Dynamic Common Correlated Effects of Green Innovation Funding and Green Trade on Environmental Quality in OECD Countries
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue Vol. 20 No. 2 (2025)
-
The Spectrum of Sustainability: Why Environmental Sustainability Matters Most
Subhasmita Maharana1-10
-
Navigating the Risks of Generative AI: A Comparative Analysis of International Regulatory Approaches
Huang Xinbo, Liu Guo11-20
-
Towards an Islamic Ecotheology: Indonesian Muslim Organizations in Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Efforts
M. Lutfi Mustofa, M. Fauzan Zenrif, Ahmad Barizi21-31
-
Are Women's Socioeconomic Rights at Risk from Extreme Weather?
Jia Wei, Xiao-Yang Wang, Hua-Tang Yin, Chun-Ping Chang32-50
-
Clustering of European Сountries by Strategies of Digitalization of their Business Environment
Marharyta Chepeliuk, Elena Nirean, Yevheniia Voroniuk51-70
-
Demographic Security and Sustainable Development of Ukraine in the Conditions of Active Migration of the Population
Zinaida Smutchak, Ramin Tsinaridze, Tetiana Burlaienko, Oksana Dubinina71-85
-
Sustainable Urbanization Strategies: Mitigating Urban Heat Islands through Synergy between Economic Choices, Renewable Energy Consumption, and Environmental Interventions
Muhammad Khalid Anser, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, Khalid M. Al-Aiban, Khalid Zaman, Mohamed Haffar86-100
-
Sustainable and Resilient International Agricultural Trade: Global Uncertainty and Regional Reactions
Yuliia Zavadska, Alla Shlapak, Olha Yatsenko, Oleksandr Iatsenko, Mariia Mykhailova, Oleksandr Dluhopolskyi101-113
-
From Waste to Wealth: Leveraging Upcycling to Drive Sustainable E-Waste Management
Fatma Ince114-123
-
Rural Communities Access to Clean Cooking Fuels, Energy and Technologies: Socioeconomic Implications and Progress Toward Sustainable Development
Haitong Jiang, Kingsley Imandojemu, Mohamad Shaharudin bin Samsurijan, Omowumi Omodunni Idowu, Qinyuan Xu124-140
-
The Role of the Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality Policies in the Transformation and Upgrading of the Manufacturing Sector: A Pathway to Green, Low-Carbon, and Sustainable Growth
Hongbing Shen141-155
-
Carbon Footprints, Social Inclusion, and Inequality: Multidimensional Pathways to Sustainable Development Goals
Haihua Zhao, Chuks Kingsley Okogor, Gabriel Osabohien156-177
-
Investigating the Determinants of Ecological, Carbon Footprints and Natural Resources: Evidence from Asia countries
Qiang Wang, Symphorien Zogbassè, Kemi Funlayo Akeju, Oluwayemisi Kajijat Adeleke178-194
-
The Impact of Ecological Footprint, Energy Consumption, and Economic Stability on Happiness: Evidence from BRICS-T Countries
Seher Suluk, Yusuf Ekrem AKBAŞ195-212
-
The The Impact of the Experience Economy on the Sustainable Development Strategy of Companies in the European Union and Great Britain
Olesia Iastremska, Maryna Martynenko, Yevgeniy Goryuk, Hanna Demchenko, Mykyta Budreiko213-222
-
The Effects of Circular Economy, Green Finance, and ICT Developments on Resource Productivity aimed Ecological Sustainability: Evidence from OECD Countries Using a CS-ARDL Approach
Shaomeng Shi, Asad Nisar223-244
-
Mechanisms of Management Adaptation to Sustainable Development Standards under the Condition of Global Changes
Olha Komelina, Svitlana Korobka, Hanna Kondratieva, Oleh Lazor, Oksana Lazor245-254
-
Spatio-temporal Distribution of Influencing Factors of Agricultural Sustainable Development in China
Lei Qian, Dehong Sun Sun, Hui Wang Wang254-269
-
Dynamic Common Correlated Effects of Green Innovation Funding and Green Trade on Environmental Quality in OECD Countries
Ke Xiao, Gang Wang, Hongling Yi, Asad Nisar270-283
-
Chanakya’s Concept of ‘Lokasangraha’ (Welfare of the People) in Global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Puja Mishra, Ashutosh Mishra284-293
Archives
-
Vol. 20 No. 2
2025-09-16 20
-
Vol. 20 No. 1
2025-01-10 22
-
Vol. 19 No. 2
2024-07-01 23
-
Vol. 19 No. 1
2024-01-08 27
-
Vol. 18 No. 2
2023-07-10 25
-
Vol. 18 No. 1
2023-01-01 25
-
Vol. 17 No. 2
2022-07-04 26
-
Vol. 17 No. 1
