The impact of globalization on ecological footprint: empirical evidence from the South Asian countries

被引:0
|
作者
Samina Sabir
Muhammed Sehid Gorus
机构
[1] University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir,Kashmir Institute of Economics
[2] Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University,Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Economics
[3] Esenboga Campus,undefined
[4] Cubuk,undefined
关键词
Globalization; Technology; Environmental degradation; Ecological footprints; 033; 044; Q53; Q55;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study aims to investigate the effect of economic globalization and technological changes on the environmental degradation of the South Asian countries over the time span of 1975–2017. Westerlund (Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69:709–748, 2007) cointegration test is employed to estimate the presence of long-run relationship between globalization, technological changes, and environmental degradation. To determine the validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, this study employs panel autoregressive distributional lag (ARDL) model. Empirical findings of this study yield the inverted U-shaped association between globalization, technological changes, and environmental degradation which validate that EKC holds in the South Asian countries. The results indicate that the measures of globalization such as FDI, trade openness, and KOF index have positive and statistically significant effect on ecological footprint. However, technological changes measured as patents registered by residents have an insignificant impact on environmental quality. This study infers that the globalization has increased environmental degradation through unsustainable economic development in South Asian countries. These countries should shift to renewable energy resources to protect the environment and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
引用
收藏
页码:33387 / 33398
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Assessing the asymmetric impact of physical infrastructure and trade openness on ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from Pakistan
    Zahra, Samia
    Khan, Dilawar
    Gupta, Rakesh
    Popp, Jozsef
    Olah, Judit
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (05):
  • [42] Assessing the asymmetric impact of physical infrastructure and trade openness on ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from Pakistan
    Zahra, Samia
    Khan, Dilawar
    Gupta, Rakesh
    Popp, Jozsef
    Olah, Judit
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (07):
  • [43] Impact of the circular economy on ecological footprint: evidence from Germany
    Musa, Kazi
    Tufail, Saira
    Erum, Naila
    Said, Jamaliah
    Mustaffa, Abd Hadi
    [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024, 31 (44) : 56067 - 56078
  • [44] Impacts of globalization on the informal sector: Empirical evidence from developing countries
    Thi Hong Hanh Pham
    [J]. ECONOMIC MODELLING, 2017, 62 : 207 - 218
  • [45] The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: do convergence clubs matter?
    Apaydin, Sukru
    Ursavas, Ugur
    Koc, Umit
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2021, 28 (38) : 53379 - 53393
  • [46] Labor market deregulation and globalization: empirical evidence from OECD countries
    Potrafke, Niklas
    [J]. REVIEW OF WORLD ECONOMICS, 2010, 146 (03) : 545 - 571
  • [47] Labor market deregulation and globalization: empirical evidence from OECD countries
    Niklas Potrafke
    [J]. Review of World Economics, 2010, 146 : 545 - 571
  • [48] The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: do convergence clubs matter?
    Şükrü Apaydin
    Uğur Ursavaş
    Ümit Koç
    [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28 : 53379 - 53393
  • [49] Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach
    Dervis Kirikkaleli
    Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo
    Zeeshan Khan
    Shahid Ali
    [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28 : 14009 - 14017
  • [50] Analysis of the impact of information communication technology on economic growth: empirical evidence from Asian countries
    Kurniawati, Meta Ayu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ASIAN BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2022, 29 (01): : 2 - 18