Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Dynamic linkages among energy consumption, environment,

health and wealth in BRICS countries: Green growth key to
sustainable development
Khalid Zaman a, Alias bin Abdullah b,n, Anwar Khan c,d, Mohammad Rusdi bin Mohd Nasir e,
Tengku Adeline Adura Tengku Hamzah f, Saddam Hussain d
a
Department of Economics University of Sargodha, Canal Campus, Lahore, Pakistan
b
Department of East Asian Studies Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Fakulti Sains, Teknologi Dan Pembangunan Insan, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
d
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Attock Campus, Attock, Pakistan
e
Department of Art and Design Faculty of Art, Computing and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia
f
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Department of Geography, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of the study is to examine the four pillars of green growth (or green environment) i.e.,
Received 8 May 2015 energy, environment, health and wealth in BRICS countries namely, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Received in revised form Africa, over the period of 1975–2013. The study examines the relationship between energy consumption,
9 November 2015
environment, health and its resulting impact on BRICS' economic growth. The study used three envir-
Accepted 11 December 2015
onmental variables (i.e., agricultural technology, carbon dioxide emissions and population density), three
energy sources (i.e., nuclear energy consumption, electricity production from renewable sources and
Keywords: combustible renewable & waste), two health proxies (i.e., fertility rate, total i.e., births per woman, and
Energy consumption infant mortality rate) and GDP per capita for economic growth. These variables were selected due to the
Environment
vital importance in the BRICS nations. The overall results indicate that environmental variables have a
Health factors
deleterious effect on the BRICS economic growth, while energy sources significantly increases economic
Panel cointegration
BRICS countries growth in the countries. Health expenditures and infrastructure required proper care of fertility and
mortality related health issues in the BRICS countries. The results emphasized the importance of green
growth and sustainable developmental policies that help to expedite growth process and welfare of the
countries.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1263
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265
3. Data source and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1270

1. Introduction

The BRICS countries as it name implies, referred the set of five

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 60 379675631; fax: þ60 379675675. large and emerging economies namely Brazil, Russia, India, China
E-mail addresses: Khalid_zaman786@yahoo.com (K. Zaman), and South Africa. BRICS countries have a unique profile among the
dralias@um.edu.my (A.b. Abdullah), akpashtoon1981@gmail.com,
anwar_khan@comsats.edu.pk (A. Khan), rusdi@fskik.upsi.edu.my (M.R.b.M. Nasir), developing countries, as BRICS countries maintained the rapid
adelineadura@um.edu.my (T.A.A.T. Hamzah), saddam81@yahoo.com (S. Hussain). economic growth and sustainable development from last many

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.010
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1264 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271

years, however, these countries faces many challenges, more
specifically, environmental challenges, health issues, global
warming, search for new ways of energy and population growth.
On the other hand, BRICS countries are fully abundant with low
cost labor, rich mineral resources and technological innovations.
China and India relied on labor intensive products because of their
massive population that gives an incentive to produce goods at a
low cost, while Brazil, Russia and South Africa mostly depends on
mineral resources, as these countries are fully abundant with
mineral resources and export the goods to other nations. Brazil is
also abundant in agriculture resources [1].
Although the concept of green economy is not a new phe-
nomenon as it traces out in the early 1970s, it gained momentum
since 2009 when the international organizations give a wakeup
call to the all international donors to sustain their economic
policies, reduce carbon investment and search for new ways of
renewable energy mix in their portfolios [2]. After Europe and
North America, the BRICS countries particularly India and China
step forward towards green growth and reducing their carbon
investment profiles in the region [3].
Brazil has large energy reserves and hydroelectric resources
that produced clean energy during last years, however, the coun-
try bears a strong resistance from international organizations and
international media due to the inadequate environmental safety
policies countrywide [4]. Hydropower accounts for around 90% of
the electricity demand of the country [5,6]. India, meanwhile,
upgrade their solar energy base up to 20 Gigawatts (GW) capacity
by 2022, which have the fifth largest wind sector in the world.
With the help of this solar energy base, India would resolve their
rural energy crisis, where energy transmissions are still a big
challenge for the country [7]. India promoted nuclear energy
production, however, after Fukushima disaster, the country face
severe criticism on the nuclear production. South Africa con-
centrated on the sustainable investment and generates sustainable
jobs by doing long-term sustainable development policies. China
faces serve environmental challenges to maintain their economy's
growth rate, for this purpose, China government liberalize their
trade policies and open the investment doors for environmental
projects. Finally, Russia still sadly relied on the conventional fossil
fuels production, while renewable energy generated 16% of the
total electricity production in the country. The country's electricity
comes from two main sources: hydro and geothermal power [8].
Fig. 1 shows the data trends of the some key indicators in the
panel of BRICS countries.
The above discussion indicates the importance of green growth
in the context of BRICS nations, i.e., the policies towards green
economy and sustainable policy agenda need a wakeup call for the
policy makers and environmentalist to formulate their policies in
order to preserve environmental base and invested in to the
renewable energy sources for the region. The objective of the
study is to examine the impact of energy consumption, environ-
mental degradation and health indicators on BRICS' economic
growth. The purpose of the study is to serve the BRICS countries in

CO2 CRWASTE
AGRMAC Carbon dioixde emissions from residential buildings Combustible renewable and waste
Agricultural machinery,tractors in numbers (%of total fuel combustion) (% of total energy)
3,000,000 20 60

2,500,000 16 50

2,000,000 40
12
1,500,000 30
8
1,000,000 20

500,000 4 10

0 0 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

ENRGRNEW FERT GDPPC

Electricity production from renewable sources Fertility rate, total GDP per capita
(kWh) (births per woman) (current US$)
1E+12 6 15,000

