字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者&題名查詢臺灣博碩士以作者查詢全國書目
研究生中文姓名:陳彥竹
研究生英文姓名:Chen, Ian-Ju
中文論文名稱:檢測環境顧志耐曲線假說-七大工業國及東南亞國協之國家
英文論文名稱:Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in G7 and ASEAN Countries
指導教授姓名:詹滿色
口試委員中文姓名:教授︰陳清春
教授︰陳郁蕙
副教授︰葉寶文
副教授︰詹滿色
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:應用經濟研究所
學號:10435002
請選擇論文與海洋研究相關度:無相關
請選擇論文為:應用型
畢業年度:106
畢業學年度:105
學期:
語文別:中文
論文頁數:247
中文關鍵詞:環境顧志耐曲線二氧化碳實質人均GDP七大工業國東南亞國協國際貿易能源因子ARDL邊界檢定追蹤資料
英文關鍵字:Environmental Kuznets curveCO2GDP per capita(Real)G7ASEANTradeEnergyARDL boundary TestPanel Data
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:33
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:9
  • 收藏收藏:0
本研究針對七大工業國及東南亞國協進行環境顧志耐曲線假說之驗證及計算。在過去的文獻指出當經濟發展至相對程度高點時,環境破壞程度便會隨之下降。本研究為驗證文獻所述,採計不同經濟發展程度之經濟組織進行後續研究。本研究經由世界銀行及美國能源資料庫蒐集15個觀察國自1975年至2015年間共15項變數40年之研究資料,找尋在不同經濟體發展之情況下驗證環境顧志耐曲線之存在與否。本研究將觀察變數區分成兩類模組進行研究。模組一為貿易變數設定之模組,模組二為能源變數設定之模組,探討在兩種模組設定下環境顧志耐曲線之存在與否及變數之間影響效果。
本研究將模組變數經由單一國家之ARDL邊界檢定分析及追蹤資料之VECM Test找尋短期變數之間的相互影響效果及長期環境顧志耐曲線之存在與否。根據估計結果可以得知,經濟體之發展之大小與開發程度並非影響環境顧志耐曲線之主因。在東南亞國協及七大工業國的檢定結果中均存在環境顧志耐曲線,顯示當所得增加至一定程度時,環境破壞便會隨之下降。除此之外,本研究透過估計結果找出單一國家在環境顧志耐曲線存在,並將其發生結構變化點之年分找出。其次將追蹤資料變數相互之因果關係。目的用於找出變數之間相互影響之因果關係,用於確認變數間相互影響性存在與否。
在單一國家的估計結果中無論是七大工業國或東南亞國協之國家在長期狀態下環境顧志耐曲線均有存在之跡象。例:美國、英國、歐盟、義大利、德國、法國、俄羅斯、印尼、馬來西亞及泰國等國。均顯示出經濟發展對於二氧化碳之排放量存在抑制的效果。除此之外,在模組一貿易變數的實證估計結果中顯示商品出口會對於二氧化碳的排放量產生抑制的效果。在模組二能源變數的實證估計結果中顯示石油價格的提升確實對於二氧化碳排放量存在抑制之效果。而石油消耗量在估計的結果中對於二氧化碳的排放量存在正向之影響,顯示增加石油的消耗量會對於二氧化碳的排放量有顯著增加之影響。
實證結果除了透過單一國家之估計之外,本研究另將七大工業及東南亞國協參與國之資料彙整成追蹤資料。進行已開發國家及開發中國家之對比;由而在單一國家之實證結果中,模組一貿易變數的實證估計結果中存在環境顧志耐曲線之國家超過全部統計之50%,因此本研究選擇模組一貿易變數進行後續分析探討。在不考慮國家發展差異下,各項變數之間長期關係及因果關係。
根據實證結果,可以得知東南亞國協及所有國家之統計結果均發現長期而言環境顧志曲線的存在。當所得提升至一定程度時便會對二氧化碳排放量存在減量之效果。然而卻發現原先預期先進國家七大工業國之代表在長期而言並不存在此曲線之估計結果。
在因果檢定之結果發現短期而言,七大工業國的實質人均GDP及實質人均GDP之平方項互為因果關係。商品進出口總值在短期存在相互的因果關係。實質人均GDP及其平方項對於石油能源使用量及再生能源消耗量存在單向因果關係。商品進出口總值、石油能源使用量及實質人均GDP之平方項對人均二氧化碳存在單向因果關係。商品進出口總值對於實質人均GDP及其平方項和石油能源使用量存在單向因果關係。再生能源消耗量對於商品進出口總值存在單向因果關係。
在東南亞國協的因果檢定結果中,實質人均GDP及其平方項在短期互為因果關係。實質人均GDP對人均二氧化碳排放量互為因果關係。商品進出口總值對於實質人均GDP及平方項,石油能源使用量互為因果關係。兩者之間亦互為因果關係。人均二氧化碳排放量對於石油能源使用量及商品進出口總值在短期存在單向因果關係。再生能源消耗量對於人均二氧化碳排放量及石油能源使用量存在單向因果關係。石油能源使用量對於實質人均GDP存在單向因果關係。
在所有變數估計之因果檢定結果中,實質人均GDP除了對人均二氧化碳排放量不存在因果關係之外,對於其他變數均存在雙向因果關係。實質人均GDP之平方項除了對人均二氧化碳排放量及商品出口總值不存在因果關係之外,對於其他變數均存在雙向因果關係。商品進出口總值在短期互為因果關係。人均二氧化碳排放量除了與再生能源消耗量及商品出口總值不存在因果關係之外,與其餘變數存在單向因果關係。
根據所有實證結果本研究得出以下結論,對於抑制全球暖化的道路上,不應區分國家或經濟發展程度之差異而對減碳之努力有所差別。無論是已開發國家或開發中國家均對於環境保育刻不容緩,且根據結果明顯指出,在單一國家的估計結果中。七大工業國確實比起東協來的顯著存在此曲線。然而卻在追蹤資料的研究上,七大工業國並不存在此假說之結果。顯見對於二氧化炭的抑制,並非全然歸因於經濟體之差異所造成之結果。面對未來如何有效提升能源使用效率及商品出口程度使其達到減碳之效果,是人們值得深思熟慮之課題。
This study was testing the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of the G7 and ASEAN countries. According to the literature, when economic growth up to the relative high point, the environmental disruption will decline to the relatively low point. This research was to verify the literature result, testing the different level of the economic development organizations. In order to find out the consequence through the study. Based on the World Bank and the Statistical Review of World energy, this study collected 15 countries and 15 variables from 1975 to 2015 and 15 observers to find out the presence or absence of the environment in different economies. This research separate the data into two groups. Due to the variable definition, our study setting group one as trade group, and group two as energy group. In order to test the EKC hypothesis and find out the variables effect through the different economic development.
