4.7 Article

Does sectoral energy consumption depend on trade, monetary, and fiscal policy uncertainty? Policy recommendations using novel bootstrap ARDL approach

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 12916-12928

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-22869-1

关键词

Energy consumption; Monetary policy uncertainty; Fiscal policy uncertainty; Trade policy uncertainty; Bootstrap ARDL approach; Sustainable Development Goals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the impact of economic policy uncertainty on energy consumption, finding that monetary policy uncertainty decreases energy consumption while trade and fiscal policy uncertainty increase it. Additionally, in the short run, the effects of fiscal and monetary policy uncertainty vary across sectors, while trade policy uncertainty does not affect energy consumption.
Since the inception of the twenty-first century, there has been a profound upsurge in economic policy uncertainty (EPU) with several economic and environmental impacts. Although there exists a growing body of literature that probes the economic effects of EPU, the EPU-energy nexus yet remains understudied. To fill this gap, the current study probes the impact of disaggregated EPU (i.e., monetary, fiscal, and trade policy uncertainty) on energy consumption (EC) in the USA covering the period 1990M1-2020M12. In particular, we use sectoral EC (i.e., energy consumed by the residential sector, the industrial sector, the transport sector, the electric power sector, and the commercial sector) in consort with total EC. The findings from the bootstrap ARDL approach document that monetary policy uncertainty (MP) plunges EC, whereas trade (TP) and fiscal policy uncertainty (FP) escalate EC in the long run. On the contrary, there is a heterogeneous impact of FP and MP across sectors in the short run, while TP does not affect EC. Keeping in view the findings, we propose policy recommendations to achieve numerous Sustainable Development Goals.

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