Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

The role of non-renewable energy consumption in economic growth and

carbon emission: Evidence from oil producing economies in Africa
Olabanji Benjamin Awodumi a, b, c, *, Adeolu Olusegun Adewuyi b, c, d
a
Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Nigeria
b
Department of Economics, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
c
School of Business, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
d
Trade Policy Research and Training Programme (TPRTP), University of Ibadan, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Non-renewable energy consumption facilitates the production of output but it is also a major source of carbon
Petroleum consumption emission, leading to a dilemma in policy priority between economic growth and pollution reduction. The study
Natural gas consumption therefore investigates the role of non-renewable energy in economic growth and carbon emissions among the top
Carbon emission
oil producing economies in Africa during 1980–2015. After accounting for nonlinearity and structural break in
Economic growth
Africa
unit root and cointegration analysis, the paper adopted non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL)
technique.
The study reveals evidence of asymmetric effect of per capita consumption of both petroleum and natural gas
consumption on economic growth and carbon emission per capita in all the selected countries except Algeria. In
Nigeria, although positive change in the non-renewable energy consumption retards growth, it reduces emission.
In the case of Gabon, increase in the consumption of these energy products promotes growth and enhances
environmental quality. Consumption of these energy types has negligible impact on environmental pollution in
Egypt as it enhances economic growth. While positive change in the non-renewable energy consumption con­
tributes to economic growth in Angola, the effect on carbon emission is mixed across time and energy type. In
addition, the influence of negative change in petroleum and natural gas consumption is similar to those observed
for positive change in Egypt and Nigeria. It is therefore imperative for policymakers in oil producing economies
(in Africa) to explore avenues to invest in, and promote, carbon-reducing technology in production processes in
their quest for economic growth if they must continue to increase the consumption of their abundant resources-
petroleum and natural gas.

1. Introduction Consequently, the 1997 Kyoto protocol took a giant step by committing
industrialized economies to drastically reduce their emissions of
The quest for stable economic growth and sustained environmental greenhouse gases [3]. Since, the growth of world economy is increas­
quality is fast becoming a topical issue among governments, interna­ ingly dependent on carbon intensive energy, reducing energy con­
tional institutions and other stakeholders interested in sustainable sumption or shortage of energy supply has serious implication for
development. This follows the realization that increased use of energy, income.
especially from carbon related sources, in the production of economic In oil producing developing economies, where petroleum and natu­
growth is associated with rising level of carbon emission which is ral gas production and consumption are major drivers of economic
harmful to the environment and human health. Developing countries growth, controlling the level of CO2 emissions may be challenging as it
view constraints on carbon intensive energy as detrimental to their ef­ may ultimately retard economic growth [4]. For instance, the average
forts towards economic expansion, thereby recommending the need for consumption of natural gas among Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Gabon and
industrial economies to increase finance of programs to mitigate global Nigeria grew from about 107.9 billion cubic feet in 1980 to about 327
warming largely caused by their industrial activities [1,2]. billion cubic feet and 759.5 billion cubic feet in 2000 and 2015

* Corresponding author. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Nigeria.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O.B. Awodumi), [email protected] (A.O. Adewuyi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100434
Received 30 May 2018; Received in revised form 24 October 2019; Accepted 23 November 2019
Available online 14 December 2019
2211-467X/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

respectively. This suggests that the average consumption of natural gas

in 2015 among these countries represents an increase of about 604% and
133% from their 1990 and 2000 values respectively. Similarly, the
consumption of petroleum products among these countries rose from an
average of 116.4 thousand barrels per day in 1980 and 213.2 thousand
barrels per day in 2000 to about 339.2 thousand barrels per day in 2015,
representing an increase of about 191% and 59% over their 1980 and
2000 values respectively. This corresponds to a 15% increase in average
GDP per capita over the period 1990–2015 among these economies and
about 144% rise in average carbon emission.
External shocks such as oil price and production quotas trigger
structural change in the production and consumption of oil and its
products, and produce asymmetric response of growth and associated
environmental pollution, the implication of which may differ from
country to country. Thus, trends of non-renewable energy (petroleum
and natural gas) consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions Fig. 2. GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$).
among top oil producing economies in Africa appear to follow dissimilar
pattern over the period 1980–2015. Generally, CO2 emissions across
these economies remained highly unstable during 1980–2015, with
Algeria being the leading emitter of carbon (measured in per capita
terms) among the selected countries for all the years (Fig. 1). In recent
years, Gabon and Nigeria experienced noticeable downward trend in
carbon emission per capita, falling from a high emission per capita of
about 0.48 metric tons and 0.14 metric tons respectively in 1980 to their
lowest value of about 0.20 metric tons and 0.07 metric tons respec­
tively in 2013. On the contrary, carbon emission per capita has been on
the increase in Angola over the same period. While Algeria is observed to
record the highest carbon emission per capita among the countries
throughout the period 1980–2015, Nigeria remained the cleanest for
most of the same period.
Furthermore, except for the case of Gabon, real GDP per capita rose
gently in all the countries beginning from early 2000s after initial
decline for most of the preceding period. Interestingly, Gabon, whose
carbon emission per capita fell remarkably over the years, appears to be Fig. 3. Natural Gas Consumption (Billion Cubic Feet per capita).
the richest economy in terms of real income per capita among the
selected oil producers in Africa, even though it deteriorated in recent
years (Fig. 2). Across all the countries, the consumption of natural gas
per capita has been rising over the years (Fig. 3). This is most noticeable
in Egypt, where natural gas consumption per capita rose from about 692
billion cubic feet in 1980 to about 21,908 billion cubic feet in 2012. In
the case of Nigeria, consumption of natural gas experienced an upward
but unstable trend for most part of the period between 1980 and mid
2000s, although major shock was witnessed between 2008 and 2011.
Among the selected countries, per capita natural gas consumption seems
to be lowest in Angola and closely followed by Nigeria and Gabon for
almost all the years under consideration. Similarly, as revealed in Fig. 4,
petroleum consumption per capita rose among oil producing economies

Fig. 4. Total Petroleum Consumption per capita (Litres).

in Africa. Obviously, Angola and Nigeria are the least consumers of

petroleum (in per capita terms) among these economies. Except in
Gabon (and to some extent Nigeria), where per capita petroleum con­
sumption declined over the period under consideration, rising trends are
observed for Gabon being the leading consumer of petroleum resources
(in per capita terms) followed by Egypt and Algeria in that order.
It therefore appears that the consumption of these non-renewable
energy types promotes income per capita but contributes to higher
carbon emissions. This raises some pertinent questions: to what extent
do petroleum and natural gas consumption contribute to economic
Fig. 1. CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita). growth and carbon emissions in these economies? Should policy focus

2
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

more on growth than reducing carbon emissions (or vice versa) that 2.1. Studies on the link between energy consumption and CO2 emissions
arise from the consumption of these resources? These questions there­
fore call for an empirical investigation of the role of petroleum and Among the studies on the energy consumption-carbon emission link,
natural gas consumption in economic growth and carbon emission there is overwhelming focus on total energy (including total renewable
among African oil producing economies towards achieving sustainable and total non-renewable energy), with high level of consensus on the
growth (the twin objectives of sustained economic growth and reduction positive effect on carbon emission. For instance, Jalil and Feridun [9]
in CO2 emissions). investigated the long-run impact of financial development, economic
The motivations for this study stem from some important gaps growth and energy consumption on environmental pollution in China
observed in the literature. First, most related studies such as Hanif [5] during 1953–2006. Their autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds
focused on aggregate energy (fossil fuel) consumption. However, any test results revealed that total energy consumption had positive effect on
effect of fossil fuel on either economic growth or carbon emission may be environmental pollution. Using similar technique, Acaravci and Ozturk
driven by consumption of specific fossil fuel energy such as petroleum or [12], Jayanthakumaran et al. [10], Ozturk and Acaravci [11] and
natural gas. Such aggregate analysis may confound the effect of specific Shahbaz et al. [4] confirmed this finding for Europe, China (and India),
fossil fuel which is important for policy analysis and prescription. Other Turkey and Indonesia respectively. This finding is consistent with Hos­
studies on specific non-renewable energy types either focus on carbon sain [8], where VECM Granger causality and GMM results also indicated
emissions [1] or economic growth [65] and [6]. Therefore, this study mixed results for the role of urbanization among 9 newly industrialized
examines the effect of specific fossil fuel (petroleum and natural gas) on countries (NIC). B� elaïd and Youssef [17] and Alola et al., [15] demon­
growth and carbon emission. Second, given the role of non-renewable strated that the positive effect of energy consumption on environmental
natural resources in economic growth of oil producing countries in Af­ pollution remain valid when total energy is decomposed into total
rica, very limited studies exist in this regard. Besides, the few studies renewable and non-renewable energy for the case of 16-EU countries
that focused on African countries either consider biomass (renewable) and Algeria respectively. In addition, most of these studies provided a
energy consumption or total non-renewable (or total fossil fuel) energy role for financial development and trade openness as evident in Shahbaz
consumption, while ignoring the role of petroleum and natural gas in et al. [4] who confirmed that these factors have reducing influence on
economic growth and carbon emission.1 Third, despite the possibility of carbon emission. In contrast, Jalil and Feridun [9] provided evidence of
asymmetries in the energy-growth-emission links, very few studies have significant contribution of financial development to reduction in envi­
been done in this respect. These few studies have been conducted at ronmental pollution, but they equally reported positive influence of
aggregate (total) energy level, while none has been done for specific trade openness. Although, this finding is largely supported by Ozturk
energy type. This study therefore focuses on investigating the role of and Acaravci [11], they found no role for financial development. Hos­
non-renewable energy consumption (petroleum and natural gas) on sain [8] and Jayanthakumaran et al. [10] however,argued that the
economic growth and carbon emission among the top oil producers in contribution of trade openness to environmental quality is negligible.
Africa during 1980-20152, considering not only the role of asymmetries It is possible that energy types contribute differently to carbon
but also that of structural change (break) so as to enrich policy analysis emission, which makes it imperative to isolate their individual effects for
and prescription. It also accounts for the possible influence of financial policy purpose. To this end, employing ARDL-ECM, FMOLS, DOLS,
development, trade openness, urbanisation and carbon intensity on the panel Granger causality approaches, Shahbaz et al. [1] and Chen et al.
link among non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth and [16] analysed the effect of coal consumption on carbon emission in
carbon emission so as to make our results robust.3 South Africa and China respectively and found that the consumption of
Findings from the study show that both petroleum and natural gas this energy type worsened environmental quality. They further provided
consumption have asymmetric effect on economic growth and carbon evidence that trade openness and financial development are critical
emission in all the selected countries except Algeria. Also, the responses factors in improving environmental quality. Ma et al. [51] employed the
of economic growth and carbon emissions to positive and negative extended Kaya identity with the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI)
changes in the consumption of either of these energy types vary across decomposition method to show that reduction in energy intensity pro­
countries. The rest of this paper is structured such that section 2.0 moted environmental quality. Utilizing total fossil fuel energy con­
provides the literature review, while section 3.0 discusses the theory and sumption, Hanif [5] and Hanif et al., [13] considered the case of East
methodology of the study. Section 4 presents the empirical results, and Asia and the Pacific, and 25 developing Asian economies respectively.
section 5 summarises the paper, including policy implications. Based on GMM estimates, they discovered significant contribution of
this energy type to CO2 emission. However, ARDL estimates of Hdom
2. Literature review [14] could not establish any significant influence of fossil fuel electricity
consumption on carbon emission in 8 South American countries. Among
The literature is vast on the relationship between energy consump­ these studies, it still remains unclear what role the specific energy types
tion and CO2 emissions, and between energy consumption and eco­ plays in carbon emission in countries that are relatively abundant in
nomic growth. However, as identified by Adewuyi and Awodumi [7] in a these resources. In particular, while natural gas and petroleum products
comprehensive literature survey, studies that capture the link among continue to represent major sources of carbon emission, consumption of
these variables are limited and still developing. As summarised in these products are hardly considered in the energy-carbon emission
Table 1, studies are categorised into three: those linking (1) energy literature. In addition, most of these studies neglected the role of eco­
consumption and CO2 emissions, (2) energy consumption and economic nomic growth in the energy-emission nexus.
growth, and (3) energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic
growth. 2.2. Studies on the link between energy consumption and economic
growth