8E+11 5 12,500

10,000
6E+11 4
7,500
4E+11 3
5,000
2E+11 2
2,500

0E+00 1 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

MORT NUCLEAR POPDEN

Mortality rate, infant Alternative and nuclear energy Population density
(per 1,000 live births) (% of total energy use) (people per sq.km of land area)
160 16 500

120 400
12

300
80 8
200
40 4
100

0 0 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Fig. 1. Data trend of the Key Indicators in the panel of BRICS countries.
Source: World Bank [23].
 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271
order to point out the importance of green economy and sus-
tainable policies for long-term policy vista in the region.
2. Literature review
In search of Green growth or environment, BRICS countries
focused on renewable energy resources and healthy environment
for gaining edge to maintained sustainable development policies in
their country profiles. A number of studies emphasized the proper
resource allocation for health, economic growth, energy and
environment among BRICS countries that take competitive edge
over the other developing countries around the world (see, [9–11]).
Pao and Tsia [12] investigated the long run relationship between air
pollution, economic growth and energy consumption for Brazil,
over the period of 1980–2007. The results indicate the inverted U-
shaped relationships between carbon emissions and economic
growth on one hand, while on the other hand, energy consumption
affected Brazilian output which initially increase output, and after
reaching a certain threshold, it would become to decline. Pao and Fu
[13] investigated the cause-effect relationship between economic
growth and different types of energy consumption for Brazil, over
the period of 1980–2010. The results show that Brazilin economy
depends upon labor force participation rate and gross capital for-
mation. The results confirmed the unidirectional causality running
from non-hydroelectric renewable energy consumption to eco-
nomic growth but not vice versa. While, there is a feedback rela-
tionship between non-renewable energy consumption and Brazil's
economic growth. Song et al. [14] examined BRICS' energy efficiency
by using bootstrap-data envelopment analysis and found that
energy efficiency of BRICS comparatively low; however, it may
increases over time. In addition, energy efficiency and environ-
mental pollution vary across the BRICS countries as per the nature
of the energy profile existing in their economies. Ozturk and Salah
Uddin [15] examined the causal relationship between energy con-
sumption, air pollution and India's economic growth by taking 37
years data from 1971–2007. The results confirmed the bidirectional
causality between energy consumption and output in India.
Li et al. [16] examined different factors that derive regional carbon
dioxide emissions in Tianjin, China. The results show that urbaniza-
tion, population growth and FDI increases carbon emissions in
Tianjin, China. Shahbaz et al. [17] examined the long-run relationship
between energy intensity, air pollution and economic growth in Sub-
Saharan African countries. The results reveal that energy has a
positive association with the carbon emissions, while there is a
negative relationship between economic growth and carbon emis-
sions in a region. There is a feedback relationship between output
and carbon emissions while unidirectional causality running from
energy to growth. According to Martinho [18, p. 71],
“Emergent economies such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China, and South Africa) play an important role in the inter-
national economy. These countries are seen as areas of oppor-
tunity, not only for business but also for employment……”
Manhique et al. [19] analyzed the detrimental impact of extreme
rainfall and floods in Southern Africa, as it were affected more than
100 deaths and around 200,000 people displacement in January,
2013. This natural disaster alarmed the policy makers and envir-
onmentalists to combat with the sustainable polices that prevent
from these natural disasters in future. Omri et al. [20] examined the
cause-effect relationship between energy and economic growth in
the panel of 17 developed and developing countries in the world. The
results show that energy conservation hypothesis was supported in
Belgium and Spain, while growth hypothesis were supported by
Bulgaria, Canada, Netherlands, and Sweden. There is a feedback
1265
relationship between energy and growth in Argentina, Brazil, France,
Pakistan, and the USA, while,-neutrality hypothesis exists in Finland,
Hungary, India, Japan, Switzerland, and the U.K. Song et al. [21]
focused on energy-related CO2 emission at regional level in China,
during the period of 1995–2010. The results show that there were
seven provinces, each province emitted more than 150 Mt CO2 in
1995, while in 2010, 25 provinces emitted the same carbon dioxide
emissions as 1995. According to Owrangi et al. [22, p.1],
“Changes in climatic conditions, together with urban popula-
tion growth, are making the development of tools to help dis-
aster planners and policy makers select mitigation and adap-
tation measures a priority”.
The above studies indicate the strong nexus among environ-
ment, energy, economy and growth across the globe. This study
examined the dynamic relationship between these four pillars of
green growth in panel cointegration framework for BRICS coun-
tries. Green growth is one of the viable solutions for promoting
sustained economic growth that would help to preserve the nat-
ural flora of the world.
3. Data source and methodology
The data of BRICS countries (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa) for environment, energy, health and wealth, were taken
from World Development Indicators published by World Bank [23] and
International Financial Statistics by IMF [24]. Interpolation technique
i.e., forward and backward interpolation technique used to filled the
missing values between the time periods of the candidate variables,
where required. Environmental variables contained Agricultural
machinery (AGRMAC) i.e., tractors in numbers, CO2 emissions from
residential buildings and commercial and public services in % of total
fuel combustion, and Population density (POPDEN) measured in
people per sq. km of land area. Energy variables i.e., Alternative and
nuclear energy (NUCLEAR) measured in % of total energy use, Elec-
tricity production from renewable sources (ENRGRNEW) in kW h, and
Combustible renewable and waste (CRWASTE) in % of total energy
respectively. Health variables contained Fertility rate (FERT), total i.e.,
births per woman, and Mortality rate (MORT), infant i.e., per 1000 live
births. Finally, Economy represented by GDP per capita (GDPPC) in
current US$. GDP per capita used as a proxy for economic growth and
served as a dependent variable for the study. While, environment,
energy and health indicators served as an explanatory variables
