All Issue

2019 Vol.28, Issue 4 Preview Page

Research Paper

Analysis of Decoupling Phenomenon Between EconomicGrowth and GHG Emissions: Dynamic Panel Analysis of63 Countries (1980~2014)

경제성장과 탄소배출량의 탈동조화 현상 분석: 63개국 동태패널분석(1980~2014년)

임형우*, 조하현**

Hyungwoo Lim* and Ha-hyun Jo**

*연세대학교 경제학부 박사과정, 제1저자(e-mail: hyungwoo.lim0206@gmail.com)
**연세대학교 경제학부 정교수, 교신저자(e-mail: hahyunjo@hanmail.net)
*PhD. course, Department of Economics, Yonsei University, First author(e-mail: hyungwool.im0206@gmail.com)
**Professor, Department of Economics, Yonsei University, Corresponding author(e-mail: hahyunjo@hanmail.net)
31 December 2019. pp. 497~526
PDF Citation
Abstract
The importance of “decoupling” to maintain economic growth and reduce greenhouse gases is emerging as the world has been mandated to reduce greenhouse gases since the 2015 Paris Agreement. This study covered 63 countries from 1980 to 2014 and analyzed the main characteristics and causes of decoupling phenomenon between economic growth and carbon emissions. In this study, the degree of decoupling was measured every five years. The analysis found that the decoupling rate of OECD countries and countries with large incomes was high, and that the decoupling phenomenon has accelerated worldwide since the 2000s. However, the degree of decoupling was different depending on the national characteristics. According to the results of dynamic panel model, the growth rate of manufacturing and the proportion of exports hampered decoupling, while the proportion of human capital and renewable energy had a positive effect on decoupling. Also income had a inverse U-shape non-linear effect on decoupling.
Keywords
Economic growth
CO2 emission
Decoupling
Dynamic panel model
System GMM
2015년 파리협정 이후 전세계가 온실가스 감축 의무를 부여받음에 따라 경제성장을 유지하며, 온실가스를 감축하는 ‘탈동조화(decoupling)’의 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 본 연구는 전 세계 63개 국가를 대상으로 1980년부터 2014년까지의 각 국가별 경제성장과 탄소배출량 사이의 탈동조화 현상의 주요 특징 및 이를 야기하는 원인을 분석하였다. 본 연구에서는 매 5년마다의 탈동조화 정도를 국가별로 측정하였다. 분석 결과, OECD국가 및 소득이 많은 국가들의 탈동조화지수가 높았으며, 2000년대 이후 전세계적으로 탈동조화 현상이 가속화되었음을 확인했다. 다만, 국가 특성에 따라 탈동조화 정도가 상이했다. 동태패널모형을 통해 탈동조화의 원인을 살펴본 결과, 제조업 성장률 및 수출비중은 탈동조화를 저해한 반면, 인적자본 및 신재생에너지 비율은 탈동조화에 긍정적인 영향을 미친 것으로 나타났다. 또한 소득은 탈동조화에 역U자형태의 영향을 미쳤다.
키워드
경제성장
탄소배출량
탈동조화(decoupling)
동태패널모형
시스템 GMM
References
  1. 김재혁‧조하현, “1인당 탄소배출 수렴가설 검정: 105 개국 동태적 패널임계 분석”, 국제 통상연구, 제22권 제1호, 2017, pp. 123~154.
  2. 노동운, “최근 세계 온실가스 배출추이와 시사점”, KEEI 세계 에너지 시장 인사이트, 제16권 제5호, 2016.2.
  3. 이상준, “주요국의 온실가스 배출과 경제성장의 탈동조화 경향과 시사점”, KERI Insight, 제17권 제6호, 2017.
  4. 조상섭‧강신원‧김동엽, “비정태적 패널자료를 이용한 환경 쿠즈네츠가설에 대한 실증 분석-OECD 17 개국 사례분석”, 자원‧환경경제연구, 제10권 제4호, 2001, pp. 619~633.
  5. 최충익‧김지현, “경제성장과 환경오염간의 관계에 대한 국제비교연구: CO2 의 환경쿠즈네츠곡선 검증을 중심으로”, 국토계획, 제41권 제1호, 2006, pp. 153~166.
  6. Andersson, Fredrik NG, and Peter Karpestam. “CO2 emissions and economic activity: Short-and long-run economic determinants of scale, energy intensity and carbon intensity,” Energy Policy, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 1285~1294.10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.004
  7. Ang, B. W., “The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide,” Energy Policy, Vol. 33, No. 7, 2005, pp. 867~871.10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.010
  8. Arellano, M. and S. Bond, “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations,” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 58, No. 2, 1991, pp. 277~297.10.2307/2297968
  9. Arellano, M. and O. Bover, “Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1995, pp. 29~51.10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
  10. Beckerman, W., “Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?,” World Development, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1992, pp. 481~496.10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W
  11. Bimonte, S., “Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2002, pp. 145~156.10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00022-8
  12. Blundell, R. and S. Bond, “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 87, No. 1, 1998, pp. 115~143.10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8
  13. Coondoo, D. and S. Dinda, “Carbon dioxide emission and income: A temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2008, pp. 375~385.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.001
  14. Dutt, K., “Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship: a cross-country study,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2009, pp. 705~723.10.1007/s10668-007-9138-8