On the link between energy consumption and economic growth,

1 studies focussing on aggregate energy indicated support for the positive
See few studies on African countries that consider biomass (renewable)
energy consumption [26,50] and those on total non-renewable (or total fossil impact of the later on the former irrespective of the methods of analysis
fuel) energy consumption [17,37,46]. as evident in Lee and Chang [3], Lee et al. (2008), Warr and Ayres [18]
2
The period 1980–2015 was selected based on data availability at the time of and [20], for the case of Asia, OECD countries, US and BRIC respectively.
our analysis. When total renewable energy is considered, Fang [21] and Apergis and
3
See Refs. [1,4,8–11,64] and [51]. Payne [24], reported similar result using OLS for the case of China and

3
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 1
Summary of literature.
S/ Author & Year Country (s) & scope Energy Variable Estimation technique Impact on Carbon Emissions or Economic
N Growth

Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions

1 Hossain [8] Brazil, China, India, Total energy VECM Granger causality and Positive both in the long-run and short-run
Malaysia, Mexico, GMM
Philippines, South Africa,
Thailand and Turkey
(1971–2007)
2 Jalil and Feridun [9] China (1953–2006) Total energy ARDL Positive in the long-run
3 Jayanthakumaran et al. China and India Total energy ARDL and ECM Positive both in the long-run and short-run
[10] (1971–2007)
4 Shahbaz et al. [1] South Africa (1965–2008) Coal ARDL and ECM Positive both in the long-run and short-run
5 Ozturk and Acaravci Turkey (1960–2007) Total energy ARDL and ECM-Granger Positive both in the long-run and short-run
[11] causality
6 Shahbaz et al. [4] Indonesia (1975–2011) Total energy ARDL and VECM-Granger Positive both in the long-run and short-run
causality
7 Hanif [5] East Asia and the Pacific Total fossil fuel energy System GMM Positive
(1990–2014)
8 Acaravci and Ozturk Europe (1960–2005) Total energy ARDL Positive
[12]
9 Hanif et al., [13] 25 developing Asian Fossil Fuels Energy 2-step GMM Positive
economies (1990 2015)
10 Hdom [14] 8 South American countries fossil fuel electricity ARDL No significant effect
(1980–2010)
11 Alola et al., [15] 16-EU Countries Total RE and NRE PMG-ARDL NRE has positive effect
(1997–2014)
12 Chen et al. [16] China (1995–2012) Coal and non-fossil fuel FMOLS, DOLS and Panel NRE positive effect
energy Granger causality
13 B�elaïd and Youssef [17] Algeria (1980–2012) Total RE and NRE Energy ARDL; VECM Granger causality NEC has positive effect
Energy Consumption and Economic Growth
14 Lee and Chang [3] 16 Asian countries (1971–2002) Total energy Panel-based error correction models Positive
(FMOLS &causality)
15 Lee et al. (2008) OECD countries (1960–2001) Total energy Panel-based error correction models Positive
(FMOLS& causality)
16 Warr and Ayres US (1946–2000) Total energy Granger causality and VECM Positive
[18]
17 Apergis and Payne 15 emerging market economies Coal FMOLS and Panel causality Negative
[19] (1980–2006)
18 Pao and Tsai [20] BRIC (1980–2007) Total energy Grey prediction and VECM Positive
19 Fang [21] China (1978–2008) Renewables OLS Positive
20 Ozturk and 11 MENA countries (1971–2006) Electric power ARDL bound testing approach No relationship between EL & Y
Acaranci [22]
21 Apergis and Payne 16 emerging economies Total RE and NRE Panel Granger causality Bidirectional causality between NRE
[23] (1990–2007) electricity and growth
22 Apergis and Payne 6 Central American countries Total renewable The heterogeneous panel co-integration Positive
[24], (1980–2006) electricity and FMOLS
23 Al-mulali et al. [25] 18 LAC (1990–2011) Total RE and NRE Panel dynamic OLS (DOLS) Positive
24 Caraiani et al. [6] Emerging European countries Coal, gas, oil and VECM Positive
(1980–2013) renewables
25 Ozturk and Bilgili 51 Sub-Sahara African Countries Biomass Dynamic panel OLS Positive
[26], (1980–2009)
26 Wolde-Rufael [65] 6 coal consuming countries Coal VAR- Granger causality mixed results across countries
(1965–2005)
27 Razmi et al., [27] Iran (1990–2014) RE; combustible ARDL No long-run effect: Positive effect of
renewable and waste renewables in the short-run
28 Ozcan and Ozturk 17 emerging countries Total RE (electricity) The bootstrap panel causality test No significant effect
[28] (1990–2016)
29 Aydin [29] 26 OECD countries (1980–2015) Total RE and NRE Panel Frequency Causality Bidirectional causality between NEC
and growth
30 Luqman et al., [30] Pakistan (1990–2016) RE and Nuclear NARDL Positive and negative shocks of RE;
Nuclear have positive effect
31 Afonso et al., [31] 28 countries (1995–2013) Total RE and NRE ARDL (PMG and MG) NRE has positive effect
32 Tuna and Tuna [32] 5ASEAN countries (1980–2015) Total RE and NRE Hacker and Hatemi-J (2006) and Hatemi- Mixed results across countries
j (2012) tests
33 Tugcu and Topcu G7 countries (1980–2014) Total RE and NRE NARDL and Granger-Causality mixed results across countries
[33],
34 Destek and Aslan 17 emerging economies Total RE and NRE Panel Granger-Causality mixed results across countries
[34] (1980–2012)
35 Alper and Oguz 8 EU member countries Combustible RE and Asymmetric causality test and ARDL Positive effect
[35] (1990–2009) waste
36 Dogan [36] Turkey (1988–2012) Total RE and NRE ARDL and VECM Granger causality Positive effect of NRE
37 Adams et al., [37] 30 SSA countries (1980–2012) Total RE and NRE FMOLS and DOLS Positive effect of NRE
38 Kahia et al., [38] 13 MENA Net Oil Exporting Total RE and NRE FMOLS and Panel granger causality Bidirectional causality between NRE
Countries (1980–2012) and growth
39 Kahia et al., [39] Total RE and NRE FMOLS and Panel granger causality
(continued on next page)

4
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 1 (continued )
S/ Author & Year Country (s) & scope Energy Variable Estimation technique Impact on Carbon Emissions or Economic
N Growth

11 MENA Net Oil Importing Bidirectional causality between NRE

Countries (1980–2012) and growth
40 Park and Yoo [40] Malaysia (1965–2011) Oil ECM Granger causality Oil causes growth
41 Bildirici and BRICTS (1980–2011) Oil, natural gas and coal ARDL Oil causes growth, mixed results for
Bakirtas [41] natural gas and coal
42 Lei et al. [42] Biggest coal consuming countries Coal Panel causality Mixed results
(2000–2010)
43 Bloch et al., [43] China (1965–2013) Coal and Oil ARDL and VECM Granger causality Positive effect of oil and coal
44 Bhattacharya et al., China (1978–2010) Coal ARDL and Toda-Yamamoto Granger- Coal causes growth
[44] Causality
Energy Consumption, Carbon emission and Economic Growth
45 Ito [45] 42 developed countries Total REC and fossil fuel GMM; PMG Fossil fuel has positive on CO2 and
(2002–2011) negative on growth
46 Mensah et al., [46] 22 African countries Total Fossil fuel energy PMG panel ARDL Positive effect on growth and CO2
(1990–2015)
47 Kang et al. [47] India (1965–2015) Coal and hydroelectricity T-Varying Bayesian VAR; T-Y Coal causes CO2 and growth
Granger-Causality
48 Akadiri et al., [48] EU-28 countries Total RE FMOLS, ARDL (PMG, MG and Positive effect on growth; Causes CO2
(1995–2015) DFE) and panel causality
49 Boontome et al., [49] Thailand (1971–2013) Total RE and NRE ECM- Granger-Causality Positive effect of NRE on CO2; no effect on
growth
50 Adewuyi and Awodumi 11 ECOWAS countries Biomass 3SLS Mixed results across countries (growth and
[50] (1980–2010) CO2)

Note: (N)ARDL¼ (Non-linear) Autoregressive distributed lag model; OLS¼Ordinary least squares; VECM¼ Vector Error Correction Model; FMOLS¼ Fully modified
OLS; 3SLS ¼ three stage least squares; SSA ¼ Sub-Saharan African.

FMOLS for 6 Central American countries respectively. In contrast, ARDL Bakirtas [41] suggested that oil Granger caused growth among BRICTS
results of Razmi et al., [27] could not establish significant long-run effect economies, mixed results are reported for natural gas and coal.
of renewable energy on economic growth in Iran, though positive Contrarily, Apergis and Payne [19] found that coal consumption hin­
short-run impact is reported. This finding is corroborated by Ozcan and dered economic growth in emerging market economies using FMOLS
Ozturk [28] for renewable electricity in emerging countries using the and Panel causality methods. Financial development has been identified
bootstrap panel causality. to play positive role in economic growth of China [52], middle income
Studies also paid considerable attention to the role of aggregate non- countries [53] and developing, emerging and advanced economies [54].
renewable (and renewable) energy in economic growth. For instance, In contrast, panel data analysis of 13 EU countries conducted by [55]
Afonso et al., [31] and [36] adopted ARDL technique and its variants to revealed negative long-run effect of financial depth on real output, with
show that non-renewable energy significantly promoted economic similar findings reported by Hao et al. [56] for 29 Chinese provinces
growth in Turkey and 28 countries respectively. In Latin America and using impulse response function. Asteriou and Spannos [57] however
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Al-Mulali et al. [25] and Adams et al., [37] found that financial development promoted economic growth before
respectively provided evidence to support the growth effect of crisis (but not after the crisis) among 26 EU economies.
non-renewable energy consumption using FMOLS, DOLS and VECM Furthermore, studies that considered the role of asymmetries in the
Granger causality. The result for SSA is also confirmed for biomass en­ link between energy and growth largely concentrate on total renewable
ergy in SSA by Ozturk and Bilgili [26], in a dynamic panel OLS analysis. and non-renewable energy with results that are largely mixed across
Further estimates of Al-Mulali et al. [25] and Afonso et al., [31] showed countries. These studies have been conducted for the EU [35], G7
strong indication of increasing effect of trade openness and export countries [33], ASEAN countries [32] and Pakistan [30]. Despite the
respectively on economic growth. increasing dominance of refined petroleum products in the energy mix
Evidence is provided using various causality analysis to show that of developing countries in driving economic growth, the literature is still
non-renewable energy Granger causes economic growth. These studies very limited in this respect.
include Aydin [29], Kahia et al., [38] and Kahia et al., [39] which were
conducted for OECD countries, MENA net oil exporting countries and 2.3. Studies on the link among energy consumption, CO2 emissions and
MENA net oil importing countries respectively. Similar findings are also economic growth
reported for emerging economies by Apergis and Payne [23] and Destek
and Aslan [34]. Against common findings in the literature, Ozturk and Studies that focused on all three variables are quite few and largely
Acaranci [22] argued that electric power consumption does not have interested in either aggregate renewable or aggregate non-renewable
significant influence on economic growth in MENA countries based on energy or both with results that vary across countries and methodolo­
the estimates of ARDL bound testing approach. gies adopted. For instance, Akadiri et al., [48] employed a combination
A few studies concentrate on specific non-renewable energy such as of FMOLS, panel ARDL and causality approaches for 28 EU countries and
oil, natural gas and coal with high level of support for their significant submitted that total renewable energy promoted economic growth but
role in driving economic growth. For instance, using ARDL and VECM aggravated carbon emission. Thus, the use of renewable energy may
Granger causality approaches to explore the case of China, Bloch et al., imply a dilemma between growth and environmental quality. However,
[43] found that oil and coal had positive effect on growth, with similar no consensus has been reached among studies that focused on total
results observed for oil, gas, coal and renewables among emerging Eu­ non-renewable (and fossil fuel) energy. Boontome et al., [49] used ECM
ropean countries by Caraiani et al. [6]. Moreover, Park and Yoo [40] and Granger Causality technique to demonstrate that consumption of
Bhattacharya et al., [44] found that oil Granger caused growth in non-renewable energy increased carbon emission but had negligible
Malaysia and coal Granger caused growth in China, while mixed results impact on economic growth of Thailand, while Ito [45] discovered that
were noticed for coal by [65] and Lei et al., [42] for the biggest coal fossil fuel consumption increased CO2 emission but retarded economic
consuming countries. Also, although, ARDL approach of Bildirici and growth in developed economies, according to GMM and pooled mean