(regressors) that resulting impact on economic growth of the BRICS
countries. Fig. 2 presented the four elements of green economy con-
tain environment, energy, health and economy.
Fig. 2 shows that green economy depends upon healthy envir-
onment, renewable energy sources, better healthcare facilities and
strong economy that boosts the production methods to stimulate
economic agents towards sustainable policies of development in the
economies. Qureshi et al. [25] established the links between
environment, energy and health that searched for the green econ-
omy (or environment) in Malaysia. Akhmat et al. [26] search for
sustainable development in the SAARC region and confined that
energy consumption affected environmental pollution in the region,
therefore, for green environment practices adaptation need long-
term policy planning required for SAARC countries. Alam et al. [27]
emphasized the role of cost effective polices that prevent Malaysian
environment. Hassan et al. [28, p. 1421], conclude that “The
implementation of appropriate tax reform, stable food prices and
trade promotion for low transaction cost medical equipment is
required for the SAARC region”. The study further indicates the
importance of healthcare facilities that would lead the economies
towards green environment. Rafindadi et al. [29] highlighted the
1266 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271
Fig. 2. Elements of green economy.
Source: Self extract.
need of renewable energy sources in selected Asian Pacific coun-
tries. Malik et al. [30] also endorse that renewable energy sources
need more policy base instruments to facilitate Pakistan's economy.
Alam et al. [31] stressed the role of financial development to
increase energy demand in SAARC region. Jabeen et al. [32]
underlined the importance of renewable energy especially solar
energy utilization that needs strong policy reforms to fulfill the
demand-supply gap of Pakistan's energy. These previous studies
emphasized the role of four factors that contribute towards green
economy across the globe.
The study utilized number of econometric modeling techniques
that examined the green environment relationship with the BRICS'
economic growth. The following equation used to estimate the
environment-growth nexus i.e.,
ECO ¼ β 0 þ β1 γ þ β2 λ þ β3 δ þ ϵ
Where ECO represents Economy, γ represents the set of environ-
mental variables, λ shows the set of energy sources, δ represents
health variables, and ε represents error term. The study further
extended Eq. (1) in more generalized way i.e.,
LnðGDPPCÞit ¼ β0 þ β 1 LnðAGRMACÞit þ β2 LnðCO2 Þit
þ β 3 LnðPOPDENÞit þ β4 LnðNUCLEARÞit
þ β 5 LnðENRGRNEWÞit þ β 6 LnðCRWASTEÞit
þ β 7 LnðFERTÞit þ β8 LnðMORTÞit þ ϵit :::::::
where coefficients from β 1 to β 3 represents environmental vari-
ables, β4 to β 6 shows energy sources and β 7 and β 8 represents
health variables. In addition, GDPPC represents GDP per capita,
AGRMAC represents agricultural machinery i.e., tractors, CO2
shows carbon dioxide emissions from residential buildings, com-
mercial and public services, POPDEN represents population den-
sity, NUCLEAR represents Alternative and nuclear energy,
ENRGRNEW represents Electricity production from renewable
sources, CRWASTE represents Combustible renewable and waste,
FERT shows Fertility rate, total i.e., births per woman, MORT
represents Mortality rate, infant, ε represents error term, “Ln”
represents natural logarithm of the variable, “i” represents cross
section identifiers containing five BRICS countries and “t” repre-
sents time period from 1975–2013.
The study employed panel unit root test for measuring sta-
tionary series for the candidate variables. For this purpose, the
study employed Levin, et al. [33] and Breitung [34] panel unit root
test for assessing unit root problem in the variable series. The null
hypothesis of no unit root problem in the data series against eval-
uated with the alternative hypothesis of unit root problem in the
variable series. Breitung panel unit root test applied only for those
variables that confirmed the null hypothesis of no unit root problem
in the variable series under Levin, Lin and Chu panel unit root test.
Next, the study intended to find the long-run relationship between
the variables. Kao [35] panel cointegration test and Fisher panel
cointegration test used to evaluate the null hypothesis of no coin-
tegration against the alternative hypothesis of cointegration rela-
tionship between the variables. The study not computed Pedroni
[36] panel cointegration test as the number of regressors more than
six in numbers. For this limitation, the study employed Kao panel
cointegration and Fisher panel cointegration test. Next, the study
used Panel Fully Modified OLS (FMOLS) proposed by Pedroni [37]
and Dynamic OLS (DOLS) proposed by Kao and Chiang [38] for
determining the relationship between the variables. The study does
not find the pooled least square regression methods including fixed
effect regression and random effect regression, as all the variables
are differenced stationary and panel cointegration results suggest
the long-run relationship between the variables, therefore, the
pooled least square methods seem to be in appropriate because of
the possible problems of autocorrelation and endogeneity in the
model. Panel FMOLS overcome the problem of autocorrelation and
endogeneity by applying a non-parametric transformation of resi-
dual that obtained from cointegration regression. While, Panel
DOLS is a parametric method that include both the lead and lagged
values of variables to obtained long-run coefficients between the
variables. According to Akpolat [39, p. 4],
“Panels DOLS and FMOLS techniques facilitate establishing a
regression without the need to take differences of the coin-
tegrated variables. Thus, it becomes possible to analyze without
loss of any information about dependent and explanatory
variables”.
The study interested to examine the presence of unit root test of
green growth in the panel of BRICS countries. For the LLC (Levin, Lin
ð1Þ
and Chu) panel unit root analysis, we considered the following
autoregressions to obtain the ADF test for each time series variables
in the panel of BRICS countries. Suppose, there are “N” series i.e.,
X
pi
Δqit ¼ βir 0 dtr þ αi qi; t 1 þ γ i j Δqi; t  j þ ϵi t ; i ¼ 1; …; N; r ¼ 0; 1; 2
j¼1
ð3Þ
where dt0 ¼0 or dt1 ¼1 or dt2 ¼(1, t)’. The choice of each pi on the
ð2Þ basis of AIC or SIC, or on sequentially testing the last coefficient of
the Δqi; t  j .
In Levin, Lin and Chu panel unit root test, we further assumed
that all the αi have a common value, therefore, the null hypothesis
is tested against the alternative hypothesis which allows to control
the Heteroscedisticity problem across the time series that pull up
to the considered panel i.e.,
H0 : α ¼ 0 vs: H1 : α o 0:
The study employed another panel unit root approach i.e.,
Breitung panel unit root which suggested the following equation
i.e.,
   