This study used ARDL bound test to verify the unit countries EKC hypothesis through the different groups, and also used VECM to verify the panel data short term variable casusl effect and long term EKC hypothesis. Due to the result, different economic development didn’t the main reason to effect the EKC hypothesis. Base on single countries result of the G7 and ASEAN, the EKC hypothesis was existed. When the economic growth to a certain extent, the environmental disruption will decline to the relative low point. Otherwise, the results of this study were used to find out the structural change years and the relationship between the variables in the individual countries. Also to find out the casual relationship between the panel data variables in order to confirm the existence of the interaction between variables.
In the estimates of a single country, both G7 and ASEAN had signs of existence in the long-term EKC. Such as:USA, UK, EU, Italy, France, Germany, Russian, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. All of them had enough evidence to prove when the economic growth could inhibit the CO2 emission. According to the group one result, merchandise exports could inhibit the CO2 emission. The group two result also verify oil price could inhibit the CO2 emission. Nevertheless, oil consumption had the positive effect on CO2 emission.
Due to the study of the result we separated the data not only in the single countries also as the panel data of the G7 and ASEAN data according to their economic development. In the result of the group one study, trade variables had more than 50% of the countries their EKC hypothesis was existence. In the end, the research chose the group one variables into the later on panel study.
According to the empirical result, we could find out that ASEAN and the panel data of all countries their EKC was existence in the long term. And also discover that when GDP growth up to the relative high point, the environmental disruption will decline to the relatively low point. However the empirical result of G7 countries was not have the same consequence as the study anticipation at first.
In the short term of the Granger casual relationship test. G7countries empirical result declared that the real GDP and the square of the real GDP had the two-way casual relationship. Merchandise imports and exports had the two-way casual relationship. The real GDP and the square of the real GDP had the one way casual relationship to the energy-use of the oil and renewable energy consumption. Merchandise imports /exports, energy use of oil and square and the real GDP had the one-way casual relationship to the CO2 emission. Merchandise imports /exports had the one-way casual relationship to the real GDP, the square of the real GDP and energy use of oil. Renewable energy consumption had the one-way casual relationship to the merchandise imports /exports.
The empirical result of ASEAN countries that the real GDP and the square of the real GDP had the two-way casual relationship. The real GDP and the CO2 emission had the two-way casual relationship. Merchandise imports /exports, the real GDP, the square of the real GDP and energy use of oil had the two-way casual relationship. The CO2 emission had the one-way casual relationship to the energy use of oil and merchandise imports /exports. Renewable energy consumption had the one-way casual relationship to the CO2 emission and energy use of oil. The energy use of oil had the one-way casual relationship to the real GDP.
The empirical result of the panel data of the all countries. The real GDP had the two-way casual relationship to all of the variables except the CO2 emission. The square of the real GDP had the two-way casual relationship to all of the variables except the CO2 emission and merchandise exports. Merchandise imports and exports had the two-way casual relationship. The CO2 emission had the one-way casual relationship to all of the variables except the renewable energy consumption and merchandise exports.
