Consumption of nine different natural resources has kept an increasing trend in Central African countries from 1970 to 2018. This study therefore, investigates the changes and major determinants that have driven the patterns of resource use in six Central African countries over almost fifty years. We used the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) method to quantitatively analyze different effects of technology, affluence and population associated with domestic material consumption (DMC) of Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gabon from 1970 to 2018. We further subdivided the affluence effect into energy productivity (GDP/energy) and per capita energy use (energy/cap) and conducted a four-factor LMDI analysis of Cameroon as a case study. The results highlight that decreased affluence during certain periods has slowed down DMC growth in four of six Central African countries except for Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea, while significant technology offset in Equatorial Guinea reduces DMC growth by 28%. Population remains the main positive driving factor of DMC growth, with the highest share in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The case of Cameroon shows that technological intensity and energy intensity play different roles in changing DMC. This study confirms that the rising population and economic growth, combined with a gradual improvement in technology in the region are insufficient to reduce natural resource use. A stringent management plan of natural resources for Central African countries should focus on technological improvement while remaining balanced with the future demand for socioeconomic development in the coming decades.
Citation: Yvette Baninla, Qian Zhang, Xiaoqi Zheng, Yonglong Lu. Drivers of changes in natural resources consumption of Central African countries[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2022, 2(2): 80-102. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2022005
Related Papers:
[1]
Thomas C. Chiang .
Economic policy uncertainty and stock returns—evidence from the Japanese market. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(3): 430-458.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020020
[2]
Md Akther Uddin, Mohammad Enamul Hoque, Md Hakim Ali .
International economic policy uncertainty and stock market returns of Bangladesh: evidence from linear and nonlinear model. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(2): 236-251.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020011
[3]
Xiaoling Yu, Kaitian Xiao, Javier Cifuentes-Faura .
Closer is more important: The impact of Chinese and global macro-level determinants on Shanghai crude oil futures volatility. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2024, 8(3): 573-609.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2024022
[4]
Saeed Sazzad Jeris, Ridoy Deb Nath .
Covid-19, oil price and UK economic policy uncertainty: evidence from the ARDL approach. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, 4(3): 503-514.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2020023
[5]
Arifenur Güngör, Hüseyin Taştan .
On macroeconomic determinants of co-movements among international stock markets: evidence from DCC-MIDAS approach. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(1): 19-39.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021002
[6]
Richard J. Cebula, Robert Boylan .
Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of Federal Reserve monetary policies over time in the U.S.: an exploratory empirical assessment. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(2): 244-256.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.2.244
[7]
Simiso Msomi, Damien Kunjal .
Industry-specific effects of economic policy uncertainty on stock market volatility: A GARCH-MIDAS approach. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2024, 8(3): 532-545.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2024020
[8]
Cunyi Yang, Li Chen, Bin Mo .
The spillover effect of international monetary policy on China's financial market. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(4): 508-537.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023026
[9]
Yue Liu, Gaoke Liao .
The Measurement and Asymmetry Tests of Business Cycle: Evidence from China. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2017, 1(2): 205-218.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2017.2.205
[10]
Xite Yang, Jidi Cao, Zihan Liu, Yongzeng Lai .
Environmental policy uncertainty and green innovation: A TVP-VAR-SV model approach. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(4): 604-621.
doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022026
Abstract
Consumption of nine different natural resources has kept an increasing trend in Central African countries from 1970 to 2018. This study therefore, investigates the changes and major determinants that have driven the patterns of resource use in six Central African countries over almost fifty years. We used the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) method to quantitatively analyze different effects of technology, affluence and population associated with domestic material consumption (DMC) of Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gabon from 1970 to 2018. We further subdivided the affluence effect into energy productivity (GDP/energy) and per capita energy use (energy/cap) and conducted a four-factor LMDI analysis of Cameroon as a case study. The results highlight that decreased affluence during certain periods has slowed down DMC growth in four of six Central African countries except for Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea, while significant technology offset in Equatorial Guinea reduces DMC growth by 28%. Population remains the main positive driving factor of DMC growth, with the highest share in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The case of Cameroon shows that technological intensity and energy intensity play different roles in changing DMC. This study confirms that the rising population and economic growth, combined with a gradual improvement in technology in the region are insufficient to reduce natural resource use. A stringent management plan of natural resources for Central African countries should focus on technological improvement while remaining balanced with the future demand for socioeconomic development in the coming decades.
Highlights
● We propose a new approach to measure global economic policy uncertainty.
● The time-varying copula approach is employed to evaluate the dynamic dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty.
● The global economic policy uncertainty generally presents a "Low-High-Low" tendency in the sample period.
● The degree of dependency in developed countries is much higher.
● The magnitude of global economic policy incoordination has improved obviously in the post-crisis period.
However, the measuring method of the GEPU index in Davis (2016) has limitations. The measuring method Davis (2016) used to construct the GEPU index is based on the GDP-weighted average of national economic policy uncertainty and a regression-based method to impute missing values. GDP data from the IMF's World Economic Outlook Database are presented in a quarter or annual frequency and take some time to update. Since the index of global economic policy uncertainty should be sensitive to some specific events, the weight of the GEPU index should be time varying. To address these drawbacks, we use a new approach which is not limited to data frequency and data update to measure the GEPU index.