2022-01-03 28
-
Vol. 16 No. 2
2021-07-01 26
-
Vol. 16 No. 1
2021-01-04 24
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
Abstract
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and carbon neutrality targets presents a critical challenge for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, which account for over 37% of global carbon emissions and have experienced rising ecological degradation over recent decades. While previous research has explored the effects of green innovation and trade on environmental outcomes, these studies overlook the funding dimension of green innovations and fail to isolate eco-friendly goods within trade measures. To address this gap, our study evaluates the dynamic impact of green innovation funding and green trade on environmental quality in OECD countries from 1994 to 2021. Unlike traditional models relying on trade openness indices, we focus specifically on the dynamic common correlated effects (DCCE) estimator to mitigate cross-sectional dependence issues neglected by AMG and MG estimators. Results reveal that public funding for green innovations, in the form of government allocations for research, development, and demonstration, significantly reduces carbon emissions. Additionally, green trade has a substantial negative effect on emissions, promoting environmental sustainability. The robustness of these findings is confirmed through PMG estimation. These findings suggest that policymakers in OECD countries should increase budget allocation for green technology innovations and expand trade volume of environmentally friendly goods and services to foster environmental quality and achieve environmental sustainability goals.
Keywords:
References
1. AHMED Z., ADEBAYO T. S., UDEMBA E. N., MURSHED M., KIRIKKALELI D., 2022, Effects of economic com-plexity, economic growth, and renewable energy technology budgets on ecological footprint: the role of democratic ac-countability, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(17), 24925-24940.
2. AHMED Z., LE H. P., 2020, Linking Information Communication Technology, trade globalization index, and CO2 emis-sions: evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28, 8770-8781, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11205-0.
3. AL MAMUM M., SOHAG K., SHAHBAZ M., HAMMOUDEH S., 2018, Financial markets, innovations and cleaner energy production in OECD countries, Energy Economics 72, 236-254.
4. ALI H. S., ZEQIRAJ V., LIN W. L., LAW S. H., YUSOP Z., BARE U. A. A., CHIN L., 2019, Does quality institutions promote environmental quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26, 10446-10456.
5. ANTWEILER W., COPELAND B. R., TAYLOR M. S., 2001, Is free trade good for the environment? American eco-nomic review 91(4), 877-908.
6. BLACBURNE III, E. F., FRANK M. W., 2007, Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels, The Stata Journal 7(2), 197-208.
7. BUYSSE J., CAN M., GOZGOR G., 2018, Globalisation outcomes and the real output in the subSaharan Africa LICs: a cointegration analysis, Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja 31(1), 338-351.
8. BUYSEE J., CAN M., GOZGOR G., 2018, Globalization outcomes and the real output in the sub-Saharan Africa LICs: a cointegration analysis. Economic Research 31(1), 338-351,
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1426471
9. CAN M., AHMED Z., MERCAN M., KALUGINA O. A., 2021, The role of trading environment-friendly goods in environmental sustainability: Does green openness matter for OECD countries? Journal of Environmental Management 295, 113038.
10. CAN M., GOZGOR G., 2018, Effect of export product diversification on quality upgrading: an empirical study, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 27(3), 293-313,
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2017.1370006.
11. CANTON H., 2021, International energy agency (IEA), The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2021, Routledge, 684-686.
12. CHUDIK A., PEASARAN M. H., 2015, Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors, Journal of Econometrics 188(2), 393-420.
