4.7 Article

Variable selection in the analysis of energy consumption-growth nexus

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 207-216

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.10.012

关键词

Energy consumption; Economic growth; Control variables; Causality; Probabilistic model; Variable selection

资金

  1. Generalitat Valenciana project [PROMETEOII/2014/053]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [ECO2014-58991-C3-2-R]
  3. University Jaume I (UJI) [P1-1B2014-17]
  4. European Commission Lifelong Learning programme through the Ad Personam Jean Monnet Chair [542434-LLP-1-ES-AJM-CL]
  5. European Commission Lifelong Learning programme through Jean Monnet Center of Excellence [542457-LLP-1-2013-1-ES-AJM-CL]
  6. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [MTM2013-42323-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is abundant empirical literature that focuses on whether energy consumption is a critical driver of economic growth. The evolution of this literature has largely consisted of attempts to solve the problems and answer the criticisms arising from earlier studies. One of the most common criticisms is that previous work concentrates on the bivariate relationship, energy consumption-economic growth. Many authors try to overcome this critique using control variables. However, the choice of these variables has been ad hoc, made according to the subjective economic rationale of the authors. Our contribution to this literature is to apply a robust probabilistic model to select the explanatory variables from a large set of potential candidates in the case of the US from 1949 to 2010, not only for an aggregate analysis but also for a sector analysis. The results highlight the critical role of public spending and energy intensity in the explanation of growth. Furthermore, since the study reveals different explanatory variables for each sector, it indicates the importance of policy decisions specifically aimed at different sectors. (C) 2015 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