ðDY it Þ ¼ St DY it  1=T  t DY i t þ 1 þ …… þ DY iT ð4Þ
where, St ¼(T t)/(T  tþ1), Y*i t ¼Yi t  1  Yi 0  ((t 1)/T)(Yi T Yi 0),
DYi t ¼ panel data has been differenced, i¼ cross-section identifiers
and t¼time series data and t¼2,….,T2
The null hypothesis is rejected on the basis of small values
obtained from Eq. (5) below i.e.,
BnT ¼ ½B2nT   1=2 B1nT ð5Þ
where, BnT ¼Breitung t-statistics
The following hypothesis has been evaluated under the BnT
(Breitung t-statistic) i.e.,
 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271 1267

H0 : Panel data assumes common unit root process ß^i, FMOLS ¼Fully Modified OLS estimator
ß^i DOLS ¼ Dynamic OLS estimator
H1 : panel data has not unit root
Zi t ¼is the 2(K þ1)x1
If BnT is significant, than accept the alternative hypothesis i.e., Z^it ¼ (Xi t X*i)
panel data has no unit root problem, and if BnT is insignificant, X*i ¼ average of X*i
than accept the null hypothesis that is panel data contained unit ΔXi,t  k ¼differential term of X
root problem. On the basis of above discussion, the effectiveness of panel
The study employed Kao residual cointegration technique and techniques including panel FMOLS and panel DOLS used for esti-
Johansen Fisher panel cointegration technique for the panel of BRICS mating long-run coefficients between the variables.
countries. Kao used both DF and ADF to test for panel cointegration
which is similar to the Engel–Granger step procedures. The following
equation is used to start Kao panel regression model i.e., 4. Results

Yit ¼ Xit ßit þ Z it γ 0 þ ϵit ð6Þ This section comprises the following sequential estimations i.e.,
descriptive statistics of the variables, panel unit root tests, panel
where Y and X are presumed to be non-stationary i.e.,
cointegration tests, panel FMOLS and panel DOLS for evaluating
e 4 i t ¼ ρe 4 i t þ ν i t green growth phenomenon in BRICS countries. Table 1 shows the
where e^ i t ¼(Yi t - Xi t ß^ i t  Zi t γ^ ). descriptive statistics of the variables for ready reference.
Table 2 shows the panel unit root tests by Levin, Lin and Chu
(LLC) and Breitung tests. The results i.e., POPDEN, CRWASTE and
The following hypothesis is evaluated under the Kao panel
FERT confirmed the null hypothesis of no unit root problem in
cointegration test i.e.,
these variables, as these variables exhibit stationary series at level.
H0 : ρ ¼ 1 (no cointegration) Further, MORT rejected the null hypothesis and exhibits the non-
stationary series at level; however, after taking first difference,
H1 : ρ o 1 (cointegration between the variables). MORT still does not become the stationary series. The remaining
Johansen Fisher cointegration based upon the conventional variables i.e., AGRMAC, CO2, NUCLEAR, ENRGRNEW, and GDPPC
Johansen cointegration technique including trace statistic and rejected the null hypothesis of no unit root problem, taking first
maximum eigenvalue. The null hypothesis of no cointegration is difference these variables become stationary series. Breitung panel
evaluated against the alternative hypothesis of cointegration unit root test applied to reconfirm the stationary series of only
between the variables. those variables i.e., POPDEN, CRWASTE, FERT and MORT that
The study further used cointegration equations modeling for accepted the null hypothesis of no unit root problem in LLC panel
individual BRICS countries, where Fully Modified OLS (FMOLS) and unit root test. The Breitung panel unit root test rejected the null
Dynamic (DOLS) used to addressed the serial correction (non-para- hypothesis and confirmed that these variables also having non-
metric test) and possible endogeneity (parametric test) from the stationary series at level, and taking first differences, these vari-
given models. To address the possible endogeneity and serial corre- ables become stationary. The study conclude that, after careful
lation, Pedroni [40] has suggested the group-means FMOLS estimator analysis of both the panel unit root test, the study come to the
and group-means DOLS estimator which are shown below: point that, all candidate variables having a unit root problem, and
hXT it is safely conclude that all variables have a same order of coin-
1
XN  2 i  1 hXT   i
ß^i FOLS ¼ N i¼1 t¼1
X i t  X i t¼1
X i t  X i Y itþ  TY^i tegration i.e., order of integration 1.
ð7Þ After determining the same order of integration, the study
proceed to the panel cointegration tests by Kao panel cointegra-
tion in Table 3 and Johansen Fisher panel cointegration results in
Table 4 respectively. The results of Table 3 indicates the sig-
 XN XT 1 XT 
¼ N 1 Z Z Z Z^
nificance of ADF test statistics, therefore, we may safely reject the
ß^i DOLS i¼1 t ¼ 1 it it t ¼ 1 it it
ð8Þ
null hypothesis of no cointegration at 1 percent level of sig-
nificance and accept the alternative hypothesis of cointegration
relationship between the variables.
where, Similarly, another panel cointegration test adopted to verify the
i¼cross-section data and N is number of cross-section data cointegration relationship between the variables. The study used
t¼time series data and T is number of time series data Johansen Fisher panel cointegration test to check the cointegration

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.

AGRMAC NUCLEAR CO2 CRWASTE ENRGRENW POPDEN FERT MORT GDPPC

Mean 792,965.1 5.158736 8.959221 21.15407 1.53E þ11 99.87714 2.763918 46.84205 2878.111
Maximum 2,524,623.0 15.65000 19.33081 59.00689 8.03E þ 11 421.1435 5. 251,000 130.2000 14611.70
Minimum 63,200.00 0.064250 2.541716 0.905205 1.46E þ08 8.187944 1.170000 8.600000 154.9728
Std. Dev. 588265.1 4.446538 4.026052 15.64189 1.55E þ11 119.4029 1.066315 27.21192 2879.421
Skewness 1.194712 1.084529 0.811373 0.399118 1.979781 1.310125 0.527410 0.889658 1.846680
Kurtosis 4.471183 2.878786 2.831089 2.292064 8.109382 3.441232 2.301321 3.402817 6.757645
Observations 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195
Cross sections 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Note: AGRMAC is agricultural machinery i.e., tractors, NUCLEAR is alternative and nuclear energy, CO2 is carbon dioxide emissions from residential buildings and commercial
and public services, CRWASTE is combustible renewables and waste, ENRGRENW is electricity production from renewable sources, POPDEN is population density, FERT is
total fertility rate, MORT is infant mortality rate and GDPPC is Gross Domestic Product per capita.
1268 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271

Table 2 Panel FMOLS and panel DOLS used to counter the problem of
Panel Unit Root Results by LLC and Breitung. serial correlation and endogeneity problem in the model. Both
techniques used to confirm the robust coefficient statistics in
Green envir- Variables Level First difference
onment terms of magnitude and “a priori” expectations between the
proxies Constant Constant Constant Constant variables. Table 5 shows the panel cointegration regression results.
and trend and trend The results of FMOLS show that agricultural technology i.e.,
machinery, carbon dioxide emissions, and renewable energy sources
Environment AGRMAC  0.581  0.239  2.648nn  2.794nn
CO2 1.326  0.523  14.107nnn  13.679nnn have a positive relationship with the GDP per capita, while, population
POPDEN  3.589nnn 7.678 2.518  2.770nnn density, nuclear energy consumption, combustible renewable & waste,
Energy NUCLEAR  0.431  0.267  13.773nnn  14.196nnn and health indicators including both the fertility rate and mortality
ENRGRNEW 2.847  0.767  13.786nnn  13.775nnn rate decreases Brazil's per capita income during the study time period.
CRWASTE  2.004nn  0.291  11.877nnn  11.219nnn
Economy GDPPC 8.562 6.139  1.348n  2.895nnn
In DOLS, the results partially supported the FMOLS results in terms of
Health FERT  4.591nnn 2.262 3.423  7.045nnn direction, however, the results has evaporated in terms of statistical
MORT  1.011 5.380  0.028 1.241 significance power of the coefficient estimates i.e., carbon dioxide
Breitung Unit Root Test emissions, population density, renewable energy consumption, com-
Environment POPDEN N/A 7.441 N/A  1.839nn
Energy CRWASTE N/A 0.707 N/A  2.518nnn
bustible renewable & wastes and mortality insignificantly explained
Health FERT N/A 5.031 N/A  3.336nnn the per capita income growth of Brazil’s economy. The results imply
MORT N/A 2.835 N/A  1.545n that agricultural technology and renewable energy consumption
increases the Brazilian economy on the cost of air pollution in the
Note: AGRMAC is agricultural machinery i.e., tractors, NUCLEAR is alternative and
country. On the second part of the fact, i.e., population density, nuclear
nuclear energy, CO2 is carbon dioxide emissions from residential buildings and
commercial and public services, CRWASTE is combustible renewables and waste, energy consumption, combustible renewable & waste, and health
ENRGRENW is electricity production from renewable sources, POPDEN is popula- indicators decreases GDP per capita, that indicates massive population,
tion density, FERT is total fertility rate, MORT is infant mortality rate and GDPPC is nuclear energy consumption, combustible wastes and inadequate
Gross Domestic Product per capita.
health infrastructure hinders the Brazilian economic growth. Accord-
N/A indicates not available “constant” series at level and “at first difference”.
Breitung unit root test applied for those candidate variables that show stationary at ing to Pao and Fu [13, p. 381],
level in LLC test. H0: There is no unit root problem in the variable series. H1: There
is a unit root problem in the variable series. “Expanding renewable energy would not only enhance Brazil's
n
Indicates significance level at 10%. economic growth and curb the deterioration of the environ-
nn
Indicates significance level at 5%. ment but also create an opportunity for a leadership role in the
nnn
Indicates significance level at 1%. international system and improve Brazil's competition with
more developed countries.