The GDFM (Generalized Dynamic Factor Model) is considered in this study to measure global economic policy uncertainty. This model was introduced by Forni et al. (2000) and Forni and Lippi (2001), see also Stock and Watson (2002). Since the economic policy uncertainty in various countries affects the global economic policy uncertainty, the co-movement between them can represent the global economic policy uncertainty. The generalized dynamic factor model can be adopted to analyze these common factors. This dynamic approach encompasses all other ones and (beyond the usual assumptions of second-order stationarity and existence of spectral densities) basically does not place any structural constraints on the data-generating process (Barigozzi & Hallin, 2016; Forni et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2018).
Following previous studies (Patton, 2006; Boero et al., 2011; Min & Czado, 2014), we employ three families of time-varying copulas to evaluate the dynamic dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty. The time-varying copula approach allows us to investigate both the symmetric and asymmetric dynamic dependence relationship between global and national economic policy uncertainty (Oh & Patton, 2018; Ji et al., 2018). In the empirical analysis, we find a symmetric and positive value of static dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty. In addition, the degree of dependence between global and developed countries EPU is much higher than that in developing countries EPU.
Our study contributes to the ongoing literature in the following aspects. Compared to Davis (2016), we apply a generalized dynamic factor model to reconstruct an index of global economic policy uncertainty. The new GEPU index based on the GDFM will not be limited to GDP data frequency and update. Furthermore, the new GEPU index is more flexible to reflect the co-movement between economic policy uncertainty. Finally, our study also examines the dynamic dependence structure between global and national economic policy uncertainty.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we outline the model, data sources, descriptive statistics, and the analysis of the GEPU index. The dynamic dependence analysis is provided in Section 3. Section 4 presents our conclusions.
2.
Reconstructing global economic policy uncertainty
2.1. Generalized dynamic factor model
Following the contribution of Barigozzi and Hallin (2016), we briefly present the construction of the generalized dynamic factor model (GDFM). The most general factor model representation of economic policy uncertainty, known as the general (or generalized) dynamic factor model, is
(1)
where the process is orthonormal white noise (here the variable will be called the GEPU_GDFM, implying the global economic policy uncertainty measured by generalized dynamic factor model); polynomials are one-sided and have square-summable coefficients; the common component is driven by pervasive factors, that is, the eigenvalue of its spectral density matrix diverges as for almost all frequencies in the range ; the idiosyncratic component is stationary and possibly autocorrelated, but only mildly cross-correlated, that is, the eigenvalues of its spectral density matrix are uniformly bounded as ; the common component and the idiosyncratic component are mutually orthogonal, that is, they are uncorrelated at all leads and lags; is the smallest integer for above constraints.
According to the model introduction, we can get the common fluctuation of multiple time series. The common factor here represents the overall dynamic change process of all indicator. Compared to Davis (2016), his method does not consider the frequency of the index or sample size. Moreover, instead of counting weights, our method is more flexible to extract all the common trends of information. Indicators of global economic policy uncertainty measured by our methodology are more robust and more suitable for empirical analysis.
2.2. Data sources and descriptive statistics
The global economic policy uncertainty is constructed by employing national EPU indices for 20 countries which are available on the companion website1. 20 countries that enter into the GEPU index account for about 70% of global output. They are: Australia (AUS), Brazil (BRA), Canada (CAN), Chile (CHI), China (CHN), France (FRA), Germany (GER), Greece (GRE), India (IND), Ireland (IRE), Italy (ITA), Japan (JPN), Mexico (MEX), the Netherlands (NET), Russia (RUS), South Korea (KOR), Spain (SPA), Sweden (SWE), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Meanwhile, it is appropriate to determine the number of these countries, and excessive sample size will affect the estimation of model parameters. In order to maintain the integrity of the data, the sample period is March 2003 to November 2018. The economic policy uncertainty index provided by Baker et al. (2016) can be obtained directly from the companion website.
In Table 1, we report the descriptive statistics of the national economic policy uncertainty used in the sample period. France and the United Kingdom present high average values with 193.699 and 216.553 respectively. It indicates a high degree of economic instability. The United Kingdom also experienced maximum standard deviation, attesting increasing volatility of economic policy uncertainty. All national economic policy uncertainty indexes are positively skewed. Furthermore, two out of twenty national economic policy uncertainty indexes (Ireland and Sweden) show negative excess kurtosis and approximately normal distribution. Others are shown to be leptokurtic, indicating that they have fat tails and strongly reject the normality. Finally, Engle's (1982) test of conditional heteroscedasticity also shows strong evidence of ARCH effects for first-difference economic policy uncertainty indexes. The strong evidence of ARCH effects is conducive to enhancing the fluctuation of variable, so as to extract dynamic factor through the GDFM. Next, GDFM was used for empirical analysis.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of the national economic policy uncertainty.
Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Skew.
Kurt.
J-B
ARCH (5)
AUS
100.909
337.044
25.662
60.464
1.452
5.208
104.218***
4.590***
BRA
160.151
676.955
22.296
98.484
1.909
8.053
314.160***
2.470*
CAN
161.309
449.624
40.440
91.623
0.851
3.238
23.144***
6.750***
CHI
98.808
282.829
31.601
42.898
1.310
5.230
92.723***
2.779*
CHN
174.043
694.849
26.144
135.225
1.714
5.903
158.101***
9.806***
FRA
193.699
574.633
30.620
97.677
0.866
4.013
31.530***
2.700*
GER
137.410
454.005
28.434
66.268
1.312
6.156
131.961***
2.721*
GRE
119.460
308.321
28.632
58.629
1.109
3.887
44.694***
2.201*
IND
94.441
283.689
24.940
52.474
1.246
4.437
64.805***
3.174**
IRE
119.835
250.104
21.792
53.050
0.244
2.406
4.627
2.757*
ITA
107.430
241.018
31.702
37.602
0.714
3.575
18.567***
1.204
JPN
103.495
236.850
48.431
33.182
1.281
5.473
99.320***
3.326**
MEX
66.057
235.270
8.509
36.738
1.597
7.139
214.107***
8.229***
NET
94.182
233.731
27.213
40.517
1.057
3.961
42.217***
4.042**
RUS
141.903
400.017
24.111
78.475
1.005
3.469
33.362***
8.433***
KOR
130.930
391.798
37.307
58.252
1.696
7.595
255.449***
5.646***
SPA
107.448
407.419
23.318
51.928
1.670
8.829
353.527***
2.362*
SWE
91.542
156.730
53.734
19.453
0.362
2.922
4.161
2.995*
UK
216.553
1141.796
30.469
159.571
1.986
9.556
460.310***
15.865***
US
120.128
283.666
44.783
45.166
0.893
3.618
27.972***
3.052*
Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1%, and 0.1% significance level, respectively. ARCH denotes the Lagrange Multiplier test statistic for autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity.
Figure 1 depicts the GEPU_GDFM index (global economic policy uncertainty index calculated by the author using the GDFM) and the GEPU_Davis index (global economic policy uncertainty index calculated by Davis, 2016). These two indexes exhibit similarities overall, indicating that we construct a reasonable proxy for global economic policy uncertainty based on the generalized dynamic factor model. Of course, the two measures also show some differences. For example, the elevation of GEPU_Davis levels in 2016–2017 is very dramatic but relatively modest in our calculation. The Global Financial Crisis in 2008-2009 and the Sovereign Debt Crisis of the Euro Zone are more prominent in the GEPU_GDFM index series.
Figure 1.
Global economic policy uncertainty indexes.
Features of different phases of global economic policy uncertainty are clearly evident. In the first phase (from April 2003 to August 2008), the mean value of the GEPU_GDFM index is −0.38, suggesting that the global economic policy uncertainty is relatively low. The second phase (from September 2008 to October 2013) witnessed a sharp growth of economic policy uncertainty in the world. The GEPU_GDFM index fluctuates around consistently high levels, and the average of the index reaches 0.84 during this period. This corresponds well with the profound impact of the Global Financial Crisis. The last phase, which begins in November 2013, has recorded a rapid decline of global economic policy uncertainty. The mean GEPU_GDFM value index is −0.47, which is even smaller than that of the first phase. However, movements in the world policy-related economic uncertainty are more dramatic in the third phase.
The GEPU_GDFM index fluctuates with notable political events and development in the world. The index rises significantly in the reaction to special events like the Gulf War Ⅱ in 2003, Lehman Brothers failure in September 2008, the European sovereign debt crisis, the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, China's generational leadership transition in 2012, the Brexit referendum in June 2016, and the US presidential election in November 2016.
3.
Dynamic dependence analysis
3.1. Marginal distribution
In this article, we adopt the GARCH-type model of conditional heteroscedasticity to fit the marginal distribution of economic policy uncertainty. Among GARCH-type models, effective and accurate models are indeterminable as they fit the marginal distribution of economic policy uncertainty. We follow the previous research (e.g., Kayalar et al., 2017) and adopt the standard GARCH model that adequately describes the marginal distribution of economic policy uncertainty without being too complicated. The preliminary results of the ARCH test shown in Table 1 support our decision to employ a GARCH (p, q) modelling approach for fitting marginal distribution of economic policy uncertainty index. Finally, the AR (1)-GARCH (1, 1) is selected by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).
3.2. Time-varying copula model
The copula models we consider here allow us to investigate both symmetric and asymmetric structure between global and national economic policy uncertainty. Following the settings presented in Patton (2012), Jin (2018) and Ji et al. (2018), we employ three families of time-varying copulas: elliptical copulas (normal and Student-t), the Archimedean copula (Clayton), and the rotated copula (rotated Clayton copula).