5
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

group estimates. While Mensah et al. [46] and Kang et al. [47] provided follows the model specification of Lee and Chang [3]; using the new
evidence that total fossil fuel (African countries) and coal (India) con­ growth theory which sets real GDP (Y) as a function of real capital stock
sumption contributed positively to growth but raised the level of CO2 (KS), physical labour (L) and energy consumption (E):
emission, Adewuyi and Awodumi [50] showed that results are mixed
Y ​ ¼ fðKS; ​ L; ​ EÞ (1)
among ECOWAS member countries.
Among these studies, no role is provided for asymmetries and This equation can be rewritten using the Cobb Douglas production
structural changes especially in energy consumption, which are common function as:
features in most economies. Again, the role of petroleum product and
natural gas in growth and emission remains a gap in the energy-growth- Yt ¼ AKαt Lβt Eθt ; ​ such ​ that ​ α þ β þ θ ¼ 1 (2a)
emission literature. Studies on the impact of energy consumption on
where α, β and θ refers to the coefficient elasticities of capital, labour and
economic growth are mainly multi-country analysis. Moreover, the only
energy consumption respectively. Expressing the variables in equation
study that focused on Africa considered total energy consumption and
(2a) in per capita terms, we have the following
ignored the specific role of petroleum and natural gas in economic
growth while studies that captured the role of these energy types in yt ¼ Akαt eθt (2b)
economic growth, and incorporate environmental concerns is still
Adding some control variables, such as financial development (FD),
missing in the literature. Given the role of petroleum and natural gas in
and trade openness (TO), which influence the efficiency of the produc­
the economies of African oil producers, this study fills the identified gaps
tion technology (A) to equation (2b), and log linearising the equation
by disaggregating non-renewable energy consumption into these two
yield
sources while examining their effects on economic growth as well as
� � � �
CO2 emission, and also accounting for asymmetries and structural Inyt ¼ α0 þ α1 Inðet þ α2 Inðkt þ α3 InðFDt þ α4 InðTOt þ μt (3)
break.
where i ¼ 1, …,N represents the country and t ¼ 1, …,T represents the
3. Theoretical framework and methodology time period. y is the real GDP per capita (GDPC), k (PCAP) and e (ECP)
means capital per head and energy use per capita respectively while
3.1. Theoretical framework other variables are as specified earlier. Also, μt is the residual term, and
In represents natural logarithm. The energy consumption per capita will
The Solow growth model emphasized the role of physical labour and be broken down into per capita petroleum (PET) and natural gas con­
capital accumulation in the production of national output, with no sumption (GAS).
specific role given to technical progress and natural resources. However, In specific terms, the effect of renewable energy consumption on
the modern economy has shown an overwhelming reliance on natural economic growth is examined using the following econometrics model:
resources (energy) in production and transportation activities as
GDPCt ¼ α0 þα1 PETt þα2 GASt þα3 PCAPt þ α4 FDt þ α4 TOt þμt (4)
equipment and machinery, brought about by improved technology, are
powered by energy. This is evident in the increasing growth rates In order to analyse the role of non-renewable energy consumption
recorded in most economies of the world, especially the newly indus­ (PET and GAS) in carbon emission, we specified equation (5) in line with
trialising economies. This study therefore adopts the new growth theory the Environmental Kuznets Curve- EKC equation) which was applied by
which internalizes technology into production functions [58]. Thus, previous studies such as Jayanthakumaran et al. [10] where the pro­
facilitating production and economic growth requires the deployment of duction of CO2 emissions in China and India depends on most of the
critical inputs of capital and labour as well as energy [50,59]. Other variables in equation (4). Following Jayanthakumaran et al. [10]; we
factors that can influence economic growth include economic stability, have
trade openness and the level of financial development.
As the level of economic activities rises, demand for energy tends to CO2 ¼ fðy; y2 ; ​ e; ​ tÞ (5)
rise, especially in countries with abundant energy resources, which
where CO2 is per capita CO2 emissions, y indicates per capita real in­
further propels growth by facilitating the functioning of the primary
come, y2 is the square of per capita real income, TO stands for trade
inputs (labour and capital). However, the resulting higher level of car­
openness while e measures per capita energy consumption. This speci­
bon emissions is detrimental to growth. Production processes may also
fication is modified to accommodate the role of technology (A) captured
be augmented by energy-saving and carbon-efficient techniques which
by carbon intensity of energy (CINT). Also, urbanisation (URB) is
may reduce energy use as well as mitigating the associated adverse effect
included while renewable (petroleum and natural gas) energy replaces
on the environment, and hence enhance human health and productivity.
total energy consumption.
Further, the effect of economic growth (engendered by the rising level of
economic activities) on carbon emission has been summarised in the CO2 ¼ fðy; y2 ; ​ e; ​ TO; ​ A; ​ URBÞ (6)
EKC4 hypothesis [10]. The hypothesis suggests that CO2 emission in­
creases at lower income levels, but declines as income rises beyond The econometric form of the model is specified as;
certain higher levels. Also, the level of urbanisation has direct impact on CO2PCt ¼ θ0 þ θ1 PETt þ θ2 GASt þ θ3 GDPCt þ θ4 GDPC2t
the level of carbon emissions [60] just as trade openness influences the
þ θ5 FDt þθ6 CINTt þ θ7 URBt þ θ8 TOt þ πt (7)
level of carbon emission due to the level of carbon embedded in exports
and imports. The response of economic growth to positive change in
where μt,πt ¼ White noise disturbance term.
non-renewable energy consumption may differ from response to nega­
Following the possibility of asymmetries in the response of economic
tive change, with the attending implications for environmental quality.
growth and carbon emission to positive and negative changes in non-
renewable energy consumption (natural gas and petroleum), this
3.2. Methodology
study adopts the non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL)
bound testing approach to empirically analyse the functional forms
3.2.1. Model specification and Estimation technique
above. It also accounts for the possible influence of structural break in
For the effect of energy consumption on economic growth, this study
the consumption of these energy types on growth and CO2 emission. The
technique shows the long run relationships and dynamic interactions
4 among the variables of interest. It estimates the co-integrating
Environmental Kuznet Curve.

6
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

relationship after determining the optimal lag order of the model while
X
t X
t
accommodating regressors that are stationary at either levels, I (0), or ΔGASþ ΔGASþ maxðΔGASj ; 0Þ and
t ¼ j ¼
first difference, I (1). Moreover, long run and short run parameters of the j¼1 j¼1
(10a)
models can be simultaneously estimated [61]. X
t X
t

Hence, the linear autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) specification ΔGASt ¼ ΔGASj ¼ minðΔGASj ; 0Þ
without asymmetry and structural break effects in short-run and long- j¼1 j¼1

run is written as5: Similarly,

ΔGDPCt ¼ α1 þ θ1 GDPCt 1 þ θ2 PETtt þ θ3 GASt þ θ4 PCAPt þ θ5 FD X
t X
t

X
m Xm X
m ΔPET þ
t ¼ ΔPET þ
j ¼ maxðΔPETj ; 0Þ and
j¼1 j¼1
þ θ6 TOt þ βi ΔGDPCt i þ βi ΔPETt i þ βi ΔGASt i (10b)
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0 X
t X
t

X
m X
m X
m ΔPET t ¼ ΔPET j ¼ minðΔPETj ; 0Þ
þ βi ΔPCAPt i þ βi ΔFDt i þ βi ΔTOt i þ π1t (8) j¼1 j¼1
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0
Thus, the non-linear ARDL model can be specified for economic
growth and carbon emission as follows:

ΔGDPCt ¼ α þ θ1 GDPCt þ θþ þ
2 GASt 1 þ θ3 GASt
1 1 þ θþ þ
4 PET t 1
Xn
þθ5 PET t 1 þ θ6 Zt þ ρi ΔGDPCt i þ
i¼1 (11a)
X
m X
m X
m
ðβþ þ
i ΔGASt i þ βi ΔGASt i Þ þ ðβþ þ
i ΔPET t i þ βi ΔPET t i Þ þ βi ΔZt i þ π1t
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0

X
n
ΔCO2PCt ¼ α þ θ1 CO2PCt 1 þ θþ þ
2 GASt 1 þ θ3 GASt 1 þ θþ þ
4 PET t 1 þ θ5 PET t 1 þ θ6 Zt þ ρi ΔCO2PCt i

(11b)
i¼1
X
m X
m X
m
þ ðβþ þ
i ΔGASt i þ βi ΔGASt i Þ þ ðβþ þ
i ΔPET t i þ βi ΔPET t i Þ þ βi ΔZt i þ π2t
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0

ΔCO2PCt ¼ α1 þ θ1 CO2PCt þ θ2 PETt þ θ3 GASt þ θ4 GDPCt þ θ5 GDPC2t

1
where θþ and θ capture the short-run asymmetry, while βþ and β
X
m capture the long-run, with the subscript (þ) and ( ) referring to the
þ θ6 FDt þ θ7 CINTt þ θ8 URBt þ θ9 TOt þ βi ΔCO2PCt i positive and negative partial sum decomposition. Z represents all other
i¼0 explanatory variables as contained in equations (8) and (9), including
X X X X structural break dummies. Long-run coefficients with respect to the
m m m m
þ βi ΔPETt i þ βi ΔGASt i þ βi ΔGDPCt i þ βi ΔGDPC2t
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0 i¼0
1
negative and positive changes in the natural gas (and petroleum) con­
X
m X
m X
m X
m sumption per capita can be computed as - θþ 2 /θ1 and - θ2 /θ1 respectively.
þ βi ΔFDt i þ βi ΔCINTt i þ βi ΔURBt i þ βi ΔTOt i þ π2t Wald test can be performed on the null hypothesis of long-run symmetry
(-θþ
2 /θ1 ¼ -θ2 /θ1 ) for the two energy types. In the short-run, asymmetric
i¼0 i¼0 i¼0 i¼0

(9)
response of economic growth and CO2 per capita to positive and nega­
The study also specifies non-linear ARDL (NARDL) models developed tive changes in the consumption of these energy types is captured by the
by Shin et al. (2014), which accommodates the potential long-run and parameters βþ i and βi respectively. Thus, the short-run symmetry can be
short-run asymmetric effects. Natural gas (and petroleum) consumption tested using the Wald tests on null hypothesis of short-run symmetry
per capita are first decomposed into positive, ΔGASþ t (ΔPET t ), and
þ
such that βþi ¼ βi for all i ¼ 0, …,m.
negative, ΔGASt (ΔPETt ), partial sums for increases and decreases If both null hypotheses of long-run and short-run asymmetry are not
respectively such that: rejected, then, the NARDL models collapse to the linear ARDL (equations
(8) and (9)). However, if the long-run symmetry is not rejected, equa­
tions (11a) and (11b) reduces to:

ΔGDPCt ¼ α þ θ1 GDPt 1 þ θ2 GASt 1 þ θ3 PETt 1 þ θ4 Zt

Pn Xm
þ ρi ΔGDPCt i þ ðβþ þ
i ΔGASt i þ βi ΔGASt i Þ
i¼1 i¼0 (12a)
X
m X
m
þ ðβþ þ
i ΔPET t i þ βi ΔPET t i Þ þ βi ΔZt i þ π1t
i¼0 i¼0

5
All variables are expressed in their natural logarithms.

7
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 2
Variable description and data sources.
Variable Description Measurement Data Sources