The “food for thought” for policy planners is to formulate car-

Table 3
bon free policies that would helpful for promoting green economy
Kao Panel Cointegration Results. and sustainable development in the country.
In the case of Russia, population density and mortality rate
Panel of BRICS countries ADF test statistics Probability value decreases the per capita income of the country, while remaining
variables insignificantly explained the relationship with the per
 3.511 0.000
capita income in FMOLS. However, in DOLS estimates, agricultural
Note: H0: There is no cointegration relationship between the variables. H1: There is machinery also explained significant relationship with the per
a cointegration relationship between the variables. capita income. To developed green economy agenda, the country
should have to focus on agricultural-based technology that would
helpful to increase the production of agricultural goods to compete
Table 4 in the agricultural globalization war of the 21st century.
Johansen Fisher panel Cointegration test results. Indian economy was more prone to search for renewable energy
sources and utilized in a most effective way to build an electricity grid
Hypothesis Fisher Statis- Probability Fisher Statistics Probability
that reduces the supply–demand gap of energy in the country. FMOLS
tics Trace value Maximum Eigen- value
Test value Test results also endorse that renewable energy sources increases per capita
income of the Indian economy, however, nuclear energy consumption
None 115.7 0.0000 349.6 0.0000 badly affected Indian economic growth. Health infrastructure needs
At most 1 443.8 0.0000 141.1 0.0000 proper attention for policy planners, as fertility rate increasing over
At most 2 235.8 0.0000 93.91 0.0000
At most 3 179.9 0.0000 59.12 0.0000
time, while mortality rate decreases India's economic growth. In DOLS
At most 4 133.2 0.0000 45.13 0.0000 results, surprisingly the results not confirmed the FMOLS results, as
At most 5 98.73 0.0000 38.76 0.0000 none of the candidate variables exhibit any significant relationship with
At most 6 69.76 0.0000 33.63 0.0002 the GDP per capita during this study time period. The results on the
At most 7 48.05 0.0000 36.97 0.0001
At most 8 28.73 0.0014 28.73 0.0014
basis of FMOLS suggested that the search for renewable energy in the
region should be promoted both at micro level and at macro level. The
Note: H0: There is no cointegration relationship between the variables. H1: There is country should have to avoid nuclear energy race in between the
a cointegration relationship between the variables. China, India, and Pakistan, as after Fukushima disaster, the country face
severe criticism on the nuclear production.
China, among the BRICS countries has a strong profile in terms
relationship between the candidate variables. The results of of energy production, agriculture production and health infra-
Table 4 confirmed that there is a cointegration relationship structure. The results of DMOLS confirmed that agricultural tech-
between the variables, therefore, the study proceeds towards nology, renewable energy sources and health infrastructure sig-
panel long-run relationship between the variables by using panel nificantly increases per capita income on the cost of air pollution.
FMOLS and panel DOLS. However, these results have evaporated in FMOLS where
 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271 1269

Table 5
Panel cointegration regression results response variable: economy – Ln(GDPPC).

BRICS countries Green environment proxies Regressors Panel DOLS estimation Panel FMOLS estimation

Coefficient Prob.value Coefficient Prob.value

Brazil Environment Ln(AGRMAC) 10.699 0.063 1.5387 0.044

Ln(CO2) 2.634 0.664 1.180 0.060
Ln(POPDEN)  167.430 0.101  23.595 0.000
Energy Ln(NUCLEAR)  9.082 0.072  2.531 0.003
Ln(ENRGRNEW) 14.709 0.125 3.985 0.000
Ln (CRWASTE)  6.469 0.430  2.192 0.000
Health Ln (FERT)  67.986 0.065  5.134 0.000
Ln (MORT)  3.678 0.600  2.371 0.001
Russia Environment Ln(AGRMAC) 11.928 0.088 1.566 0.133
Ln(CO2)  1.042 0.564   0.573 0.433
Ln(POPDEN)  77.456 0.062  12.987 0.036
Energy Ln(NUCLEAR) 8.454 0.142  0.623 0.499
Ln(ENRGRNEW)  2.377 0.242 0.982 0.185
Ln (CRWASTE) 3.863 0.109  0.493 0.305
Health Ln (FERT)  4.043 0.227 0.417 0.427
Ln (MORT)  13.130 0.069  3.509 0.001
India Environment Ln(AGRMAC)  1.967 0.426 0.032 0.938
Ln(CO2)  0.017 0.990  0.162 0.723
Ln(POPDEN)  9.745 0.642 0.126 0.958
Energy Ln(NUCLEAR) 1.939 0.112  0.900 0.006
Ln(ENRGRNEW)  0.071 0.913 0.699 0.001
Ln (CRWASTE)  4.873 0.650 2.728 0.001
Health Ln (FERT)  47.493 0.163 3.315 0.079
Ln (MORT) 7.909 0.127  5.341 0.000
China Environment Ln(AGRMAC) 3.539 0.005  0.856 0.000
Ln(CO2)  5.844 0.004  0.132 0.340
Ln(POPDEN) 0.034 0.992 1.967 0.072
Energy Ln(NUCLEAR)  1.707 0.238 0.030 0.895
Ln(ENRGRNEW) 4.746 0.014 0.207 0.406
Ln (CRWASTE) 1.856 0.114 0.668 0.048
Health Ln (FERT) 7.362 0.007  0.199 0.385
Ln (MORT) 7.872 0.004  2.378 0.000
South Africa Environment Ln(AGRMAC)  1.018 0.133 0.937 0.048
Ln(CO2) 2.508 0.000 0.135 0.105
Ln(POPDEN)  0.327 0.878 4.567 0.008
Energy Ln(NUCLEAR)  0.190 0.000  0.164 0.000
Ln(ENRGRNEW) 0.749 0.000 0.030 0.471
Ln (CRWASTE)  1.008 0.054  0.074 0.526
Health Ln (FERT) 6.706 0.024 1.195 0.262
Ln (MORT)  10.206 0.001  0.558 0.228

Note: AGRMAC is agricultural machinery i.e., tractors, NUCLEAR is alternative and nuclear energy, CO2 is carbon dioxide emissions from residential buildings and commercial
and public services, CRWASTE is combustible renewables and waste, ENRGRENW is electricity production from renewable sources, POPDEN is population density, FERT is
total fertility rate, MORT is infant mortality rate and GDPPC is Gross Domestic Product per capita.
“Response” variable represents Dependent variable, while “Regressors” shows explanatory variables. “Ln” represents natural logarithm. In case of Brazil, Adjusted R-Squared
value is 0.938 in FMOLS and 0.964 in DOLS. In Russia, Adjusted R-Squared value is 0.927 in FMOLS and 0.956 in DOLS. In India, Adjusted R-Squared value is 0.978 in FMOLS
and 0.999 in DOLS. In China, Adjusted R-Squared value is 0.986 in FMOLS and 0.999 in DOLS. In South Africa, Adjusted R-Squared value is 0.852 in FMOLS and 0.997 in DOLS.
Included observations: 36 after adjustments, Cointegrating equation deterministics: C; Fixed leads and lags specification (lead ¼ 1, lag¼ 1) and Long-run variance estimate
(Bartlett kernel, Newey–West fixed bandwidth ¼ 4.0000).

