may help to lower income inequality.
The study investigates the nexus between energy poverty and income inequality from multiple perspectives by drawing on a rich set of global data and applying a novel set of comprehensive empirical approaches. In so doing, analysis of energy poverty is carried out from five different dimensions, and its nexus with two aspects of income inequality is explored. The empirical analysis strategy entailed panel Granger causality, two-stage least squares, three-stage least squares, and two-step system GMM approaches for the robustness of inferences. Based on data availability, the dataset constituted a global sample of 51 economies from 2002 to 2014. Our key findings suggest that there is significant evidence of Granger causality between energy poverty and income inequality. Notably, an increase in income inequality causes higher energy poverty. In return, a decrease in energy poverty appears to reduce income inequality. The analysis of low-and lower-middle-income economies, as well as upper-middle income economies, yields consistent auxiliary findings that provide robustness to our analysis and inferences. The findings have important implications for policymakers and stakeholders interested in the reduction of energy poverty and income inequality. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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