GDPC Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) World Development Indicators
GDPC2 Square of gross domestic product (GDP) Square of GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) Computed based on data from World Development
per capita Indicators
PET Petroleum consumption per capita Total petroleum consumption per capita (Litres) Computed based on data from US Energy Information
Administration
GAS Natural gas consumption per capita Natural gas consumption per capita (cubic feet) Computed based on data from US Energy Information
Administration
CO2PC Carbon emission per capita CO2 Emissions per capita (kilograms) Computed based on data from World Development
Indicators
PCAP Physical capital stock per head Gross fixed capital formation per head (constant 2010 US$) Computed based on data from World Development
Indicators
FD Financial development Domestic credit to private sector (% of GDP) World Development Indicators
TO Trade openness Exports of goods and services þ imports of goods and services as a World Development Indicators
% of GDP
URB Urbanisation Population in urban agglomerations of more than 1 million (% of World Development Indicators
total population)
CINT Carbon intensity of energy CO2 intensity (kg per kg of oil equivalent energy use) World Development Indicators

Source: Author’s compilation

X
n X
m
ΔCO2PCt ¼ α þ θ1 CO2PCt 1 þ θ2 GASt 1 þ θ3 PETt 1 þ θ4 Zt þ ρi ΔCO2PCt i þ ðβþ þ
i ΔGASt i þ βi ΔGASt i Þ
i¼1 i¼0
(12b)
X
m X
m
þ ðβþ þ
i ΔPET t i þ βi ΔPET t i Þ þ βi ΔZt i þ π2t
i¼0 i¼0

maximum of 7.55 and 8.17 respectively. Gabon had the lowest average
This shows that asymmetry only occurs in the short-run. Similarly, if carbon emission per capita of about 2.57 ranging from 2.34 to 2.87.
the short-run symmetry is not rejected, equations (11a) and (11b) re­ Average GDP per capita (GDPC) was higher in Gabon (9.27) than any
duces to: other selected country with minimum of 9.09 and maximum of 9.45.

X
n X
m
ΔCO2PCt ¼ α þ θ1 CO2PCt 1 þ θþ þ
2 GASt 1 þ θ3 GASt 1 þ θþ þ
4 PET t 1 þ θ5 PET t 1 þ θ 6 Zt þ ρi ΔCO2PCt i þ βi ΔGASt i
i¼1 i¼0
(13)
X
m X
m
þ βi ΔPETt i þ βi ΔZt i þ π1t
i¼0 i¼0

Nigeria also had the least average GDP per capita (7.37) which ranges
from 7.04 to 7.84. On average and in per capita terms, Algeria was the
This shows that asymmetry only occurs in the long-run. leading consumer of natural gas (GAS) among the top oil producers in
Africa with a mean of about 10.19, ranging from 9.76 to 10.53 while
3.2.2. Data and variable description Gabon was the leading consumer of petroleum products (PET) with a
Data utilized for this study cover the period 1980–2015 due to data mean of 6.59, and minimum and maximum of 6.28 and 6.94 respec­
availability constraint across all the selected countries. The data were tively. Interestingly, on average, Gabon, which recorded the highest
obtained from two sources: World Bank, World Development Indicators GDP per capita, consumed the most of petroleum products in per capita
(WDI, online) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The terms, although its natural gas consumption was about midway among
variables used for estimations are described in Table 2. the top oil producers in Africa.
As shown by the standard deviation, volatility was highest in Angola
4. Empirical results and discussions for CO2 per capita (0.48), and GDP per capita (0.32), Egypt for dry
natural gas (0.85) and Angola for petroleum (0.39). Conversely, Algeria
4.1. Preliminary analysis was the least volatile economy in terms of carbon emission per capita
(0.13) and natural gas consumption per capita (0.15), while Gabon and
Table 3 presents the summary statistics with the mean, maximum Egypt were least volatile in terms of GDP per capita (0.10) and for pe­
and minimum values, as well as the standard deviation of the variables troleum consumption (0.08) respectively.
used for the analysis. The statistics reveal that Algeria had the highest Due to the possibility of asymmetry and structural change in natural
mean of carbon emission per capita (CO2PC-8.03) with minimum and gas and petroleum consumption per capita, traditional unit root tests,

8
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 3
Summary of statistics.
CINT CO2PC FD GAS GDPC2 GDPC PCAP PET TO URB

Algeria Mean 5.83 8.03 2.88 10.19 68.12 8.25 3.35 6.11 4.03 1.95
Maximum 6.39 8.17 4.24 10.53 71.83 8.48 3.64 6.44 4.34 2.13
Minimum 5.51 7.55 1.36 9.76 64.97 8.06 3.03 5.89 3.49 1.88
Std. Dev. 0.17 0.13 0.97 0.15 2.02 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.06
Angola Mean 4.94 6.63 – 7.17 62.98 7.93 2.85 5.13 4.82 3.00
Maximum 5.45 7.29 – 7.46 69.46 8.33 7.94 5.87 7.94 3.30
Minimum 4.11 5.73 – 5.82 56.27 7.50 1.35 4.64 3.91 2.55
Std. Dev. 0.40 0.48 – 0.32 4.25 0.27 1.04 0.39 0.65 0.24
Egypt Mean 5.62 7.47 3.51 8.94 56.79 7.53 3.02 6.15 3.92 3.19
Maximum 5.85 7.86 4.01 9.99 62.47 7.90 3.54 6.25 4.41 3.25
Minimum 5.46 6.95 2.58 6.54 50.42 7.10 2.53 5.85 3.55 3.12
Std. Dev. 0.07 0.28 0.33 0.85 3.75 0.25 0.24 0.08 0.22 0.05
Gabon Mean 5.73 2.57 8.36 8.06 86.00 9.27 3.31 6.59 4.50 –
Maximum 6.18 2.87 9.12 9.10 89.24 9.45 3.83 6.94 4.79 –
Minimum 5.30 2.34 7.95 7.07 82.69 9.09 2.98 6.28 4.30 –
Std. Dev. 0.26 0.14 0.36 0.49 1.80 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.11 –
Nigeria Mean 4.41 6.38 3.80 7.46 54.43 7.37 2.48 4.84 3.87 2.54
Maximum 4.94 6.83 4.07 8.23 61.52 7.84 3.56 5.08 4.40 2.74
Minimum 3.81 5.73 3.40 6.25 49.63 7.04 1.70 4.43 3.07 2.21
Std. Dev. 0.31 0.30 0.22 0.46 3.89 0.26 0.46 0.19 0.37 0.15

Source: Author; Data from WDI and US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

non-linear unit root tests, and unit root test with structural break were the null hypotheses of long-run and short-run symmetry are not rejected
conducted. For traditional unit root tests, KPSS and Phillips-Perron (PP) at conventional significance levels for both energy types only in the case
unit root tests were performed to determine the stationarity property of of Algeria. This implies that increases and decreases in the consumption
the series to provide for more reliable decision and the results are pre­ of these energy types had symmetric effects on real GDP per capita in the
sented in Table 4. Unlike PP, KPSS tests the null hypothesis of no unit country. For this country, long-run impact of natural gas consumption
root based on linear regression [62]. The results show that all the var­ per capita on GDP per capita is significant positive in Algeria with
iables are stationary either at level I (0) or at first difference I (1). Also, elasticity of 1.17 while petroleum consumption per capita produced
based on ADF unit root test with structural break (Table 5), all the insignificant effect.
variables are either I (0) or I (1). Moreover, the results of KSS [63] For other countries, the asymmetric effects of the energy types on
non-linear unit root test are presented in Table 6 and also suggest that economic growth vary by time horizon and type of energy. For instance,
the variables are either stationary at levelI (0) or at first difference I (1). for natural gas consumption per capita, while the null hypothesis of
Thus, the ARDL approach is adopted in this study. symmetry is not rejected in the long-run and short-run for Nigeria, the
The results of the ARDL-bounds test for each model with and without hypothesis is not rejected only in the long-run for the case of Egypt and
structural break and asymmetry are presented in Table 7. In the models in the short-run for Gabon. For petroleum consumption per capita, the
for carbon emissions without asymmetry and structural break for symmetry hypothesis could not be rejected in the short-run for Angola,
Algeria and Nigeria, as well as similar models for economic growth for Egypt and Gabon, while the hypothesis is not rejected in the long-run for
Egypt and Gabon, the F-statistics is higher than the upper bound critical Gabon and Nigeria.
value at 1%. In the case of carbon emission model for Gabon, the F- Long-run results indicate that both positive and negative changes in
statistics is higher than the upper bound critical value at 5% while it is natural gas consumption per capita had significant (negative) effect on
higher than the upper bound critical value at 10% for other models. real GDP per capita only in Gabon.6 Thus, 1.0% increase in natural gas
Therefore, null hypothesis of no co-integration is rejected and long-run consumption per capita reduced economic growth by about 8.50%, as a
co-integration relationship is established among the variables in these similar reduction in the consumption of this energy contributed to
models. For economic growth models for Angola and Nigeria, as well as improvement in economic growth by 9% in this country. Long-run es­
carbon emission model for Egypt, the F-statistics fall within the critical timates further show that the effect of both positive and negative
values either at 1% or 5% suggesting inconclusive decision. changes in petroleum consumption per capita on GDP per capita is
In the models with asymmetry and structural break, the F-statistics is significant (negative) in Angola and Egypt, and significant positive in
higher than the upper bound critical value at 1% in most of the countries Nigeria. The results suggest that 1.0% fall in petroleum consumption per
and 5% in others implying that the null hypothesis of no co-integration capita raised GDP per capita by about 1.34% and 1.14% in Angola and
is rejected. Thus, long-run co-integration relationship exists among the Egypt respectively but reduced GDP per capita in Nigeria by about
variables. Therefore, the importance of accounting for asymmetry and 3.19%. While a similar 1.0% increase in petroleum consumption per
structural break is underscored by these results. capita led to a decline in GDP per capita by about 1.22% and 1.16% in
Angola and Egypt respectively, it raised GDP per capita in Nigeria by
3.15%. While structural break in natural gas consumption per capita had
4.2. The impact of non-renewable energy on economic growth and CO2
long-run significant positive influence on economic growth in Egypt and
emission
Nigeria, such break in petroleum consumption per capita produced
similar effect on economic growth in Angola and Egypt. Long-run results
4.2.1. Impact of non-renewable energy on economic growth
further show that physical capital significantly contributed to increase in
Following the evidence of non-linear cointegration in the presence of
GDP per capita in Angola and Egypt, while financial development is
structural break for all countries, the study proceeds to estimate non-
linear ARDL models accounting for structural break in petroleum and
natural gas consumption. Results of the asymmetric impact of the con­
sumption of these non-renewable energy products on economic growth 6
As indicated in the methodology section, long-run coefficients with respect
and carbon emission per capita are presented in Tables 8 and 9. to the negative and positive changes in the natural gas (and petroleum) con­
From the estimates of economic growth models reported in Table 8, sumption per capita can be computed as -θþ2 /θ1 and - θ2 /θ1 respectively.