13. CLARO E., LUCAS N., SUGATHAN M., MARCONINI M., LENDRO E., 2007, Trade in Environmental Goods and Services and Sustainable Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies for WTO Negotiations, ICTSD Environ-mental Goods and Services Series, Policy Discussion Paper, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
14. COPELAND B. R., TAYLOR M. S., 2004, Trade, growth, and the environment, Journal of Economic literature 42(1), 7-71.
15. CUTCU I., BEYAZ A., GERLIKHAN S. G., KILIC Y., 2023, Is ecological footprint related to foreign trade? Evidence from the top ten fastest developing countries in the global economy, Journal of cleaner production 413, 137517.
16. DE HOYOS R. E., SARAFIDIS V., 2006, Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models, Stata Journal 6(4), 482-496.
17. DINDA S., 2004, Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey, Ecological economics 49(4), 431-455.
18. DITZEN J., 2016, Estimating dynamic common correlated effects in Stata, SEEC Discussion Papers.
19. DOGAN E., SEKER F., BULBUL S., 2017, Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism, and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries, Current Issues in Tourism 20(16), 1701-1719.
20. DONG K., DONG X., DONG C., 2019, Determinants of the global and regional CO2 emissions: what causes what and where? Applied Economics 51, 5031-5044, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1606410.
21. EUROPA, 2018, 2030 Climate & Energy Framework, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en.
22. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2020, What Is Carbon Neutrality and How Can it Be Achieved by 2050? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190926STO62270/what-is-carbon-neutrality-and-how-can-it-be-achieved-by-2050.
23. FENG Y., HE F., 2020, The effect of environmental information disclosure on environmental quality: Evidence from Chinese cities, Journal of cleaner production 276, 124027.
24. GOZGOR G., CAN M., 2016, Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from Tur-key, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 21594-21603, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7403-9.
25. GROSSMAN G., KRUEGER A.B., 1991, Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3914.html.
26. GRUBLER A., WILSON C., BENTO N., BOZA-KISS B., KREY V., McCOLLUM D. L., RAO N. D., RIAHI K., ROGELJ J., DE STERCKE S., 2018, A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 C target and sustainable devel-opment goals without negative emission technologies, Nature energy 3(6), 515-527.
27. HAO L.-N., UMAR M., KHAN Z., ALI W., 2021, Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is? Science of the Total Environment 752, 141853.
28. HATFIELD-DODDS S., SCHANDL H., ADAMS P. D. et al., 2015, Australia is 'free to choose' economic growth and falling environmental pressures, Nature 527, 49-53, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16065.
29. HU G., CAN M., PARAMATI S. R., DOGAN B., FANG J., 2020, The effect of import product diversification on car-bon emissions: New evidence for sustainable economic policies, Economic Analysis and Policy 65, 198-210.
30. HUNT R. A., FUND B. R., 2016, Intergenerational fairness and the crowding out effects of well-intended environmental policies, Journal of Management Studies 53, 878-910, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12202.
31. IM K. S., PESARAN M. H., SHIN Y., 2003, Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels, Journal of econometrics 115(1), 53-74.
32. IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate), 2014, AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr.
33. JIN C., LV Z., LI Z., SUN K., 2023, Green finance, renewable energy and carbon neutrality in OECD countries, Renewa-ble Energy 211, 279-284.
34. JUODIOS A., KARAVIAS Y., SARAFDIS V., 2021, A homogeneous approach to testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels, Empirical economics 60(1), 93-112.
35. KAPETANIOS G., PEASARAN M. H., YAMAGATA T., 2011, Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures, Journal of Econometrics 160(2), 326-348.
36. KASMAN A., DUMAN Y. S., 2015, CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis, Economic Modelling 44, 97-103,
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.022.
37. LATIF Z., LATIF S., XIMEI L., PANTHAN Z. H., SALAM S., JIANQIU Z., 2018, The dynamics of ICT, foreign direct investment, globalization and economic growth: panel estimation robust to heterogeneity and cross-sectional depend-ence, Telematics and Informatics 35(2), 318-328.
38. LEVIN A., LIN C.-F., CHU C.-S. J., 2002, Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties, Journal of econometrics 108(1), 1-24.
39. LV Z., XU T., 2019, Trade openness, urbanization and CO2 emissions: dynamic panel data analysis of middle-income countries, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 28(3), 317-330,
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1534878.
40. MANAGI S., HIBIKI A., TSURUMI T., 2009, Does trade openness improve environmental quality? Journal of Envi-ronmental Economics and Management 58(3), 346-363.