The optimal copula model for each global and national economic policy uncertainty pair can be further verified based on the minimum of the AIC values shown in Table 2. They show that the time-varying Student's t copula is the best one in eighteen out of twenty cases. It is consistent with the findings of majority of previous studies (e.g., Aloui et al., 2013; Ji et al., 2018). For the Global-Ireland and Global-Mexico pairs, the results suggest the time-varying normal copula as the best fitting model. It indicates that there is no significant evidence of asymmetric dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty. In addition, there is no tail dependence in Global-Ireland and Global-Mexico pairs. Comparing the AIC values of the time-varying Clayton-type copula, this result shows that AIC values of the time-varying rotated Clayton copula are always lower than those of the time-varying Clayton copula. This demonstrates that the time-varying rotated Clayton copula can perform better than the time-varying Clayton copula in fitting the dependence structure of global and national economic policy uncertainty.
Table 2.
AIC values of the four time-varying copulas.
TV-Normal Copula
TV-Student's t copula
TV-Clayton's copula
TV-Rotated Clayton copula
Global-AUS
-42.101
-59.049
-34.703
-43.980
Global-BRA
-4.506
-5.558
-2.243
-5.098
Global-CAN
-35.531
-37.808
-23.409
-36.859
Global-CHI
-60.860
-61.315
-46.644
-50.072
Global-CHN
-9.698
-21.570
-8.128
-12.020
Global-FRA
-64.252
-66.780
-51.494
-54.505
Global-GER
-52.499
-62.118
-32.679
-61.177
Global-GRE
-39.066
-40.061
-39.203
-24.306
Global-IND
-36.689
-39.637
-25.485
-37.112
Global-IRE
-0.029
0.035
-0.112
0.010
Global-ITA
-30.218
-31.917
-18.869
-30.863
Global-JPN
-53.109
-55.630
-38.773
-52.513
Global-MEX
-35.695
-35.516
-19.282
-33.937
Global-NET
-30.243
-30.193
-14.112
-29.694
Global-RUS
-1.078
-2.750
-0.061
-2.427
Global-KOR
-62.598
-67.762
-50.006
-56.065
Global-SPA
-86.739
-87.395
-62.376
-73.858
Global-SWE
-41.067
-41.094
-25.430
-40.289
Global-UK
-41.145
-48.458
-35.210
-36.976
Global-US
-92.989
-103.297
-77.004
-85.002
Note: Large AIC values (bold face numbers) indicate that the copula provides best fit to the data.
The time paths of time-varying copulas simultaneous with constant parameters of their static analogues are presented in Figure 2. There exists positive values of the static dependence between global economic policy uncertainty and that of each country, and the magnitude of dependence in developed countries (particularly in the US and Western Europe) is much higher. The constant parameter estimates (red line) of all copulas are larger than zero. However, the average of the copula value in developed nations reaches 0.418, which is around 38 percent greater than that in developing countries. In addition, the top 3 economies in the copula value are the US, Spain, and France, all belonging to the group of developed countries. On the contrary, among the bottom 3 economics, two countries (Russia and Brazil) come from the group of developing nations.
Figure 2.
Dynamic dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty.
At all points, the degree of dependence between the global economic policy uncertainty and that of the 20 countries varies over time. Clearly, the time-varying dependencies between global and national economic policy uncertainty are not always positive (especially in 2003 and 2017), although this is the case for most of the time. The dynamic dependence parameter of developed economics is larger, which is in line with the static result. However, it can be seen that the copula number of global and the US, the largest developed country in the world, has experienced sharp decline since Trump's election in late 2016. Overall, the value of global and several developing nations (e.g., Russia, Mexico, India) has shown a slight increasing trend. Additionally, we note that the volatility of the dynamic dependence parameter in developing countries is relatively larger.
The graphical evidence reported in Figure 3 displays the unstable state of the average and coefficient of variation for the 20 countries' copulas over time. The magnitude of the international economic policy coordination changes through time. In the pre-crisis period (before September 2008) except the case before 2004, the larger mean value of copulas, as well as the smaller coefficient of variation, suggests that the degree of economic policy coordination among countries is clearly higher. In the post-crisis period, especially during the period November 2008 to July 2009, September 2011 to November 2012, and June 2016 to November 2017, and the average of the copula values declines and the coefficient of variation spikes. This is in association with the increase of international economic policy incoordination and even policy conflicts (e.g., monetary and fiscal policy conflicts) after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis.
Figure 3.
Mean and coefficient of variation for 20 sample countries' copulas.
In short, economic policy uncertainty in developed countries is still the main driver of world economic fluctuations, while the power of economic policy uncertainty in emerging market countries cannot be ignored, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008. In this context, global economic policy uncertainty needs to be more effectively measured.
4.