9
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 4 Table 5
Traditional unit root test. ADF unit root tests with structural breaks.
Kwiatkowski-Phillips- Phillips-Perron (PP) Decision Variables Break t-statistics Break t-statistics Decision
Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) Date Date
Level First
Level 1st Level 1st difference
Difference Difference
Algeria
ALGERIA CINT 1998 6.16* 2005 5.69* I (0)
CO2PC 0.2842 0.2997 3.2856** 6.9379* I (0) CO2PC 2004 3.54 2005 6.30* I (1)
GDPC 0.4289*** 0.2748 0.0973 3.1839** I (1) FD 2014 1.27 1997 5.23* I (1)
GDPC2 0.4313*** 0.2788 0.0701 3.1740** I (1) GAS 2010 3.63 1993 8.47* I (1)
PET 0.5729** 0.1754 0.0273 6.0079* I (1) GDPC2 2001 2.30 1994 4.24*** I (1)
GAS 0.2694 0.4232*** 2.1339 8.1185* I (1) GDPC 2001 2.30 1994 4.25*** I (1)
CINT 0.6722** 0.2823 4.1625* 9.6254* I (1) PCAP 2008 2.60 2009 7.78* I (1)
FD 0.3280 0.1885 1.4655 4.8184* I (1) PET 2007 3.07 1999 6.66* I (1)
PCAP 0.1942 0.2585 1.7184 4.9230* I (1) TO 1998 3.23 2002 4.99* I (1)
TO 0.4626** 0.1778 1.6562 4.2250* I (1) URB 1999 7.48* 2014 2.12* I (0)
URB 0.6253** 0.3951*** 5.6189* 2.0505 I (0) Angola
ANGOLA CINT 2003 5.17* 1997 8.97* I (0)
CO2PC 0.5718** 0.2393 1.1286 11.6560* I (1) CO2PC 2003 5.21* 1997 9.17* I (0)
GDPC 0.2787 0.2258 0.7302 2.9960** I (1) GAS 2011 4.59** 1994 7.44* I (0)
GDPC2 0.2833 0.2317 0.6938 2.9559** I (1) GDPC2 2002 3.09 1993 5.96* I (1)
PET 0.5233** 0.3498*** 0.2178 5.7865* I (1) GPC 2002 3.08 1993 6.13* I (1)
GAS 0.4006*** 0.5000** 27132*** 3.5512* I (1) PCAP 1995 11.39* 1995 11.61* I (0)
CINT 0.5741** 0.1899 1.5717 12.6916* I (1) PET 2005 3.11 2005 8.68* I (1)
PCAP 0.1147 0.3118 3.9023* 18.8054* I (0) TO 1995 11.61* 1995 11.70* I (0)
TO 0.1338 0.1134 4.0491* 11.0154* I (0) URB 2007 9.32* 2007 4.21*** I (0)
URB 0.6989** 0.4824** 5.4098* 0.5625 I (0) Egypt
EGYPT CINT 2000 4.6580** 2003 8.3929* I (0)
CO2PC 0.6958** 0.0780 1.3894 7.8991* I (1) CO2PC 1994 2.8323 2009 8.1118* I (1)
GDPC 0.7085** 0.0981 1.0172 3.6980* I (1) FD 1992 4.8172** 2004 7.5647* I (0)
GDPC2 0.7070** 0.0840 0.8441 3.6547* I (1) GAS 1999 7.9788* 2003 5.7409* I (0)
PET 0.4989** 0.2138 4.1020* 4.4673* I (1) GDPC2 2004 4.1862 2002 4.8637* I (1)
GAS 0.7050** 0.5043** 4.5147* 4.0154* I (0) GPC 2005 2.0918 2003 4.8124** I (1)
CINT 0.1817 0.1358 3.2145** 9.0976* I (0) PCAP 1992 3.0774 1998 4.4318* I (1)
FD 0.3231 0.3768*** 2.9257** 6.0356* I (0) PET 1995 5.0962* 1994 4.7753** I (0)
PCAP 0.6836** 0.1228 0.9269 4.3371* I (1) TO 1992 4.8488** 2008 5.3298* I (0)
TO 0.2197 0.0802 2.0605 4.9860* I (1) URB 1999 4.7709** 2008 2.2585 I (0)
URB 0.6510** 0.1708 0.7592 3.1852** I (1) Gabon
GABON CINT 2005 3.1782 2006 6.5890* I (1)
CO2PC 0.6873** 0.5000** 2.6868*** 7.9056* I (0) CO2PC 1999 2.9918 2008 7.6932* I (1)
GDPC 0.5608** 0.1656 2.0072 6.0660* I (1) FD 1992 2.4781 1994 6.4516* I (1)
GDPC2 0.5618** 0.1657 2.0072 6.0660* I (1) GAS 2011 5.5250* 2011 10.1536* I (0)
PET 0.5274** 0.1423 2.3815 8.5972* I (1) GDPC2 1998 3.4236 2009 6.2904* I (1)
GAS 0.1262 0.4355*** 2.7633*** 9.6306* I (0) GDPC 1998 3.4184 2009 6.3079* I (1)
CINT 0.6713** 0.1807 1.0385 9.5623* I (1) PCAP 1998 3.1904 1998 7.9275* I (1)
FD 0.3565*** 0.1564 1.8171 5.9891* I (1) PET 1999 4.5796** 2008 8.8657* I (0)
PCAP 0.2126 0.0398 2.8966** 7.6635* I (0) TO 2014 4.9040* 1994 9.1837* I (0)
TO 0.3234 0.1564 2.4716 8.2824* I (1) Nigeria
NIGERIA CINT 2002 4.6195** 1995 6.4687* I (0)
CO2PC 0.1722 0.2186 2.2437 5.9593* I (1) CO2PC 1995 2.3910 1995 6.3257* I (1)
GDPC 0.4398*** 0.5792** 0.3635 4.8389* I (1) FD 2006 4.3880** 2010 5.9049* I (0)
GDPC2 0.4425*** 0.5893** 0.3179 4.8583* I (1) GAS 2002 5.1884* 2011 9.7024* I (0)
PET 0.6096** 0.1444 0.9976 8.9308* I (1) GDPC2 2003 5.2347* 2004 7.2277* I (0)
GAS 0.7311** 0.1995 2.9773** 12.5104* I (1) GDPC 2003 5.2530* 2004 7.1070* I (0)
CINT 0.2402 0.2481 2.2351 6.1457* I (1) PCAP 2007 3.8960 2003 6.2961* I (1)
FD 0.1679 0.4723** 2.4722 9.1599* I (1) PET 2002 3.5687 2007 9.9379* I (1)
PCAP 0.3546*** 0.3882*** 2.5428 5.0362* I (1) TO 2011 2.4606 2014 7.2188* I (1)
TO 0.2087 0.1821 1.5011 7.2273* I (1) URB 1992 2.2176 2007 8.0378* I (1)
URB 0.7033** 0.6349** 7.1939* 3.5705* I (0)
Source: Author; Data from WDI and US Energy Information Administration
Note: *,** and *** indicate that the variable is stationary at 1%, 5% and 10% (EIA) Note: *,** and *** indicate that the variable is stationary at 1%, 5% and
respectively. I(0) represents stationarity at level while I(1) denotes stationarity 10% respectively. I(0) represents stationarity at level while I(1) denotes statio­
at first difference. narity at first difference.
Source: Author; Data from WDI and US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

found to promote economic growth only in Algeria. However, either economic growth by about the same percentage (0.08% and 0.12%) in
financial development or trade openness had significant reducing effect these countries respectively. However, 1.0% fall (rise) in petroleum
on growth in Egypt, Nigeria and Angola. consumption per capita deteriorated (raised) economic growth by about
In the short-run, both positive and negative changes in natural gas 0.53% (0.51%) in Angola. Moreover, capital stock had positive effect on
consumption per capita exerted significant negative influence on GDP economic growth in Egypt while financial development promoted
per capita only in Angola and Nigeria while the effect of similar changes growth in Algeria and Egypt but retarded it in Nigeria. Trade openness
in petroleum consumption per capita is only significant (positive) in had significant negative effect on growth in Angola and Gabon. Short-
Angola. Hence, 1.0% reduction in natural gas consumption improved run influence of structural break in natural gas consumption per cap­
economic growth by about 0.08% and 0.12% in Angola and Nigeria ita on economic growth is significant positive in Egypt and Gabon, but
while 1.0% rise in the consumption of this energy type led to a decline in the impact of similar break in petroleum consumption per capita yielded

10
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 6 do not differ across observations. The CUSUM and CUSUM square, re­
Non-linear unit root test. ported in appendix A, shows that all estimated models are stable.
Variable KSSa KSSb Decision

Algeria 4.3. Impact of non-renewable energy on CO2 emission

CINT 1.5714 (6)* 2.0514 (6)* I (0)
CO2PC 0.4783 (6)* 0.9902 (6)* I (0) The non-linear ARDL estimates of carbon emission per capita models
FD 1.1871 (1)* 1.8832 (11)* I (0) are reported in Table 9. The null hypothesis of symmetry in the long-run
GAS 0.8693 (3)* 2.2356 (6)* I (0)
GDPC2 1.9998 (11) 0.5173 (2)* I (0)
is rejected for both energy types only in the case of Nigeria, suggesting
GDPC 1.9792 (11) 0.5720 (2)* I (0) that positive and negative changes in the consumption of these energy
PCAP 0.2373 (2)* 3.1544 (1) I (0) types had asymmetrical long-run impact on carbon emission per capita
PET 1.7587 (3)* 0.1927 (3)* I (0) in the country. Moreover, while asymmetry is confirmed in the short-run
TO 0.0125 (11)* 1.2714 (11)* I (0)
for both energy types in Angola, Gabon and Nigeria, evidence of this
URB 3.7043 (11) 0.2797 (9)* I (0)
Angola asymmetry is only found for petroleum consumption per capita in Egypt.
CINT 1.3200 (11) 2.6055 (3)* I (0) Thus, in Algeria, no evidence of asymmetry is found both in the long-run
CO2PC 1.1525 (2)* 1.7907 (2)* I (0) and in the short-run while the influence of both energy types on carbon
GAS 1.0737* 3.2903 (1) I (0) emission is insignificant in both time horizons.
GDPC2 0.2282 (1)* 2.1293 (1)* I (0)
GDPC 0.3262 (1)* 2.2234 (1)* I (0)
Further, long-run results indicate that increase and decrease in nat­
PCAP 2.9049 (1) 3.5989 (1) I (1) ural gas consumption per capita had significant positive impact on
PET 1.5861 (1)* 0.2362 (1)* I (0) carbon emission per capita in Angola but their effects on this emission is
TO 1.3875 (1)* 4.1988 (1) I (0) significant negative in Gabon. Specifically, 1.0% decrease (increase) in
URB 0.3219 (4)* 1.8713 (1)* I (0)
natural gas consumption per capita reduced (escalated) carbon emission
Egypt
CINT 0.2376 (1)* 4.0409 (9) I (0) per capita by 0.06% (0.01%) in Angola. Conversely, 1.0% decline (rise)
CO2PC 2.5579 (1)* 1.1610 (1)* I (0) in natural gas consumption per capita raised (reduced) carbon emission
FD 0.2765 (6)* 0.7918 (6)* I (0) per capita by about 13.08% (13.23%) in Gabon. In Nigeria, while
GAS 1.6079 (2)* 0.9723 (3)* I (0) negative change in natural gas consumption per capita produced sig­
GDPC2 0.8665 (11)* 1.6120 (11)* I (0)
GDPC 1.1890 (11)* 1.5815 (11)* I (0)
nificant reducing effect on carbon emission, the impact of a positive
PCAP 3.2509 (8) 2.3230 (1)* I (0) change in the consumption of this energy type is negligible. Thus, 1.0%
PET 0.4762 (5)* 4.7909 (1) I (0) decrease in natural gas consumption per capita contributed about 1.05%
TO 1.1661 (8)* 2.6260 (10)* I (0) to the decline in the level of carbon emission per capita in the country.
URB 0.9223 (2)* 1.7477 (2)* I (0)
For petroleum consumption per capita, the effect of both positive and
Gabon
CINT 0.9348 (7)* 3.1555 (9) I (0) negative changes on carbon emission per capita is significant negative in
CO2PC 1.2778 (11)* 1.4298 (9)* I (0) Angola in the long-run as 1.0% reduction (increase) in the consumption
FD 0.6431 (10)* 3.2731 (7) I (0) of this energy type yielded 1.34% (1.22%) increase (fall) in carbon
GAS 0.0389 (7)* 1.6940 (7)* I (0) emission per capita. In Nigeria, only positive change in petroleum
GDPC2 1.3131 (11)* 1.6075 (8)* I (0)
GDPC 1.2733 (11)* 1.6153 (8)* I (0)
consumption per capita produced long-run significant (positive) impact
PCAP 0.5265 (10)* 3.4198 (10) I (0) on carbon emission with 1.0% rise in the consumption of petroleum
PET 0.5912 (1)* 1.2361 (1)* I (0) product per capita associated with 11.12% rise in carbon emission per
TO 1.0249 (11)* 0.6031 (11)* I (0) capita. Results further confirm the existence of EKC hypothesis in
Nigeria
Angola and Nigeria but inverted-KC in Gabon in the long-run. Long-run
CINT 0.0981 (9)* 0.4973 (9)* I (0)
CO2PC 0.0739 (9)* 0.3788 (9)* I (0) influence of structural break in natural gas consumption per capita is
FD 0.7080 (3)* 3.1191 (1) I (0) significant positive in Angola and negative in Gabon, while similar break
GAS 0.0779 (8)* 1.9748 (1)* I (0) in petroleum consumption per capita produced significant effects in
GDPC2 0.9954 (1)* 0.1595 (1)* I (0) Algeria (negative) and Angola (positive). Moreover, the impact of ur­
GDPC 0.9608 (1)* 0.1031 (1)* I (0)
PCAP 0.4525 (4)* 2.9634 (3) I (0)
banization is found to be significant negative in Algeria and Angola
PET 1.4430 (2)* 0.9216 (8)* I (0) while carbon emission per capita exhibited long-run significant positive
TO 1.3655 (9)* 1.6595 (10)* I (0) response to carbon intensity in Algeria, Angola and Egypt, which un­
URB 3.4219 (11)* 2.0133 (11)* I (0) derscores the important role of carbon-reducing technologies in pro­
Note: (a) a ¼ raw series; b ¼ demeaned series. (b) Note: *indicate significance at moting environmental quality in these economies.
10% (c) Critical values: raw series (10% ¼ 1.92) and demeaned series (10% ¼ In the short-run, negative and positive changes in natural gas con­
2.66). I(0) represents stationarity at level while I(1) denotes stationarity at first sumption per capita generated significant adjustments in carbon emis­
difference. sion per capita in all countries, except Nigeria. For instance, 1.0%
Source: Author; Data from WDI and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reduction in natural gas consumption per capita escalated carbon
emission per capita by 0.64% in Algeria and 0.01% in Egypt, but
reduced the emission by 0.06% and 0.11% Angola and Gabon respec­
tively. Also, 1.0% increase in per capita consumption of natural gas led
to a rise in the level of carbon emission by 0.63% and 0.05% in Algeria
and Angola respectively, but reduced the emission by 0.01% in Egypt
the similar effect on economic growth only in Angola.
and 0.48% in Gabon.7 In terms of petroleum consumption per capita,
The speed of adjustment of economic growth to long run equilibrium
negative and positive changes exerted short-run significant effect on
as indicated by the error correction term varies from about 20% in Egypt
carbon emission per capita in all the countries except Algeria. Thus,
to 99% in Algeria. Moreover, the diagnostic statistics suggest that the
1.0% decrease in petroleum consumption per capita raised carbon
error is normally distributed, with absence of error autocorrelation and
absence of functional misspecification in all countries, as suggested by
the Jacque Bera (JB), Breusch–Godfrey (BG) serial correlation LM and 7
Short-run effect of the negative and positive changes in natural gas con­
Ramsey RESET test statistics respectively. Also, the ARCH hetero­
sumption per capita and petroleum consumption per capita on carbon emission
scedasticity test statistics indicate that the variances of the error terms per capita is the sum of their short-run coefficients.