  15. Grand, M. C., “Carbon emission targets and decoupling indicators,” Ecological Indicators, Vol. 67, 2016, pp. 649~656.10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.042
  16. Gupta, S., “Decoupling: a step toward sustainable development with reference to OECD countries,” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 22, No. 6, 2015, pp. 510~519.10.1080/13504509.2015.1088485
  17. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151.
  18. Iwata, H., K. Okada, and S. Samreth, “A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: a pooled mean group approach,” Applied Energy, Vol. 88, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1986~1996.10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.11.005
  19. Kaika, D., and E. Zervas, “The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case,” Energy Policy, Vol. 62, 2013, pp. 1392~1402.10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131
  20. Kaika, D., and E. Zervas, “The Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory—Part B: Critical issues,” Energy Policy, Vol. 62, 2013, pp. 1403~1411.10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.130
  21. Kaya, Y., “Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Response Strategies Working Group, 1989 May.
  22. Levinson, A., and S. Taylor, “Trade and the environment: Unmasking the pollution haven,” Georgetown University (2004).10.3386/w10629
  23. Lu, I. J., S. J. Lin, and C. Lewis, “Decomposition and decoupling effects of carbon dioxide emission from highway transportation in Taiwan, Germany, Japan and South Korea,” Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2007, pp. 3226~3235.10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.003
  24. Magnani, E., “The Environmental Kuznets Curve, environmental protection policy and income distribution,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2000, pp. 431~443.10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00115-9
  25. Neumayer, E., “Is economic growth the environment's best friend?,” Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Vol. 21, 1998, pp. 161~176.
  26. OECD, “Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth,” Sustainable development SG/SD, 2002.
  27. Panayotou T. Economic growth and the environment. The environment in anthropology. 2016 Apr 26:140-8.
  28. Perrings, Charles, and Alberto Ansuategi, “Sustainability, growth and development,” Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1/2, 2000, pp. 19~54.10.1108/EUM0000000005309
  29. Roodman, D., “How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata,” The Stata Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2009, pp. 86~136.10.1177/1536867X0900900106
  30. Ru, X., S. Chen, and H. Dong, “An empirical study on relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions based on decoupling theory,” Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 5, No. 8, 2012.10.5539/jsd.v5n8p43
  31. Shafik, Nemat, and Sushenjit Bandyopadhyay. Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence. Vol. 904. World Bank Publications, 1992.
  32. Suri, V., and D. Chapman, “Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1998, pp. 195~208.10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00180-8
  33. Tapio P. “Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001,” Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005 , pp. 137~151.10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.001
  34. Torras, M., and J. K. Boyce, “Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1998, pp. 147~160.10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00177-8
  35. Wang, W., Y. Kuang, N. Huang, and D. Zhao, “Empirical research on decoupling relationship between energy-related carbon emission and economic growth in Guangdong province based on extended kaya identity,” The Scientific World Journal, 2014.10.1155/2014/78275024782666PMC3981526
  36. Wang, W., R. Liu, M. Zhang, and H. Li, “Decomposing the decoupling of energy-related CO2 emissions and economic growth in Jiangsu Province,” Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2013, pp. 62~71.10.1016/j.esd.2012.11.007
  37. Windmeijer, F., “A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2005, pp. 25~51.10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 28
  • No :4
  • Pages :497~526
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2019.28.4.497
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close