Conclusion
In this study, we apply a generalized dynamic factor model to reconstruct a new GEPU index. Subsequently, the time-varying copula approach is used to examine the dynamic dependence structure between global and national EPU. Our main findings can be summarized as: (1) the new GEPU index calculated by us using the GDFM is a reasonable proxy for global economic policy uncertainty compared with the GEPU index calculated by Davis (2016); (2) the time-varying Student's t copula is the best one to fit the dependence structure for most of global and national EPU pairs; (3) the GEPU index overall presents a "Low-High-Low" tendency during the period from April 2003 to November 2018, and it increases sharply in action to notable political events and development around the world; (4) there overall exists positive dependence between global and national economic policy uncertainty. The magnitude of dependency in developed countries (especially in the US and Western Europe) is much higher than that in developing countries, but this gap tends to decline; (5) the degree of international economic policy incoordination has improved significantly after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis.
The implications of this study are at least twofold. First, considering the closer connection between global economic policy uncertainty and that of developed economies, the investors, policymakers, and other economic entities concerned about the policy uncertainty around the world should pay more attention to the political events and development in developed countries. Meanwhile, with the increase of association with global economic policy uncertainty, the policy uncertainty from developing nations also should not be ignored. Second, there is a broad consensus that cooperative approaches to policy-making should be implemented at the global level (Ostry & Ghosh, 2016). However, the magnitude of international economic policy coordination has declined since the global financial crisis 2008–2009. In this sense, in order to raise the economic policy interdependence among countries, policy-making that considers a multilateral perspective is worth great attention.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the applied characteristic discipline business management of Hunan province, the humanity and social science foundation of Ministry of Education of China (19YJCZH108), and Collaborative Innovation Development Center of Pearl River Delta Science & Technology Finance Industry Project (NO.19XT01).
Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534: 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a doi: 10.1038/534320a
[3]
Van Soest HL, Van Vuuren DP, Hilaire J, et al. (2019) Analysing interactions among sustainable development goals with integrated assessment models. Glob Transit 1: 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2019.10.004
[4]
Zhang Q, Liu S, Wang T, et al. (2019) Urbanization impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the water infrastructure in China: Trade-offs among sustainable development goals (SDGs). J Cleaner Prod 232: 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.333 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.333
[5]
Wallace KJ, Kim MK, Rogers A, et al. (2020) Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources. J Environ Manage 256: 109955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955
[6]
International Resource Panel (2011) Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth, UNEP/Earthprint.
[7]
Simonis UE (2013) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. Int J Soc Econ 40: 385–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291311305044 doi: 10.1108/03068291311305044
[8]
Haberl H, Fischer‐Kowalski M, Krausmann F, et al. (2011) A socio‐metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another Great Transformation. Sustain Dev 19: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.410 doi: 10.1002/sd.410
[9]
Moutinho V, Madaleno M, Inglesi-Lotz R, et al. (2018) Factors affecting CO2 emissions in top countries on renewable energies: a LMDI decomposition application. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 90: 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.009
[10]
Lin B, Agyeman SD (2019) Assessing Ghana's carbon dioxide emissions through energy consumption structure towards a sustainable development path. J Cleaner Prod 238: 117941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117941 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117941
[11]
Ang BW, Zhang FQ (2000) A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 25 1149–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00039-6 doi: 10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00039-6
[12]
Su B, Ang BW (2012) Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: some methodological developments. Energy Econ 34: 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.009
[13]
Ang BW, Liu FL (2001) A new energy decomposition method: perfect in decomposition and consistent in aggregation. Energy 26: 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00022-6 doi: 10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00022-6
[14]
Yang J, Cai W, Ma M, et al. (2020) Driving forces of China's CO2 emissions from energy consumption based on Kaya-LMDI methods. Sci Total Environ 711: 134569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134569 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134569
[15]
Wang L, Wang Y, He H, et al. (2020) Driving force analysis of the nitrogen oxides intensity related to electricity sector in China based on the LMDI method. J Cleaner Prod 242: 118364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118364 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118364
[16]
Steckel JC, Hilaire J, Jakob M, et al. (2019) Coal and carbonization in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Clim Change 10: 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0649-8 doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0649-8
[17]
Pothen F, Schymura M (2015). Bigger cakes with fewer ingredients? A comparison of material use of the world economy. Ecol Econ 109: 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.009
[18]
Steinberger JK, Krausmann F, Getzner M et al. (2013) Development and dematerialization: an international study. PLoS One 8: e70385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070385 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070385
[19]
Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, et al. (2015) The material footprint of nations. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 6271–6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220362110
[20]
Weinzettel J, Kovanda J (2011) Structural decomposition analysis of raw material consumption: the case of the Czech Republic. J Ind Ecol 15: 893–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00378.x doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00378.x
[21]
Azami S, Hajiloui MM (2022) How does the decomposition approach explain changes in Iran's energy consumption? What are the driving factors? Clean Responsible Consum 4: 100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100054 doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100054
[22]
Zhang J, Wang H, Ma L, et al. (2021) Structural path decomposition analysis of resource utilization in China, 1997–2017. J Cleaner Prod 322: 129006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129006 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129006
[23]
Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Haberl H (2020) Growing stocks of buildings, infrastructures and machinery as key challenge for compliance with climate targets. Global Environ Chang 61: 102034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102034 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102034
[24]
Eyre N, Killip G (2019) Shifting the Focus: Energy Demand in a Net-Zero Carbon UK, 1 Ed., Oxford: Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions.