11
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 7
ARDL bounds test for Co-integration relationship.
Country Model F-Statistics K 90% level 95% level 99% level

I (0) I (1) I (0) I (1) I (0) I (1)

Without Asymmetry and Structural Break

Algeria Economic Growth 3.79 6 2.53 3.59 2.87 4 3.6 4.9
Carbon Emission 6.29 7 2.03 3.13 2.32 3.5 2.96 4.26
Angola Economic Growth 2.68 5 1.81 2.93 2.14 3.34 2.82 4.21
Carbon Emission 3.05 7 1.7 2.83 1.97 3.18 2.54 3.91
Egypt Economic Growth 4.78 6 2.12 3.23 2.45 3.61 3.15 4.43
Carbon Emission 2.42 6 2.12 3.23 2.45 3.61 3.15 4.43
Gabon Economic Growth 6.67 6 2.12 3.23 2.45 3.61 3.15 4.43
Carbon Emission 3.53 6 1.75 2.87 2.04 3.24 2.66 4.05
Nigeria Economic Growth 3.02 6 2.53 3.59 2.87 4 3.6 4.9
Carbon Emission 6.55 7 2.03 3.13 2.32 3.5 2.96 4.26
With Asymmetry and Structural Break
Algeria Economic Growth 4.05 10 2.07 3.16 2.33 3.46 2.84 4.1
Carbon Emission 4.97 10 1.6 2.72 1.82 2.99 2.26 3.6
Angola Economic Growth 6.15 9 1.88 2.99 2.14 3.3 2.65 3.97
Carbon Emission 3.32 10 1.6 2.72 1.82 2.99 2.26 3.6
Egypt Economic Growth 3.04 9 1.63 2.75 1.86 3.05 2.37 3.68
Carbon Emission 3.44 9 1.63 2.75 1.86 3.05 2.37 3.68
Gabon Economic Growth 11.22 10 1.83 2.94 2.06 3.24 2.54 3.86
Carbon Emission 9.70 9 1.88 2.99 2.14 3.3 2.65 3.97
Nigeria Economic Growth 4.75 9 1.88 2.99 2.14 3.3 2.65 3.97
Carbon Emission 8.20 9 2.16 3.24 2.43 3.56 2.97 4.24

Source: Author’s computation

emission per capita by about 0.10%, 0.63%, 1.42% and 1.50% in in the case of Pakistan’s renewable and nuclear energy. Negative
Angola, Egypt, Gabon and Nigeria respectively. However, a positive changes in the consumption of both energy types are discovered to
change in this energy type by 1.0% led to about 0.10%, 0.63%, 1.41% either retard long-run growth or exert negligible impact in all selected
and 1.44% reduction in carbon emission in these countries respectively. countries, except Nigeria where such changes in petroleum consumption
In the short-run, the EKC hypothesis is valid in all countries, except per capita enhanced long-run growth, which is partially in line with the
Egypt. Short-run impact of structural break in natural gas consumption asymmetric causality results of Tuna and Tuna [32] for Indonesia. In the
per capita on carbon mission per capita is only confirmed in Gabon short-run, positive changes in the per capita consumption of these
(negative) while structural break in petroleum consumption per capita is products either hindered growth or exhibited insignificant influence.
found to produce similar effect only in Algeria. Also, carbon emission Only decrease in natural gas consumption promoted economic growth,
per capita responded positively to carbon intensity in Algeria, Angola especially in Angola and Nigeria, which is in line with Luqman et al. [30]
and Egypt. For urbanization and trade openness, the response of carbon for renewable energy.
emission per capita is negative in Angola and Nigeria respectively. As in economic growth models, no evidence of asymmetry is
The error correction terms suggest that a deviation from the long-run observed in the carbon emission models only in Algeria both in the long-
equilibrium level of CO2 emissions per capita in 1 year is corrected the run and short-run. In the long-run, increases in either natural gas con­
following year with varying adjustment speed across the selected sumption per capita or petroleum consumption per capita raised the
countries, ranging from 43% in Nigeria to 97% in Algeria. Diagnostic level of carbon emission per capita in Angola and Gabon but reduced it
statistics confirm that the estimated models are valid and reliable. For in Nigeria. However, a decrease in the consumption of these energy
instance, the Jacque Bera (JB), Breusch–Godfrey (BG) serial correlation types did not pose significant influence on this emission in all the
LM and ARCH heteroscedasticity test statistics indicate normality of the countries, except Angola. In the short-run, while positive changes in
residuals, absence of error autocorrelation and homoscedasticity of the natural gas consumption per capita showed mixed results across selected
errors respectively. Also, the Ramsey RESET test statistics show that the countries, similar changes in petroleum consumption per capita yielded
models are well specified. As reported in appendix B, CUSUM and significant reducing impact on carbon emission in Gabon and Nigeria
CUSUM square tests confirm the stability of all estimated models. but negligible effect in other countries. Negative changes in natural gas
consumption per capita reduced CO2 emission in Angola and Gabon,
while carbon emissions escalated in Gabon and Nigeria with similar
4.4. What impact of non-renewable energy is observed?
changes in petroleum consumption per capita. Table 10 summarises the
major results from the linear and non-linear ARDL estimates.
No asymmetric effect of natural gas and petroleum consumption per
Overall, while petroleum consumption per capita positively and
capita on economic growth is observed in Algeria in both time di­
significantly impacted income per capita in Angola and Egypt, their
mensions. Positive changes in natural gas consumption per capita
impact on carbon emission per capita is negligible. These findings are
engendered long-run economic growth only in Gabon, while similar
consistent when positive and negative changes in petroleum consump­
changes in petroleum consumption per capita promoted growth only in
tion per capita are considered, especially in the long-run. Similar
Angola and Egypt. This corroborates the findings of Luqman et al. [30]

12
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 8
Non-linear ARDL estimates for economic growth.
Variable Algeria Angola Egypt Gabon Nigeria

Long-run
GDPC(-1) 0.64 (0.13)* 0.64 (0.17)* 0.80 (0.09)* 0.02 (0.20) 0.54 (0.12)*
GAS 1.17 (0.15)* – – – –
PET 0.01 (0.10) – – – –
GAS- – 0.04 (0.14) 0.02 (0.08) 0.18 (0.05)** 0.15 (0.15)
GASþ – 0.004 (0.13) 0.02 (0.08) 0.17 (0.05)** 0.14 (0.15)
PET- – 0.86 (0.26)* 0.91 (0.28)* 0.10 (0.07) 1.72 (0.76)**
PETþ – 0.78 (0.23)* 0.93 (0.28)* 0.10 (0.07) 1.70 (0.75)**
PCAP 0.001 (0.04) 0.22 (0.07)* 0.50 (0.22)** 0.16 (0.08) 0.06 (0.12)
FD 1.01 (0.12)* – 0.53 (0.15)* 0.23 (0.10) 0.47 (0.20)**
TO 0.001 (0.03) 0.54 (0.17)* – 0.48 (0.22) –
GASSB 0.10 (0.06) 0.98 (0.60) 0.41 (0.13)* 0.04 (0.09) 0.61 (0.61)*
PETSB 0.03 (0.03) 0.68 (0.26)** 0.20 (0.07)* 0.15 (0.07) 0.21 (0.19)
C 9.96 (7.91) 39.07 (15.47)** – 20.16 (4.37)** 36.78 (19.27)***
TREND 0.02 (0.01)* – – – –
L G – 0.06 0.03 9.00** 0.28
L þG – 0.01 0.03 8.50** 0.26
L_P – 1.34* 1.14* 5.00 3.19**
L þP – 1.22* 1.16* 5.00 3.15**
Short-run
GAS 1.17 (0.04)* – – – –
PET 0.01 (-0.10) – – – –
GAS- – 0.08 (0.04)*** 0.004 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.12 (0.06)***
GAS (-1) – – – 0.04 (0.02) –
GASþ – 0.08 (0.04)*** 0.004 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.12 (0.06)***
GASþ(-1) – – – 0.03 (0.02) –
PET- – 0.53 (0.16)* 0.06 (0.09) 0.04 (0.06) 0.14 (0.21)
PET (-1) – – – 0.09 (0.05) –
PETþ – 0.51 (0.16)* 0.06 (0.09) 0.04 (0.04) 0.14 (0.21)
PETþ(-1) – – – 0.09 (0.05) –
PCAP 0.001 (-0.04) 0.02 (0.13) 0.10 (0.02)* 0.05 (0.05) 0.07 (0.07)
FD 1.01 (0.01)* – 0.08 (0.03)* 0.01 (0.04) 0.11 (0.06)***
FD (-1) – – – 0.06 (0.03) –
TO 0.001 (0.03) 0.07 (0.04)*** 0.36 (0.09)** –
GASSB 0.07 (0.06) 0.08 (0.09) 0.05 (0.01)* 0.10 (0.03)** 0.06 (0.07)
GASSB(-1) – – – 0.14 (0.06)*** –
PETSB 0.02 (0.02) 0.24 (0.05)* 0.01 (0.01) 0.05 (-0.05) 0.01 (0.08)
PTSB(-1) – – – 0.15 (0.04)** –
TREND 0.02 (0.01)* – – – –
ECM(-1) 0.99 (0.13)* 0.36 (0.18)*** 0.20 (0.09)** 0.98 (0.20)** 0.46 (0.12)*
R-Square 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98
Adj. R-Square 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.96
AIC 5.11 3.47 6.50 6.23 2.98
SIC 4.62 2.66 5.73 4.87 2.08
WLG 0.30 4.55** 0.00001 0.01*** 0.11
WSG 2.62 9.74* 4.28** 5.23 1.04
WLP 0.02 4.98** 9.51* 0.01 0.29
WSP 2.66 0.45 0.68 1.53 7.27**
JB 0.28 0.63 1.08 1.44 0.42
BG 0.56 0.45 (1) 1.41 (1) 3.19 (1) 1.12 (1)
ARCH 0.03 1.45 (1) 0.21 (1) 0.20 (1) 0.04 (1)
R-RESET 0.42 2.81 (1) 0.02 (1) 0.75 (1) 0.13 (1)