agricultural technology decreases China's per capita income dur- region……,given growing divergences in Africa to sustain
ing the study time period. These two conflicting results emerged resource extraction, the emerging economies have to deal with
in a single regression equation with two different panel techniques fragile well as developmental states”.
indicates the policy planners to addressed agricultural issues for
green environment in the region.
Finally, South African economy presented the most vulnerable
5. Conclusion
situation, where inadequate agricultural technology damages the
agricultural production, which leads to the deprived economic situa-
The study proposed a framework for green environment
tion in the country. Subsequently, air pollution increases economic
(mostly referred as “green economy”) by utilizing four key factors
growth on the cost of poor health outcomes in South Africa. Search for
including economy, environment, energy and health for BRICS
renewable energy sources would helpful to sustained long-term
countries. The study used panel cointegration techniques to
policies in a country, as South Africa fully abundant with the natural
examine the relationship between economy, environment, energy
resources and renewable energy sources, while due to inadequate
and health which derived towards the policy implications for
financial resources, this region deprived among BRIC countries. The
overall results endorse the statement of Shaw et al. [41, p. 1255], i.e., BRICS countries. The study used panel technique including panel
unit root test for assessing the order of integration between the
“Projected economic growth for China and India presents variables, panel cointegration tests for assessing the cointegration
considerable opportunities and dilemmas for the African relationship between the variables and panel cointegration
1270 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271
regressions including panel FMOLS and panel DOLS for robust
regression. The following conclusion dawn from this exercise i.e.,
 Panel unit root test suggest that the order of integration of all
the variables are same i.e., order of integration is one.
 Panel cointegration tests indicate the cointegration relationship
between the candidate variables.
 Panel regression results indicate the robustness of panel coin-
tegration regressions in BRICS countries.
 In Brazil and South Africa, agricultural technology increases GDP
per capita, however, in China, the results partially supported the
role of agricultural technology that contributed towards eco-
nomic growth of the country.
 Carbon dioxide emissions increase GDP per capita of Brazil and
South Africa. However, Carbon dioxide emissions have a nega-
tive impact on China's economic growth.
 Population density decreases the economic growth of Brazil and
Russia, however, in case of China and South Africa, population
density contributed in the GDP per capita.
 Nuclear energy consumption is inversely correlated with the
GDP per capita in Brazil, India and South Africa.
 Except Russia, all four BICS countries involved in search of the
renewable energy consumption, as renewable energy consump-
tion significantly increases GDP per capita of BICS countries.
 Combustible renewable and wastes significantly increases GDP
per capita of India and China, while it decreases Brazil and
South Africa's GDP.
 China is the most populated country, although “one baby boom”
policy exist in a country, fertility contributed positively to the
Chinese growth. While, South Africa, due to less prevalence of
contraceptive medicine and low awareness among the women
increases the birth rates in a country. Both the India and Brazil's
GDP per capita decreases along with the increase fertility rate.
 Except South Africa, all three “BRI” countries show a negative
relationship between mortality rate and GDP per capita, while
in case of China, the result partially supported the negative
correlation between mortality and GDP per capita.
On average, the results confirmed the significant association
between environment, energy, economy and health. For sustainable
policy agenda and green growth, BRICS countries should focused on
the following policy vista i.e., agricultural technology should be
subsidized for tenants and land owners, as the agricultural
mechanization help to grow more production and accommodate a
large share of unemployed peoples in this sector. Carbon free
economy should be the priority for the green growth agenda that
help to prevent from environmental health hazards and provide
safe drinking water for BRICS countries. There should be the need of
proper reforms agenda related to population pressure on the land,
as BRICS countries required proper land management practices for
lessen the population density in the region. Searching for cheap
renewable energy sources and reduces the consumption of nuclear
energy should be the significance implications for the policy plan-
ners and environmentalist to sustained green growth policy vista
for BRICS countries. Finally, health expenditures should be allocated
for a better healthcare infrastructure that would demonstrate the
improved health signaling across the countries.
The surging inundation of environmental degradation is the
impediment for green economy and sustainable development,
therefore, policy planners and environmentalist should have to
device significant and long-term based policies to protect envir-
onment in the BRICS region. Green growth is the only solution to
move towards a road of prosperity, better health and wealth for
BRICS countries.
References
[1] ISSA. Social security in the BRICS country. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Social Security Association; 2014.
[2] IDS. The green economy and the BRICS countries: bringing them together.
Institute of Development Studies, UK; 2013. Online available at: 〈〈http://www.
eldis.org/go/home&id ¼67010&type ¼ Document#.VbsLkvnlvIV〉〉 [accessed
31.07.15].
[3] IDS. BRICS and the green transformation-will mutual learning help achieve
sustainability? Institute of Development Studies, UK; 2014. Online available at:
〈〈http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/brics-and-the-green-transformation-will-
mutual-learning-help-achieve-sustainability〉〉 [accessed 31.07.15).
[4] Manyari WV, de Carvalho OA. Environmental considerations in energy plan-
ning for the Amazon region: downstream effects of dams. Energy Policy
2007;35(12):6526–34.
[5] De Jong P, Sánchez AS, Esquerre K, Kalid RA, Torres EA. Solar and wind energy
production in relation to the electricity load curve and hydroelectricity in the
northeast region of Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:526–35.
[6] Sánchez AS, Torres EA, Kalid RA. Renewable energy generation for the rural
electrification of isolated communities in the Amazon Region. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;49:278–90.
[7] Balachandra P. Dynamics of rural energy access in India: an assessment.
Energy 2011;36(9):5556–67.
[8] Bertini, L. BRICS: renewable energy and sustainability in emerging economies;
2014. Online available at: 〈〈http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/features/brics-
renewable-energy-and-sustainability-in-emerging-economies/〉〉 [accessed
31.07.15].
[9] Tamazian A, Chousa JP, Vadlamannati KC. Does higher economic and financial
development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC coun-
tries. Energy Policy 2009;37(1):246–53.
[10] Pao HT, Tsai CM. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in
BRIC countries. Energy Policy 2010;38(12):7850–60.
[11] BodasFreitas IM, Dantas E, Iizuka M. The Kyoto mechanisms and the diffusion
of renewable energy technologies in the BRICS. Energy Policy 2012;42:118–28.
[12] Pao HT, Tsai CM. Modeling and forecasting the CO2 emissions, energy con-
sumption, and economic growth in Brazil. Energy 2011;36(5):2450–8.
[13] Pao HT, Fu HC. Renewable energy, non-renewable energy and economic
growth in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;25:381–92.
[14] Song ML, Zhang LL, Liu W, Fisher R. Bootstrap-DEA analysis of BRICS' energy
efficiency based on small sample data. Appl Energy 2013;112:1049–55.
[15] Ozturk I, Salah Uddin G. Causality among carbon emissions, energy con-
sumption and growth in India. Ekonomskaistraživanja 2012;25(3):752–75.
[16] Li B, Liu X, Li Z. Using the STIRPAT model to explore the factors driving regional
CO2 emissions: a case of Tianjin, China. Nat Hazards 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11069-014-1574-9.
[17] Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S. Does energy intensity contribute to CO2
emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries Ecological Indi-
cators 2015;50:215–24.
[18] Martinho, VJPD, editor. The performance of the agricultural economics in
BRICS countries. In: The agricultural economics of the 21st century. Switzer-
land: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 71–88.
[19] Manhique AJ, Reason CJC, Silinto B, Zucula J, Raiva I, Congolo F, et al. Extreme
rainfall and floods in southern Africa in January 2013 and associated circula-
tion patterns. Nat Hazards 2015;77(2):679–91.
[20] Omri A, Mabrouk NB, Sassi-Tmar A. Modeling the causal linkages between
nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in developed and
developing countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1012–22.
[21] Song Y, Zhang M, Dai S. Study on China’s energy-related CO2 emission at
provincial level. Nat Hazards 2015;77(1):89–100.
[22] Owrangi AM, Lannigan R, Simonovic SP. Mapping climate change-caused
health risk for integrated city resilience modeling. Nat Hazards 2015;77(1):
67–88.
[23] World Bank. World development indicator. Washington, D.C: World Bank;
2014.
[24] IMF. International financial statistics. USA: International Monetary Fund;
2014.
[25] Qureshi MI, Rasli AM, Awan U, Ma J, Ali G, Alam A, et al. Environment and air
pollution: health services bequeath to grotesque menace. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 2014;22(5):3467–76.
[26] Akhmat G, Zaman K, Shukui T, Irfan D, Khan MM. Does energy consumption
contribute to environmental pollutants? Evidence from SAARC countries
Environ Sci Pollut Res 2014;21(9):5940–51.
[27] Alam A, Azam M, Abdullah AB, Malik IA, Khan A, Hamzah TAAT, et al.
Environmental quality indicators and financial development in Malaysia:
unity in diversity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2014;22(11):8392–404.
[28] Hassan SA, Zaman K, Zaman S, Shabir M. Measuring health expenditures and
outcomes in SAARC region: health is a luxury? Qual Quant 2014;48(3):1421–37.
[29] Rafindadi AA, Yusof Z, Zaman K, Kyophilavong P, Akhmat G. The relationship
between air pollution, fossil fuel energy consumption, and water resources in
the panel of selected Asia-Pacific countries. Environ Sci Pollution Res 2014;21
(19):11395–400.
[30] Malik IA, Abdullah AB, Alam A, Zaman K, Kyophilavong P, Shahbaz M, et al.
Turn on the lights: Macroeconomic factors affecting renewable energy in
Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:277–84.
 K. Zaman et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 1263–1271
[31] Alam A, Malik IA, Abdullah AB, Hassan A, Awan U, Ali G, et al. Does financial
development contribute to SAARC' S energy demand? From energy crisis to
energy reforms Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:818–29.
[32] Jabeen M, Umar M, Zahid M, Rehaman MU, Batool R, Zaman K. Socio-economic
prospects of solar technology utilization in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:1164–72.
[33] Levin A, Lin CF, Chu C. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-
sample properties. J Econ 2002;108:1–24.
[34] Breitung J. The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: Baltagi B,
editor. Advances in econometrics, Vol. 15:non-stationary panels, panel coin-
tegration, and dynamic panels. Amsterdam: JAI Press; 2000. p. 161–78.
[35] Kao C. Spurious regression and residual–based tests for cointegration in panel
data. J Econ 1999;90(1):1–44.
[36] Pedroni P. Panel cointegration; asymptotic and finite sample properties of
pooled time series tests, with an application to the PPP hypothesis: new
results. working paper, Indiana University; 1997.
1271
[37] Pedroni, P. Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Working
paper, Indiana University; December 1999. p. 1–40.
[38] Kao, C, Chiang, M. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regres-
sion in panel data. Working paper, Department of Economics, Syracuse Uni-
versity; 1997.
[39] Akpolat, AG. The long-term impact of human capital investment on GDP: a
panel cointegrated regression analysis. Econ Res Int 2014:14:10 pages, Article
ID 646518. /http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/646518S.
[40] Pedroni P. Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In:
Baltagi BH, Fomby TB, Carter Hill R, editors. Nonstationary panels, panel
cointegration, and dynamic panels (Advances in Econometrics, Volume 15).
UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2001. p. 93–130.
[41] Shaw TM, Cooper AF, Antkiewicz A. Global and/or regional development at the
start of the 21st century? China, India and (South) Africa Third World Q
2007;28(7):1255–70.