[25]
Gonzalez Hernandez A (2018) Site-level resource efficiency analysis[PhD's thesis]. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
[26]
Baninla Y, Lu Y, Zhang Q, et al. (2020) Material use and resource efficiency of African sub-regions. J Cleaner Prod 247: 119092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119092 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119092
Ward JD, Sutton PC, Werner AD, et al. (2016) Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS One 11: e0164733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
[29]
Bithas K, Kalimeris P (2018) Unmasking decoupling: redefining the resource intensity of the economy. Sci Total Environ 619: 338–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.061 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.061
[30]
Pao HT, Chen CC (2019) Decoupling strategies: CO2 emissions, energy resources, and economic growth in the Group of Twenty. J Cleaner Prod 206: 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.190 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.190
[31]
Sanyé-Mengual E, Secchi M, Corrado S, et al. (2019) Assessing the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impacts in the European Union: A consumption-based approach. J Cleaner Prod 236: 117535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.010
[32]
Liu Z, Xin L (2019) Dynamic analysis of spatial convergence of green total factor productivity in China's primary provinces along its Belt and Road Initiative. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 17: 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2019.1611342 doi: 10.1080/10042857.2019.1611342
[33]
Ang BW (2005) The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energ Policy 33: 867–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.010 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.010
[34]
Wang W, Li M, Zhang M (2017) Study on the changes of the decoupling indicator between energy-related CO2 emission and GDP in China. Energy 128: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.004
[35]
Chen J, Wang P, Cui L (2018) Decomposition and decoupling analysis of CO2 emissions in OECD. Appl Energy 231: 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.179 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.179
[36]
Du G, Sun C, Ouyang X, et al. (2018) A decomposition analysis of energy-related CO2 emissions in Chinese six high-energy intensive industries. J Clean Prod 184: 1102–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.304 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.304
[37]
Zheng X, Lu Y, Yuan J, et al. (2020) Drivers of change in China's energy-related CO2 emissions. P Natl Acad Sci USA 117: 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908513117 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908513117
[38]
Shao S, Yang L, Gan C, et al. (2016) Using an extended LMDI model to explore techno-economic drivers of energy-related industrial CO2 emission changes: A case study for Shanghai (China). Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 55: 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.081 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.081
[39]
Li H, Zhao Y, Qiao X, et al. (2017) Identifying the driving forces of national and regional CO2 emissions in China: based on temporal and spatial decomposition analysis models. Energy Econ 68: 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.024 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.024
[40]
Guan D, Meng J, Reiner DM, et al. (2018) Structural decline in China's CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems. Nat Geosci 11: 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0161-1 doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0161-1
[41]
Wu Y, Tam VW, Shuai C, et al. (2019) Decoupling China's economic growth from carbon emissions: Empirical studies from 30 Chinese provinces (2001–2015). Sci Total Environ 656: 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.384 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.384
[42]
Bekun FV, Alola AA, Gyamfi BA, et al. (2021) The environmental aspects of conventional and clean energy policy in sub-Saharan Africa: is N-shaped hypothesis valid? Environ Sci Pollut R 28: 66695–66708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14758-w doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14758-w
[43]
Adedoyin FF, Nwulu N, Bekun FV (2021) Environmental degradation, energy consumption and sustainable development: accounting for the role of economic complexities with evidence from World Bank income clusters. Bus Strategy Environ 30: 2727–2740. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2774 doi: 10.1002/bse.2774
[44]
Kwakwa PA, Alhassan H, Aboagye S (2018) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a financial development and natural resource extraction context: evidence from Tunisia. Quant Finance Econ 2: 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2018.4.981 doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.4.981
[45]
Gyamfi BA (2022) Consumption-based carbon emission and foreign direct investment in oil-producing Sub-Sahara African countries: the role of natural resources and urbanization. Environ Sci Pollut R 29: 13154–13166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16509-3 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16509-3
[46]
Kwakwa PA, Alhassan H, Adu G (2020) Effect of natural resources extraction on energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission in Ghana. Int J Energy Sect Manag 14: 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-09-2018-0003 doi: 10.1108/IJESM-09-2018-0003
[47]
Wiedenhofer D, Fishman T, Plank B, et al. (2021) Prospects for a saturation of humanity's resource use? An analysis of material stocks and flows in nine world regions from 1900 to 2035. Global Environ Chang 71: 102410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102410 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102410
[48]
Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Virág D, et al. (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part Ⅱ: synthesizing the insights. Environ Res Lett 15: 065003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Some structural hypotheses in a multivariate cointegration analysis of the purchasing power parity and the uncovered interest parity for UK. Discussion Papers 90-05, University of Copenhagen.
[51]
Omay T, Emirmahmutoglu F, Denaux ZS (2017) Nonlinear error correction based cointegration test in panel data. Econ Lett 157: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.05.017 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.05.017
[52]
Odaki M (2015) Cointegration rank tests based on vector autoregressive approximations under alternative hypotheses. Econ Lett 136: 187–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.09.028 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.09.028
[53]
Aslan A, Kula F, Kalyoncu H (2010) Additional evidence of long-run purchasing power parity with black and official exchange rates. Appl Econ Lett 17: 1379–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850902967522 doi: 10.1080/13504850902967522
[54]
Kaya Y (1989) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Response Strategies Working Group.