Note: BG ¼ Breusch–Godfrey serial correlation LM test; Ramsey ¼ Ramsey RESET test: ARCH ¼ ARCH heteroscedasticity; JB ¼ Jacque Bera; AIC ¼ Akaike info
criterion; SIC ¼ Schwarz criterion; WLG ¼ Wald test of long-run symmetry for natural gas consumption per capita; WSG ¼ Wald test of short-run symmetry for natural
gas consumption per capita; WLP ¼ Wald test of long-run symmetry for petroleum consumption per capita; WSP ¼ Wald test of short-run symmetry for petroleum
consumption per capita; L G ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric negative change in natural gas consumption per capita; LþG ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric
positive change in natural gas consumption per capita; L P ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric negative change in petroleum consumption per capita; LþG ¼ long-run
coefficient of asymmetric positive change in petroleum consumption per capita.
*, ** and *** represent significance levels at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. Standard errors are in parenthesis.

13
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 9
Non-linear ARDL Estimates for CO2 per capita.
Variable Algeria Angola Egypt Gabon Nigeria

Long-run
CO2PC(-1) 0.08 (0.18) 0.05 (0.15) 0.53 (0.25)*** 0.08 (0.14) 0.57 (0.12)*
GAS 0.07 (0.06) – – – –
PET 0.09 (0.11) – – – –
GAS- – 0.04 (0.02)** 0.18 (0.14) 1.06 (0.26)* 0.60 (0.32)***
GASþ – 0.05 (0.02)* 0.19 (0.14) 1.07 (0.26)* 0.38 (0.2859)
PET- – 0.40 (0.05)* 0.10 (0.57) 0.21 (0.16) 6.5506 (1.8322)
PETþ – 0.39 (0.05)* 0.06 (0.55) 0.16 (0.15) 6.34 (1.56)*
GDPC 5.83 (11.80) 0.57 (0.20)** 0.75 (0.86) 183.45 (43.48)* 92.45 (35.16)*
GDPC2 0.39 (0.72) 0.05 (0.01)* 0.08 (0.05) 9.88 (2.32)* 6.44 (2.42)*
FD – – – 0.03 (0.09) –
TO 0.02 (0.05) – – – 0.43 (0.36)
CINT 0.64 (0.08)* 0.63 (0.12)* 1.34 (0.54)** –
URB 1.38 (0.18)* 0.22 (0.11)*** – – –
GASSB 0.01 (0.06) 0.16(0.08)*** 0.06 (0.09) 1.34 (0.19)* 0.15 (0.37)
PETSB 0.12 (0.07)* 0.31 (0.08)* 0.12 (0.09) 0.10 (-0.11) –
C 27.36 (49.15) – – 852.91 (203.43)* 291.53 (122.25)**
TREND – – – – 0.04 (0.02)***
L G 0.24 0.06** 0.03 13.08* 1.05*
L þG 0.24 0.01* 0.03 13.23* 0.67
L_P 0.94 1.34* 1.14 2.64 11.49
L þP 0.91 1.22* 1.16 1.98 11.12*
Short-run
GAS 0.07 (0.06) – – – –
PET 0.08 (0.11) – – – –
GAS- – 0.05 (0.02)* 0.16 (0.12) 0.29 (0.08)** 0.10 (0.11)
GAS (-1) – 0.01 (.0.001)* 0.17 (0.07)** 0.18 (0.08)*** –
GASþ – 0.05 (0.01)* 0.16 (0.12) 0.31 (0.08)** 0.15 (0.11)
GASþ(-1) – – 0.17 (0.07)** 0.17 (0.08)*** –
PET- – 0.002 (0.05) 0.10 (0.44) 1.08 (0.23)* 1.50 (0.42)*
PET (-1) – 0.10 (0.05)*** 0.53 (0.27)*** 0.34 (0.14)*** –
PETþ – 0.01 (0.05) 0.09 (0.44) 1.06 (0.23)* 1.44 (0.41)*
PETþ(-1) – 0.09 (0.05)*** 0.54 (0.27)*** 0.35 (0.14)*** –
GDPC 53.72 (23.88)** 0.64 (0.19)* 0.41 (0.45) 151.82 (54.55)** 39.37 (13.14)*
GDPC(-1) – – 0.87 (0.46)*** 399.87 (79.86)* –
GDPC2 3.28 (1.46)** 0.04 (0.01)* 0.04 (0.04) 8.22 (2.94)** 2.78 (0.90)*
GDPC2(-1) – – – 21.54 (4.31)* –
URB – 0.21 (0.10)*** – – –
TO 0.02 (0.05) – – – 0.48 (0.11)*
FD – – – 0.06 (0.07) –
FD (-1) – – – 0.05 (0.08) –
CINT 0.77 (0.06)* 0.87 (0.04)* 0.88 (0.13)* – –
CINT (-1) – 0.11 (0.03)* 0.19 (0.11) – –
GASSB 0.01 (0.06) 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.05) 0.28 (0.10)** 0.23 (0.15)
GASSB(-1) – 0.15 (0.05)* 0.12 (0.05)** 0.61 (0.14)*
PETSB 0.12 (0.07)*** 0.04 (0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.16 (0.09) 0.06 (0.21)
PETSB(-1) – 0.07 (0.03)** – 0.45 (0.15)**
TREND 1.27 (0.35)* – – – 0.02 (0.01)
ECM(-1) 0.92 (0.18)* 0.95 (0.15)* 0.47 (0.25)*** 0.92 (0.1441)* 0.43 (0.12)*
R-Square 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96
Adj. R-Square 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.91
AIC 4.10 5.98 4.65 4.08 1.68
SIC 3.57 4.89 3.56 2.77 0.78
WLG 0.05 0.008 0.21 0.34 18.25*
WSG 0.75 3.15*** 1.33 0.83 53.70*
WLP 0.004 0.12 2.43 0.40 11.65*
WSP 1.14 8.31* 8.13* 11.11** 14.57*
JB 0.72 0.63 0.79 4.95*** 0.54
BG 0.97 0.56 2.05 (1) 2.37 2.52
ARCH 2.25 1.08 0.95 1.45 0.60
R-RESET 0.25 1.61 0.001 1.04 0.63

Note: BG ¼ Breusch–Godfrey serial correlation LM test; Ramsey ¼ Ramsey RESET test: ARCH ¼ Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity test; JB ¼ Jacque Bera;
AIC ¼ Akaike info criterion; SIC ¼ Schwarz criterion; WLG ¼ Wald test of long-run symmetry for natural gas consumption per capita; WSG ¼ Wald test of short-run
symmetry for natural gas consumption per capita; WLP ¼ Wald test of long-run symmetry for petroleum consumption per capita; WSP ¼ Wald test of short-run
symmetry for petroleum consumption per capita; L G ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric negative change in natural gas consumption per capita; LþG ¼ long-run
coefficient of asymmetric positive change in natural gas consumption per capita; L P ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric negative change in petroleum consumption
per capita; LþG ¼ long-run coefficient of asymmetric positive change in petroleum consumption per capita. *, ** and *** represent significance levels at 1%, 5% and
10% respectively. Standard errors are in parenthesis.

14
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

Table 10
Summary of non-linear ARDL estimates.
Country Dependent Variable: GDPPC Dependent Variable: CO2PC

Long-run Short-run Long-run Short-run

Negative Shock Positive Shock Negative Shock Positive Shock Negative Shock Positive Shock Negative Shock Positive Shock

Effect of Natural Gas Consumption per Capita

Algeria No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect – þ
Angola No effect No effect – – þ – þ þ
Egypt No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect
Gabon þ þ No effect No effect þ – þ –
Nigeria No effect No effect – – – No effect No effect No effect
Effect of Petroleum Consumption per Capita
Algeria No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect
Angola þ þ þ þ þ þ No effect No effect
Egypt þ þ No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect
Gabon No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect – –
Nigeria – – No effect No effect No effect – – –

Source: Computed from Earlier Tables Note: þ indicates positive effect; - indicates negative effect

findings are discovered for natural gas consumption per capita in retarded growth but reduced emission. In Gabon, increase in the con­
Algeria, although the impact of petroleum consumption per capita is sumption of the non-renewable energy promoted growth and enhanced
insignificant on both GDP per capita and carbon emission per capita. environmental quality. In Egypt, the consumption of these energy types
Also, natural gas consumption per capita did not influence economic did not produce any significant effect on environmental pollution as it
growth and carbon emission per capita significantly in Egypt and contributed to economic growth. In Angola, while positive change in the
Nigeria (short-run). In general, positive and negative changes in natural non-renewable energy consumption improved economic growth, the
gas consumption per capita and petroleum consumption per capita effect on carbon emission is mixed, depending on the energy type and
influenced economic growth and carbon emission per capita differently time horizon. The effect of negative change in petroleum and natural gas
across the selected countries both in the short-run and the long-run. consumption is similar to those observed for positive change, especially
Thus, as primary inputs are being complemented by petroleum and in Egypt and Nigeria.
natural gas, changes in the consumption of these energy types have In the use of energy resources towards economic growth, results
implications (enhance or retard) for economic growth. Also, increasing revealed that their effects on carbon emission largely vary from country
the use of these non-renewable energy types may reduce or trigger CO2 to country. Thus, reducing carbon emission in the face of rising con­
emissions among top oil producing economies in Africa. Thus, achieving sumption of these energy resources is premised on the use of carbon-
higher growth and reducing CO2 emission is conditioned on the adop­ reducing techniques. This implies that, while focussing on economic
tion of carbon-reducing (if non-renewable energy consumption must be growth, it is important for oil producing countries in Africa not to ignore
increased) techniques of production across major economic activities as the associated environmental pollution arising from carbon emissions.
indicated by the positive impact of carbon intensity of energy on carbon It is therefore imperative for policymakers in oil producing econo­
emission per capita across the countries. mies in Africa to explore avenues to invest in, and promote, carbon-
reducing and energy-saving technology in production processes in
5. Summary, conclusion and policy implication their quest for economic growth if they must continue to increase the
consumption of their abundant resources-petroleum and natural gas.
This study investigated the impact of per capita petroleum and nat­ Reward and sanction mechanisms should be designed to facilitate
ural gas consumption on economic growth and carbon emissions per compliance with environmental regulations.
capita among top oil producing economies in Africa during 1980–2015.8
Accounting for non-linearity and structural break in unit root and Acknowledgement
cointegration analysis, the paper adopted non-linear autoregressive
distributed lag (NARDL) method for comparative analysis of these This study recieved no funding from any source. We sincerely thank
countries (Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Gabon and Nigeria). colleagues at the 6th Africalics Academy, Morocco and the 13th
Generally, the study found that per capita consumption of both pe­ Globelics Academy, South Africa for the informal discussions on the
troleum and natural gas consumption had asymmetric effect on eco­ initial manuscript. The useful comments and suggestions of the anony­
nomic growth and carbon emission per capita in all the selected mous reviewers are highly appreciated.
countries except Algeria. Thus, response of economic growth and carbon
emissions to positive and negative changes in the consumption of either Appendix
of these energy types could be positive, negative or insignificant across
the top oil producers in Africa. In the particular case of Nigeria, findings
suggest that positive change in the non-renewable energy consumption A. Stability Diagnostics for GDP per Capita Models