41. MRABET Z., ALSAMARA M., MIMOUNI K., MNASRI A., 202,. Can human development and political stability improve environmental quality? New evidence from the MENA region, Economic Modelling 94, 28-44, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.09.021.
42. PARAMATI S. R., MO D., HUANG R., 2020, The role of financial deepening and green technology on carbon emis-sions: evidence from major OECD economies, Finance Research Letters,
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101794.
43. PARAMATI S. R., MO D., HUANG R., 2021, The role of financial deepening and green technology on carbon emis-sions: Evidence from major OECD economies, Finance Research Letters 41, 101794.
44. PEDRONI P., 2004, Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an appli-cation to the PPP hypothesis, Econometric theory 20(3), 597-625.
45. PESARAN M. H., 2004, General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, Economics 1240(1), 1.
46. PESARAN M. H., 2006, Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure, Econ-ometrica 74(4), 967-1012.
47. PESARAN M. H., 2007, A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence, Journal of applied econometrics 22(2), 265-312.
48. PESARAN M. H., SHIN Y., SMITH R. J., 1996, Testing for the ‘Existence of a Long-run Relationship’, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
49. PESARAN M. H., SHIN Y., SMITH R. P., 1999, Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels, Journal of the American statistical Association 94(446), 621-634.
50. PESARAN M. H., SMITH R., 1995, Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels, Journal of Econometrics 68(1), 79-113.
51. POPP D., 2019, Environmental policy and innovation: a decade of research, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 13(3-4), 265-337, https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000111.
52. RAFIQUE M. Z., NADEEM A. M., XIA W., IKRAM M., SHOIAB H. M., SHAHZAD U., 2022, Does economic complexity matter for environmental sustainability? Using ecological footprint as an indicator, Environment, Development and Sustainability 24(4), 4623-4640.
53. RENNINGS K., 2000, Redefining innovation - eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics, Ecological economics 32(2), 319-332.
54. SAIDI K., OMRI A., 2020, Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: do renewable and nuclear energy matter? Pro-gress in Nuclear Energy 126, 103425.
55. SHAHBAZ M., NASIR M. A., ROUBAUD D., 2018, Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations, Energy Economics 74, 843-857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.020.
56. SHAHBAZ M., SOLARIN S. A., OZTURK I., 2016, Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globaliza-tion in selected African countries, Ecological Indicators 67, 623-636.
57. SOVACOOL B. K., 2016, How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions, Energy research & social science 13, 202-215.
58. UNITED NATIONS Conference on Trade & Development, 1995, Definitions and classifications regarding green goods, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/td180vol1_en.pdf.
59. UNITED NATIONS Environment, 2011, Materials regarding green economy and sustainable development, https://sdgs.un.org/publications/unep-2011-towards-green-economy-pathways-sustainable-development-and-poverty
60. UNITED NATIONS Environment, 2019, Published materials regarding environmental impact assessments and recom-mendations, https://unece.org/publications/environmental-assessment.
61. UNITED NATIONS, 2017, Framework Convention on Climate Change, https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/recenttexts/unfccc_eng.pdf
62. WANG W.-Z., LIU L.-C., LIAO H., WEI Y.-M., 2021, Impacts of urbanization on carbon emissions: An empirical analy-sis from OECD countries, Energy policy 151, 112171.
63. WUSTENHAGEN R., MENICHETTI E., 2012, Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual frame-work and opportunities for further research, Energy policy 40, 1-10.
64. XAISONGKHAM S., LIU X., 2024, Institutional quality, employment, FDI and environmental degradation in developing countries: Evidence from the balanced panel GMM estimator, International Journal of Emerging Markets 19(7), 1920-1939.
65. YILMAZ F., UYSAL P., 2022, The role of information communication technologies on carbon emissions in OECD countries: new evidence from method of moments quantile approach, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(54), 81396-81417.
66. ZAMAN A. U., LEHMANN S., 2013, The zero waste index: a performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste city’, Journal of cleaner production 50, 123-132.
67. ZHANG B., LIU L., WANG Z., 2017, The impact of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: the case of high-income OECD countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24, 20078-20088, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9623-8.
Article Details
Abstract views: 347