[55]
Ang BW, Liu FL, Chew EP (2003) Perfect decomposition techniques in energy and environmental analysis. Energ Policy 31: 1561–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00206-9 doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00206-9
[56]
Bianchi M, del Valle I, Tapia C (2021) Material productivity, socioeconomic drivers and economic structures: A panel study for European regions. Ecol Econ 183: 106948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106948 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106948
[57]
Weisz H, Krausmann F, Amann C, et al. (2006) The physical economy of the European Union: Cross-country comparison and determinants of material consumption. Ecol Econ 58: 676–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.016
[58]
Kassouri Y, Alola AA, Savaş S (2021) The dynamics of material consumption in phases of the economic cycle for selected emerging countries. Resour Policy 70: 101918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101918 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101918
[59]
Karakaya E, Sarı E, Alataş S (2021) What drives material use in the EU? Evidence from club convergence and decomposition analysis on domestic material consumption and material footprint. Resour Policy 70: 101904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101904 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101904
[60]
Jia H, Li T, Wang A, et al. (2021) Decoupling analysis of economic growth and mineral resources consumption in China from 1992 to 2017: A comparison between tonnage and exergy perspective. Resour Policy 74: 102448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102448 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102448
[61]
Khan I, Zakari A, Ahmad M, et al. (2022) Linking energy transitions, energy consumption, and environmental sustainability in OECD countries. Gondwana Res 103: 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.10.026 doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2021.10.026
This article has been cited by:
1.
Olha Kravchenko, Nadiia Bohomolova, Oksana Karpenko, Maryna Savchenko, Nataliia Bondar,
Scenario-based financial planning: the case of Ukrainian railways,
2020,
2,
2689-3010,
217,
10.3934/NAR.2020013
2.
Liuguo Shao, Hua Zhang, Jinyu Chen, Xuehong Zhu,
Effect of oil price uncertainty on clean energy metal stocks in China: Evidence from a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach,
2021,
73,
10590560,
407,
10.1016/j.iref.2021.01.009
3.
Jieqiong Yang, Panzhu Luo, Yong Tan,
Contingent Decision of Corporate Environmental Responsibility Based on Uncertain Economic Policy,
2020,
12,
2071-1050,
8839,
10.3390/su12218839
4.
Mengna Zhou, Jizheng Yi, Jieqiong Yang, Yi Sima,
Characteristic Representation of Stock Time Series Based on Trend Feature Points,
2020,
8,
2169-3536,
97016,
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2995958
5.
Yufei Xia, Lingyun He, Yinguo Li, Yating Fu, Yixin Xu,
A DYNAMIC CREDIT SCORING MODEL BASED ON SURVIVAL GRADIENT BOOSTING DECISION TREE APPROACH,
2020,
27,
2029-4913,
96,
10.3846/tede.2020.13997
6.
Sudeshna Ghosh,
Asymmetric impact of COVID-19 induced uncertainty on inbound Chinese tourists in Australia: insights from nonlinear ARDL model,
2020,
4,
2573-0134,
343,
10.3934/QFE.2020016
7.
Gaoke Liao, Peng Hou, Xiaoyan Shen, Khaldoon Albitar,
The impact of economic policy uncertainty on stock returns: The role of corporate environmental responsibility engagement,
2020,
1076-9307,
10.1002/ijfe.2020
8.
Tangyong Liu, Xu Gong, Lizhi Tang,
The uncertainty spillovers of China's economic policy: Evidence from time and frequency domains,
2020,
1076-9307,
10.1002/ijfe.2385
9.
Shuaishuai Jia, Cunyi Yang, Mengxin Wang, Pierre Failler,
Heterogeneous Impact of Land-Use on Climate Change: Study From a Spatial Perspective,
2022,
10,
2296-665X,
10.3389/fenvs.2022.840603
10.
Emmanuel Asafo-Adjei, Thobekile Qabhobho, Anokye M. Adam,
Conditional effects of local and global risk factors on the co-movements between economic growth and inflation: Insights into G8 economies,
2023,
9,
24058440,
e19570,
10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19570
11.
Natalia Sokrovolska, Alina Korbutiak, Artur Oleksyn, Oleh Boichenko, Natalia Danik,
STATE REGULATOR’S ROLE IN THE COUNTRY’S BANKING SYSTEM DURING WARTIME,
2023,
2,
2310-8770,
43,
10.55643/fcaptp.2.49.2023.3985
12.
Tanveer Bagh, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Asif Khan, Mirza Muhammad Naseer,
Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on China’s Stock Price Index: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Wavelet Coherence Approach,
2023,
13,
2158-2440,
10.1177/21582440231210368
13.
Thobekile Qabhobho, Syden Mishi, Ewert P.J. Kleynhans, Edson Vengesai, Ongama Mtimka,
External shocks’ effects on the co-movements of currency and stock returns in three Southern African Development Community states,
2024,
27,
2222-3436,
10.4102/sajems.v27i1.5103
14.