According to all of the empirical results, in the single countries consequence, the G7 countries had more evidence to prove the EKC is existence. However in the panel data research the G7 countries didn’t exist this hypothesis. Obviously, to decline the CO2 emission. Not only focus on the economic development different also improve the renewable energy consumption and merchandise exports is the most important things of all.
摘要..........................................................I
ABSTRACT....................................................III
目錄..........................................................V
圖目錄......................................................VII
表目錄.....................................................VIII
第一章 緒論...................................................1
第一節 研究背景...............................................1
第二節 研究動機...............................................8
第三節 研究方法..............................................15
第四節 研究目的..............................................15
第二章 文獻探討..............................................16
第一節 區域型研究............................................16
第二節 影響變數面研究........................................25
第三章 研究方法..............................................27
第一節 單一國家 ARDL邊界檢測模型.............................28
第二節 追蹤資料誤差修正模型及FMOLS/DOLS分析..................32
第四章 資料來源、說明及實證模型設定..........................36
第一節 研究架構..............................................36
第二節 資料來源..............................................38
第三節 實證模型設定..........................................67
第五章 實證結果..............................................73
第一節 單一國家 ARDL邊界檢定結果.............................74
第二節 追蹤資料分析..........................................94
第三節 本章小結.............................................115
第五章 結論與未來展望.......................................116
第一節 結論.................................................116
第二節 未來展望.............................................119
第三節 研究限制.............................................120
參考文獻....................................................121
中文文獻....................................................121
英文文獻....................................................121
附錄一 單一國家ARDL邊界檢測 短期估計結果....................124
附錄二 單一國家ARDL長期估計結果.............................178
附錄三 單一國家 單根檢定 檢定結果...........................188
附錄四 單一國家 落遲期數檢定 檢定結果.......................203
附錄五 單一國家 邊界檢定 檢定結果...........................211
附錄六 單一國家 CUSUM & CUSUM OF SQUARES檢定結果............219
中文文獻
吳珮瑛, 黃雅祺, 吳麗敏, & 劉哲良. (2008). 所得分配在不同經濟發展水準國家對 CO2 排放減量之影響. 經社法制論叢, 42:, 1-40.
林煜閔. (2015). 台灣地區房價之預測:ARDL模型的應用. (碩士), 國立東華大學, 花蓮縣.
倪珮菁. (2005). 溫室氣體的環境顧志耐曲線之估計--PanelModel 之應用.
所得分配在不同經濟發展水準國家對CO2 排放減量之影響(1990-2003)
周理(2012).科學網 關於碳排放/氣候變化問題的思考:http://wap.sciencenet.cn/blogview.aspx?id=646643
京都議定書,維基百科 :
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%AC%E9%83%BD%E8%AE%AE%E5%AE%9A%E4%B9%A6
哥本哈根協定,維基百科: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%93%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%93%88%E6%A0%B9%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE
黃維德編譯(2016)—為何全球貿易會走緩?,天下雜誌:http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5078832
世界銀行(The World Bank, Trade (% of GDP) ):http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS
格蘭傑因果關係,維基百科:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A0%BC%E8%98%AD%E5%82%91%E5%9B%A0%E6%9E%9C%E9%97%9C%E4%BF%82
經濟學人期刊
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-5

英文文獻
Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 76, 123-131.
Balaguer, J., & Cantavella, M. (2016). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for Spain by considering fuel oil prices (1874–2011). Ecological Indicators, 60, 853-859.
Breitung, J. (2001). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 161-177): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dickey, D. A., Hasza, D. P., & Fuller, W. A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in seasonal time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(386), 355-367.
Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological economics, 49(4), 431-455.
Granger, C. W., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of econometrics, 2(2), 111-120.
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Economic growth and the environment. Retrieved from
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831.
Kao, C., & Chiang, M.-H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 179-222): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American economic review, 1-28.
Lau, L.-S., Choong, C.-K., & Eng, Y.-K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: Do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy, 68, 490-497.
Lau, L. C., Tan, K. T., Lee, K. T., & Mohamed, A. R. (2009). A comparative study on the energy policies in Japan and Malaysia in fulfilling their nations’ obligations towards the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4771-4778.
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.
Mark, N. C., & Sul, D. (2003). Cointegration vector estimation by panel DOLS and long‐run money demand. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(5), 655-680.
Nelson, C. R., & Plosser, C. R. (1982). Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series: some evidence and implications. Journal of monetary economics, 10(2), 139-162.
Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727-731.
Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory, 20(03), 597-625.
Pesaran, M. H., & Pesaran, B. (1997). Working with Microfit 4.0: interactive econometric analysis;[Windows version]: Oxford University Press.
Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. Econometric Society Monographs, 31, 371-413.
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. doi:10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
S.K. Oct 12th 2016. The Economist The Economist explains. Why is world trade growth slowing? The world’s economic funk is slowing business across borders:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-5
(此全文限內部瀏覽)
電子全文
全文檔開放日期:不公開
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *