• Energy Research
• 1. No poverty close

This document includes dataset used in the paper "Sectoral Convergence in Energy Consumption from Developing Country Perspective: The Case of Turkey". Data transformation process includes three steps. All these steps can be found in our data file.

{"references": ["", "Agnolucci, P., Barker, T., Ekins, P. (2004). Hysteresis and energy\ndemand: The announcement effects and the effects of the UK climate\nchange levy. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working\nPaper no: 51, June 2004, UK.", "Apergis, N. and Payne J. (2010). The Renewable Energy Consumption-\nGrowth nexus in Central America, Applied Energy, 88, 343-347.", "Bai, J. and Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and\ncointegration, Econometrica, 72, 1127-1177.", "Becker, R., Enders, W., and Lee, J. (2004). A general test for time\ndependence in parameters, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19, 899-\n906.", "Breuer, J.B., McNown, R., Wallace, M.S. (2001). Misleading inferences\nfrom panel unit-root tests with an illustration from purchasing power\nparity, Review of International Economics, 9, 482-493.", "Breuer, J. B., McNown, R., and Wallace, M.S. (2002). Series-specific\nunit-root tests with panel data, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and\nStatistics, 64, 527-546.", "Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Del Barrio-Castro, T., Lopez-Bazo, E. (2005).\nBreaking the panels: An application to GDP per capita, Econometrics\nJournal, 8, 159-175.", "Chen, P. F., and Lee, C.C. (2007). Is energy consumption per capita\nbroken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels, Energy\nPolicy, 35 (6), 3526-354.", "Choi, I. (2002). Combination unit root tests for cross-sectionally\ncorrelated Panels, mimeo, Hong Kong University of Science and\nTechnology.\n[10] Chortareas, G. and Kapetanios, G. (2009). Getting PPP right:\nIdentifying mean-reverting real exchange rates in panels, Journal of\nBanking and Finance, 33, 390-404.\n[11] Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistic for\nAutoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Econometrica, 49(4),\n1057-1072.\n[12] Enders, W. and Lee, J. (2011). A unit root test using a Fourier series to\napproximate smooth breaks, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and\nStatistics, 0305-9049 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x.\n[13] Gabreyohannes, E. (2010). A nonlinear approach to modeling the\nresidential electricity consumption in Ethiopia, Energy Economics, 32,\n515-523.\n[14] Gallant, R. (1981). On the basis in flexible functional form and an\nessentially unbiased form: The flexible Fourier form. Journal of\nEconometrics, 15:211-353.\n[15] Granger, C. W. J., and Terasvirta, T. (1993). Modelling Nonlinear\nEconomic Relationships, Advanced Texts in Econometrics, Oxford\nUniversity Press, New York.\n[16] Hamilton, J. D. (2003). What is an oil shock? Journal of Econometrics,\n113, 363-398.\n[17] Hasanvov, M and Telatar, E. (2011). A re-examination of stationarity of\nenergy consumption: Evidence from new unit root tests, Energy Policy,\n39, 7726-7738.\n[18] Huang, B. N., Hwang, M. J., and Yang, C. W. (2008). Does more\nenergy consumption bolster economic growth? An application of the\nnonlinear threshold regression model, Energy Policy, 36, 755-767.\n[19] Hsu, Y.C., Lee, C.C., and Lee, C.C. (2008). Revisited: Are shocks to\nenergy consumption permanent or stationary? New evidence from a\npanel SURADF approach, Energy Economics, 30, 2314-2330.\n[20] Im, K.-S., Pesaran, H., and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in\nheterogeneous panels, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.\n[21] Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., and Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in\nthe nonlinear STAR framework, Journal of Econometrics, 112, 359-379.\n[22] Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P., Schmidt, P., and Shin, Y (1992). Testing\nthe null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root:\nHow sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of\nEconometrics, 54, 159-178.\n[23] Lee, C. C., (2005). Energy consumption and GDP in developing\ncountries: A cointegrated panel analysis, Energy Economics, 27, 415-\n427.\n[24] Levin, A., Lin, C. F. and Chu, C.-S. (2002). Unit root in panel data:\nasymptotic and finite-sample properties, Journal of Econometrics, 108,\n1-24.\n[25] Lundbergh, S., Terasvirta, T., and van Dijk, D. (2003). Time-varying\nsmooth transition autoregressive models, Journal of Business and\nEconomic Statistics, 21, 104-121.\n[26] Maddala, G. S. and Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root\ntests with panel data and a new simple test, Oxford Bulletin of\nEconomics and Statistics. Special Issue, 631-652.\n[27] Mishra, R., Sharma, S., and Smyth, R. (2009). Are fluctuations in\nenergy consumption per capita transitory? Evidence from a panel of\nPacific Island countries, Energy Policy, 37, 2318-2326.\n[28] Moon, R. and Perron, B. (2004). Testing for a unit root in panels with\ndynamic factors, Journal of Econometrics, 122, 81-126.\n[29] Narayan, P. K., and Smyth, R. (2007). Are shocks to energy\nconsumption permanent or temporary? Evidence from 182 countries,\nEnergy Policy, 35(1), 333-341.\n[30] Nelson, C. and Plosser, C. (1982). Trends and random walks in\nmacroeconomic time Series, Journal of Monetary Economics, 10, 139-\n162.\n[31] Newey, W., and West, K. (1994). Automatic lag selection in covariance\nmatrix estimation, Review of Economic Studies, 61, 631-653.\n[32] O'Connell, P. G. J. (1998). The overvaluation of purchasing power\nparity, Journal of International Economics, 44, 1-20.\n[33] Ozturk, I. (2010). A literature survey on energy-growth nexus, Energy\nPolicy, 38, 340-349.\n[34] Pascalau, R. (2010). Unit root tests with smooth breaks: An application\nto the Nelson-Plosser data set, Applied Economics Letters, 17, 565-570.\n[35] Payne, J. E. 2010. Survey of the international evidence on the causal\nrelationship between energy consumption and growth, Journal of\nEconomic Studies, 37(1), 53-95.\n[36] Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root\nhypothesis, Econometrica, 57, 1361-1401.\n[37] Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of\ncross-section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-\n312.\n[38] Phillips, P. C. B. and P. Perron (1988). Testing for a unit root in time\nseries regression, Biometrika, 75, 335-346.\n[39] Sollis, R. (2004). Asymmetric adjustment and smooth transitions: A\ncombination of some unit root tests, Journal of Time Series Analysis,\n25, 409-417.\n[40] Soytas, U. and Sari, R. (2003). Energy consumption and GDP: Causality\nrelationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets, Energy Economics,\n25, 33-37.\n[41] Taylor, M. and Sarno, L. (1998). The behavior of real exchanges rates\nduring the post-Bretton Woods period, Journal of International\nEconomics, 46, 281-312.\n[42] Taylor, A. M. and Taylor, M. P. (2004). The purchasing power parity\ndebate, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 135-158.\n[43] Telatar, E., and Hasanov, M. (2009). Purchasing Power Parity in\ntransition economies: Evidence from the Common wealth of\nIndependent States, Post-Communist Economies, 21, 157-173.\n[44] Ucar, N. and Omay, T. (2009). Testing for unit root in nonlinear\nheterogeneous panels, Economics Letters, 104, 5-8."]} This study applies the sequential panel selection method (SPSM) procedure proposed by Chortareas and Kapetanios (2009) to investigate the time-series properties of energy consumption in 50 US states from 1963 to 2009. SPSM involves the classification of the entire panel into a group of stationary series and a group of non-stationary series to identify how many and which series in the panel are stationary processes. Empirical results obtained through SPSM with the panel KSS unit root test developed by Ucar and Omay (2009) combined with a Fourier function indicate that energy consumption in all the 50 US states are stationary. The results of this study have important policy implications for the 50 US states.

Social and affordable rented housing is a significant housing sector across Europe. In the UK, the sector accounts for one in six homes, and houses some of the most vulnerable members of society in terms of health, income, and disability. Social housing is relatively advanced compared to other UK tenures in implementing low-carbon retrofit measures, such as solid wall insulation and draught proofing. However, such measures can increase the likelihood of summer overheating, which can lead to a range of negative health impacts, including increased mortality. Due to their vulnerability, many social housing tenants are less able to adapt to and manage overheating at home. This paper uses the case study of social housing managed by a UK local authority in a city in the English Midlands to identify factors linked to low-carbon retrofit which may increase overheating risks, and mitigation strategies that could be adopted by social landlords to manage them. Based on engagement with the local authority, the paper highlights a range of dwelling-specific overheating risk factors including aspect, built form, glazed area and available control measures within a home such as shutters and operable windows. Low-carbon retrofit is identified as frequently increasing overheating risks through reducing heat loss and increasing air tightness. The mitigation measures identified are predominantly behavioural, such as appropriate use of windows for ventilation and time-shifting heat-emitting appliance use. Low-cost technical measures, such as window tinting and solar shading, are also put forward. Through engagement with the case study local authority, potential practical steps for implementing these approaches are put forward which build upon existing processes for retrofit, housing management and tenant support. These include new communication resources using methods currently employed for addressing energy poverty, and overheating risk assessment procedures.

Achieving the sustainable development goals (SDG) agenda, proposed by the United Nations by 2030, has become the main concern around the globe. The continuing ecological crises and energy sustainability issues can only be dealt with using sustainable solutions such as green finance. Green finance has become a pioneer in economic green transformation resulting in the collective development of both the economy and the environment. Therefore, this study aims to examine the influence of green finance on the achievement of the five major sustainable development goals in the context of the economy of Pakistan. The renewable energy scheme proposed by the State Bank of Pakistan in 2016 serves as a basis for this study. We innovate our research by studying the impact of green finance on five SDGs simultaneously. The association between the variables is checked using random effect modeling. The findings reveal that green finance supports SDG 3, 12, and 13 while having little effect on SDG 1 and SDG 2. Moreover, green finance is a suitable reform for the sustainable development of the economy and the environment. The study has robust policy implications for Pakistan.

Abstract This paper examines the long-run relationship between energy consumption and real GDP, including energy prices, for 25 OECD countries from 1981 to 2007. The distinction between common factors and idiosyncratic components using principal component analysis allows to distinguish between developments on an international and a national level as drivers of the long-run relationship. Indeed, cointegration between the common components of the underlying variables indicates that international developments dominate the long-run relationship between energy consumption and real GDP. Furthermore, the results suggest that energy consumption is price-inelastic. Causality tests indicate the presence of a bi-directional causal relationship between energy consumption and economic growth.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the short-run and long-run causality between renewable energy (RE) consumption and economic growth (EG) in nine OECD countries from the period between 1982 and 2011. To examine the linkage, this paper uses the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach of cointegration test and vector error-correction models to test the causal relationship between variables. The co-integration and causal relationships are found in five countries—United States of America (USA), Japan, Germany, Italy, and United Kingdom (UK). The overall results indicate that (1) a short-run unidirectional causality runs from EG to RE in Italy and UK; (2) long-run unidirectional causalities run from RE to EG for Germany, Italy, and UK; (3) a long-run unidirectional causality runs from EG to RE in USA, and Japan; (4) both long-run and strong unidirectional causalities run from RE to EG for Germany and UK; and (5) Finally, both long-run and strong unidirectional causalities run from EG to RE in only USA. Further evidence reveals that policies for renewable energy conservation may have no impact on economic growth in France, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain.

This paper examines the causal relationship between real GDP and energy consumption for 23 OECD countries from 1971 to 2009. Using recently developed panel econometric techniques the present paper takes into account structural breaks and cross-section dependence when analyzing the energy consumption-growth nexus. The empirical results of this study indicate that there exists a long-run equilibrium relationship between real GDP and energy consumption, and the impact of real GDP on energy consumption is larger than vice versa. Furthermore, the empirical evidence of a dynamic panel error-correction model reveals a bidirectional causal relationship between economic growth and energy consumption in both the short and long run.

Unique survey data from a contingent valuation study conducted in three different countries (China, Sweden, and the United States) were used to investigate the ordinary citizen’s willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing CO2 emissions. We find that a large majority of the respondents in all three countries believe that the mean global temperature has increased over the last 100 years and that humans are responsible for the increase. A smaller share of Americans, however, believes these statements, when compared to the Chinese and Swedes. A larger share of Americans is also pessimistic and believes that nothing can be done to stop climate change. We also find that Sweden has the highest WTP for reductions of CO2, while China has the lowest. Thus, even though the Swedes and Chinese are similar to each other in their attitudes toward climate change, they differ considerably in their WTP. When WTP is measured as a share of household income, the willingness to pay is the same for Americans and Chinese, while again higher for the Swedes.