8
The period 2016–2019 was not considered due to data availability issues
across all the selected countries.

15
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

16
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

B. Stability Diagnostics for CO2 per Capita Models

17
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

References [29] M. Aydin, Renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption–economic

growth nexus: evidence from OECD countries, Renew. Energy (2019), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.008, 2019.
[1] M. Shahbaz, Q.M.A. Hye, A.K. Tiwari, N.C. Leit~ ao, Economic growth, energy
[30] M. Luqman, N. Ahmad, K. Bakhsh, Nuclear energy, renewable energy and
consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in
economic growth in Pakistan: evidence from Non-linear autoregressive distributed
Indonesia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25 (2013) 109–121.
lag model, Renew. Energy (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.008,
[2] O.B. Awodumi, A.M. Adeleke, Non-renewable energy and macroeconomic
2019.
efficiencyof seven major oil producing economies in Africa, Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ.
[31] T.L. Afonso, A.C. Marques, J.A. Fuinhas, Strategies to make renewable energy
Bus. 19 (1) (2016) 59–74.
sources compatible with economic growth, Energy Strat. Rev. 18 (2017) 121–126,
[3] C. Lee, C. Chang, Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian economies: a
2017.
more comprehensive analysis using panel data, Resour. Energy Econ. 3 (2008)
[32] G. Tuna, V.E. Tuna, The asymmetric causal relationship between renewable and
50–65.
Non- renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the ASEAN-5
[4] M. Shahbaz, A.K. Tiwari, M. Nasir, The effects of financial development, economic
countries, Resour. Policy 62 (2019) 114–124, 2019.
growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa,
[33] C.T. Tugcu, M. Topcu, Total, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption
Energy Policy 61 (2013) 1452–1459.
and economic growth: revisiting the issue with an asymmetric point of view,
[5] I. Hanif, Impact of fossil fuels energy consumption, energy policies, and urban
Energy 152 (2018) 64–74, 2018.
sprawl on carbon emissions in East Asia and the Pacific: a panel investigation,
[34] M.A. Destek, A. Aslan, Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and
Energy Strat. Rev. 21 (2018) 16–24, 2018.
economic growth in emerging economies: evidence from bootstrap panel causality,
[6] C. Caraiani, C.I. Lungu, C. Dasc� alu, Energy consumption and GDP causality: a
Renew. Energy (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.008, 2017.
three-step analysis for emerging European countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
[35] A. Alper, O. Oguz, The role of renewable energy consumption in economic growth:
44 (2015) 198–210, 2015.
evidence from asymmetric causality, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016)
[7] A.O. Adewuyi, O.B. Awodumi, Renewable and non-renewable energy-growth
953–959, 2016.
emissions linkages: review of emerging trends with policy implications, Renew.
[36] E. Dogan, Analyzing the linkage between renewable and non-renewable energy
Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 (2017) (2017) 275–291.
consumption and economic growth by considering structural break in time-series
[8] S. Hossain, Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic
data, Renew. Energy 99 (2016) 1126–1136, 2016.
growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries, Energy
[37] S. Adams, E.K.M. Klobodu, A. Apio, Renewable and non-renewable energy, regime
Policy 39 (2011) 6991–6999.
type and economic growth, Renew. Energy 125 (2018) 755–767, 2018.
[9] A. Jalil, M. Feridun, The impact of growth, energy and financial development on
[38] M. Kahia, M.S.B. Aïssa, C. Lanouar, Impact of renewable and non-renewable energy
the environment in China: a cointegration analysis, Energy Econ. 33 (2011)
consumption on economic growth: new evidence from the MENA Net Oil Exporting
284–291.
Countries (NOECs), Energy 116 (2016) 102–115, 2016.
[10] K. Jayanthakumaran, R. Verma, Y. Liu, CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade
[39] M. Kahia, M.S.B. Aïssa, C. Lanouar, Renewable and non-renewable energy use-
and income: a comparative analysis of China and India, Energy Policy 42 (2012)
economic growth nexus: the case of MENA Net Oil Importing Countries, Renew.
450–460.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 71 (2017) (2017) 127–140.
[11] I. Ozturk, A. Acaravci, The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth,
[40] Y. Sun-Park, S. Yoo, The dynamics of oil consumption and economic growth in
openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey, Energy Econ.
Malaysia, Energy Policy 66 (2014) (2014) 218–223.
36 (2013) 262–267.
[41] M.E. Bildirici, T. Bakirtas, The relationship among oil, natural gas and coal
[12] A. Acaravci, I. Ozturk, On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2
consumption and economic growth in BRICTS (Brazil, Russian, India, China,
emissions and economic growth in Europe, Energy 35 (2010) 5412–5420.
Turkey and South Africa) countries, Energy 65 (2014) 134–144, 2014.
[13] I. Hanif, B. Aziz, I.S. Chaudhry, Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable
[42] Lei Y., Li L. and Pan D. (2014). Study on the relationships between coal
and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia, Renew. Energy 143
consumption and economic growth of the six biggest coal consumption countries:
(2019) (2019) 586–595.
with coal price as a third variable. Energy Procedia 61 (2014) 624 – 634.
[14] H.A.D. Hdom, Examining carbon dioxide emissions, fossil & renewable electricity
[43] H. Bloch, S. Rafiq, R. Salim, Economic growth with coal, oil and renewable energy
generation and economic growth: evidence from a panel of South American
consumption in China: prospects for fuel substitution, Econ. Modell. 44 (2015)
countries, Renew. Energy (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.062.
104–115, 2015.
[15] A.A. Alola, V. Bekun F, S.A. Sarkodie, Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic
[44] M. Bhattacharya, S. Rafiq, S. Bhattacharya, The role of technology on the dynamics
growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on
of coal consumption–economic growth: new evidence from China, Appl. Energy
ecological footprint in Europe, Sci. Total Environ. 685 (2019) (2019) 702–709.
154 (2015) (2015) 686–695.
[16] Y. Chen, J. Zhao, Z. Lai, Z. Wang, H. Xia, Exploring the effects of economic growth,
[45] K. Ito, CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and
and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on China’s CO2 emissions:
economic growth: evidence from panel data for developing countries, Int. Econ.
evidence from a regional panel analysis, Renew. Energy (2019), https://doi.org/
(2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.02.001.
10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.058, 2019.
[46] I.A. Mensah, M. Sun, C. Gao, A.Y. Omari-Sasu, D. Zhu, B.C. Ampimah, A. Quarcoo,
[17] F. B�elaïd, M. Youssef, Environmental degradation, renewable and non renewable
Analysis on the nexus of economic growth, fossil fuel energy consumption, CO2
electricity consumption, and economic growth: assessing the evidence from
emissions and oil price in Africa based on a PMG panel ARDL approach, J. Clean.
Algeria, Energy Policy 102 (2017) (2017) 277–287.
Prod. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.281, 2019.
[18] B.S. Warr, R.U. Ayres, Evidence of causality between the quantity and quality of
[47] S.H. Kang, F. Islam, A.K. Tiwari, The dynamic relationships among CO2 emissions,
energy consumption and economic growth, Energy 35 (2010) 1688–1693.
renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and economic growth in India:
[19] N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, The causal dynamics between coal consumption and
evidence from time varying Bayesian VAR model, Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn.
growth: evidence from emerging market economies, Appl. Energy 87 (2010)
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.05.006, 2019.
1972–1977.
[48] S.S. Akadiri, A.A. Alola, A.C. Akadiri, U.V. Alola, Renewable energy consumption
[20] H. Pao, C. Tsai, Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy
in EU-28 countries: policy toward pollution mitigation and economic
consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product):
sustainability, Energy Policy 132 (2019) 803–810, 2019.
evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China)
[49] P. Boontome, A. Therdyothin, J. Chontanawat, Investigating the causal
countries, Energy 36 (2011) 685–693.
relationship between non-renewable and renewable energy consumption, CO2
[21] Y. Fang, Economic welfare impacts from renewable energy consumption: the China
emissions and economic growth in Thailand, Energy Procedia 138 (2017) (2017)
experience, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 5120–5128.
925–930.
[22] I. Ozturk, A. Acaravci, Electricity consumption and real GDP causality nexus:
[50] A.O. Adewuyi, O.B. Awodumi, Biomass energy consumption, economic growth and
evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach for 11 MENA countries, Appl. Energy
carbon emissions: fresh evidence from West Africa using a simultaneous equation
88 (2011) 2885–2892.
model, Energy 119 (2017) 453–471.
[23] N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, Renewable and non-renewable electricity
[51] X. Ma, C. Wang, B. Dong, G. Gu, R. Chen, Y. Li, H. Zou, W. Zhang, Q. Li, Carbon
consumption–growth nexus: evidence from emerging market economies, Appl.
emissions from energy consumption in China: its measurement and driving factors,
Energy 88 (2011) 5226–5230.
Sci. Total Environ. 648 (2019) 1411–1420, 2019.
[24] N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, The renewable energy consumption–growth nexus in
[52] C. Wang, X. Zhang, P. Ghadimi, Q. Liu, M.K. Lim, H.E. Stanley, The impact of
Central America, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 343–347.
regional financial development on economic growth in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei
[25] U. Al-Mulali, G.H. Fereidouni, J.Y.M. Lee, Electricity consumption from renewable
region: a spatial econometric Analysis, Physica A (2019) (2019), https://doi.org/
and non-renewable sources and economic growth: evidence from Latin American
10.1016/j.physa.2019.01.103.
countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 290–298.
[53] F. Yang, The impact of financial development on economic growth in middle-
[26] I. Ozturk, F. Bilgili, Economic growth and biomass consumption nexus: dynamic
income countries, J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money (2018), https://doi.org/
panel analysis for Sub-Sahara African countries, Appl. Energy 137 (2015) 110–116.
10.1016/j.intfin.2018.11.008, 2018.
[27] S.F. Razmi, B. Ramezanian, M. Behname, T.E. Salari, S.M.J. Razmi, The
[54] J. Botev, F. Jawadi, The nonlinear relationship between economic growth and
relationship of renewable energy consumption to stock market development and
financial development: evidence from developing, emerging and advanced
economic growth in Iran, Renew. Energy (2019) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/
economies, Int. Econ. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2019.06.004,
j.renene.2019.06.166.
2019.
[28] B. Ozcan, I. Ozturk, Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in
[55] J. Wu, H. Hou, S. Cheng, The dynamic impacts of financial institutions on
emerging countries: a bootstrap panel causality test, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
economic growth: evidence from the European Union, J. Macroecon. 32 (2010)
104 (2019) 30–37, 2019.
(2018) 879–891.

18
O.B. Awodumi and A.O. Adewuyi Energy Strategy Reviews 27 (2020) 100434

[56] Y. Hao, L. Wang, C. Lee, Financial Development, Energy Consumption and China’s [61] M.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, R.J. Smith, Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of
Economic Growth: New Evidence from Provincial Panel Data, International Review level relationships, J. Appl. Econom. 16 (2001) 289–326.
of Economics and Finance, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.12.006. [62] Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin, Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity
[57] D. Asteriou, K. Spannos, The relationship between financial development and against the alternation of a unit root, J. Econom. 54 (1992) 159–178.
economic growth during the recent crisis: evidence from the EU, Financ. Res. Lett. [63] G. Kapetanios, Y. Shin, A. Snell, Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR
(2018) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.05.011. framework, J. Econom. 112 (2003) 359–379, 2003.
[58] B.C. Beaudreau, Engineering and economic growth, Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 16 [64] Y. Lihong, W. andJingyuan, The effects of energy production on environment in
(2005) 211–220. China, Energy Procedia 5 (2011) (2011) 779–784.
[59] D.I. Stern, Multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the U.S. [65] Y. Wolde-Rufael, Coal consumption and economic growth revisited, Appl. Energy
macro-economy, Energy Econ. 22 (2000) 267–283. 87 (2010) 160–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.05.001.
[60] K. Menyah, Y. Wolde-Rufeal, Energy consumption, pollutants emissions and
economic growth in South Africa, Energy Consum. 32 (2010) 1374–1382.

19