Shadi Ratib Mohammad Aledeimat, Murad Abdurahman Bein,
Assessing US and Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Effects on Non‐Performing Loans in MENA's Islamic and Conventional Banks,
2025,
1076-9307,
10.1002/ijfe.3121
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of the national economic policy uncertainty.
Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Skew.
Kurt.
J-B
ARCH (5)
AUS
100.909
337.044
25.662
60.464
1.452
5.208
104.218***
4.590***
BRA
160.151
676.955
22.296
98.484
1.909
8.053
314.160***
2.470*
CAN
161.309
449.624
40.440
91.623
0.851
3.238
23.144***
6.750***
CHI
98.808
282.829
31.601
42.898
1.310
5.230
92.723***
2.779*
CHN
174.043
694.849
26.144
135.225
1.714
5.903
158.101***
9.806***
FRA
193.699
574.633
30.620
97.677
0.866
4.013
31.530***
2.700*
GER
137.410
454.005
28.434
66.268
1.312
6.156
131.961***
2.721*
GRE
119.460
308.321
28.632
58.629
1.109
3.887
44.694***
2.201*
IND
94.441
283.689
24.940
52.474
1.246
4.437
64.805***
3.174**
IRE
119.835
250.104
21.792
53.050
0.244
2.406
4.627
2.757*
ITA
107.430
241.018
31.702
37.602
0.714
3.575
18.567***
1.204
JPN
103.495
236.850
48.431
33.182
1.281
5.473
99.320***
3.326**
MEX
66.057
235.270
8.509
36.738
1.597
7.139
214.107***
8.229***
NET
94.182
233.731
27.213
40.517
1.057
3.961
42.217***
4.042**
RUS
141.903
400.017
24.111
78.475
1.005
3.469
33.362***
8.433***
KOR
130.930
391.798
37.307
58.252
1.696
7.595
255.449***
5.646***
SPA
107.448
407.419
23.318
51.928
1.670
8.829
353.527***
2.362*
SWE
91.542
156.730
53.734
19.453
0.362
2.922
4.161
2.995*
UK
216.553
1141.796
30.469
159.571
1.986
9.556
460.310***
15.865***
US
120.128
283.666
44.783
45.166
0.893
3.618
27.972***
3.052*
Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1%, and 0.1% significance level, respectively. ARCH denotes the Lagrange Multiplier test statistic for autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity.
Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1%, and 0.1% significance level, respectively. ARCH denotes the Lagrange Multiplier test statistic for autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity.
TV-Normal Copula
TV-Student's t copula
TV-Clayton's copula
TV-Rotated Clayton copula
Global-AUS
-42.101
-59.049
-34.703
-43.980
Global-BRA
-4.506
-5.558
-2.243
-5.098
Global-CAN
-35.531
-37.808
-23.409
-36.859
Global-CHI
-60.860
-61.315
-46.644
-50.072
Global-CHN
-9.698
-21.570
-8.128
-12.020
Global-FRA
-64.252
-66.780
-51.494
-54.505
Global-GER
-52.499
-62.118
-32.679
-61.177
Global-GRE
-39.066
-40.061
-39.203
-24.306
Global-IND
-36.689
-39.637
-25.485
-37.112
Global-IRE
-0.029
0.035
-0.112
0.010
Global-ITA
-30.218
-31.917
-18.869
-30.863
Global-JPN
-53.109
-55.630
-38.773
-52.513
Global-MEX
-35.695
-35.516
-19.282
-33.937
Global-NET
-30.243
-30.193
-14.112
-29.694
Global-RUS
-1.078
-2.750
-0.061
-2.427
Global-KOR
-62.598
-67.762
-50.006
-56.065
Global-SPA
-86.739
-87.395
-62.376
-73.858
Global-SWE
-41.067
-41.094
-25.430
-40.289
Global-UK
-41.145
-48.458
-35.210
-36.976
Global-US
-92.989
-103.297
-77.004
-85.002
Note: Large AIC values (bold face numbers) indicate that the copula provides best fit to the data.
Figure 1. Total natural resources consumed in Central Africa from 1970 to 2018
Figure 2. Domestic material consumption of different resources for Central African countries
Figure 3. Metabolic profiles and resource productivity in six Central African nations
Figure 4. The contribution of DMC changes by different driving forces in Cameroon, 1970–2018
Figure 5. The contribution of DMC changes by different driving forces in CAR, 1970–2018
Figure 6. The contribution of DMC changes by different driving forces in DRC, 1970–2018
Figure 7. The contribution of DMC changes of different driving forces in EQG 1970–2018 period
Figure 8. The contribution of DMC changes by different driving forces in Chad, 1970–2018
Figure 9. The contribution of DMC changes by different driving forces in Gabon, 1970–2018
Figure 10. Drivers of DMC from 1970 to 2018 in different Central African countries
Figure 11. Four-factor decomposition for Cameroon from 1990–2014