The Relationship between Carbon Dioxide Emission Intensity and Economic Growth in China: Cointegration, Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality

  • 1. College of Statistics, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China;
    2. Research Center of Applied Statistics, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China

Received date: 2015-05-21

  Revised date: 2016-01-30

  Online published: 2016-04-12

Supported by

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71161011)


This study is to use cointegration, linear and non-linear Granger causality test to investigate the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissionand economic growth (GDP) in China for the period 1961-2010. Our analysis shows that CO2 emission and GDP are balanced in the long-run. The results suggest that there is evidence that economic development can improve environmental degradation in the long-run. Moreover, the result of linear and non-linear Granger causality test indicates a long-run unidirectional causality running from GDP to CO2 emissions. The study suggests that in the long run, economic growth may have an adverse effect on the CO2 emissions in China. Government should take into account the environment in their current policies, which may be of great importance for policy decision-makers to develop economic policies to preserve economic growth while curbing of carbon emissions.

Cite this article

TU Xiongling . The Relationship between Carbon Dioxide Emission Intensity and Economic Growth in China: Cointegration, Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016 , 7(2) : 122 -129 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2016.02.007


1 Ajayi Richard A., Serletis, A. 2009. Testing for Causality in the Transmission of Eurodollar and US In terest Rates, Applied Financial Economics . 19(19): 439-443.
2 Aktas, C and Yilmaz, V. 2008. Causal relationship between oil consumption and economic growth in Turkey. KocaeliUniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(8): 45-55.
3 Asimakopoulos I., Ayling D, Mahmood W. M.. 2000. Non-Linear Granger Causality in the Currency Fu tures Returns. Economics Letters , 68(1): 25-30.
4 Aslanidis N. and Iranzo. S. 2009. Environment and Development: Is There A Kuznets Curve for CO 2 emissions. Applied Economics , 41(6): 803- 810.
5 Babatunde M. A. 2011. A bound testing analysis of Wagner’s law in Nigeria: 1970-2006, Applied Economics , 43(21): 2843-2850.
6 Bekiros S tel ios D, Diks, Cees G. H. 2008a. The Relationship between Crude Oil Spot and Futures Prices: Coin tegration, Linear and Nonlinear Causality. Energy Economics , 30(5): 2673-2685.
7 Bagh l, i M. 2006. A Model-Free Characterization of Causality. Economics Letters , 91(3): 380-388.
8 Boubaker, A. and Seba, i S. 2009. Inter-Market Information Flow: A Nonlinear Approach. Applied Economics Letters , 16(10): 1009-1015.
9 Chen, Shyh-Wei, Shen, Chung-Hua. 2009. Can the Nonlinear Present Value Model Explain the Movement of Stock Prices, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics . 23(23): 155-170.
10 Chiou-Wei, S., Chen, C., and Zhu, Z. 2008. Economic growth and energy consumption revisited—Evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality. Energ. Econ . 30(6): 3063-3076.
11 Christie, T. 2014. The effect of government spending on economic growth: testing the non-linear hypothesis, Bulletin of Economic Research , 66(2): 183-204.
12 Ciarreta, A., and Zarraga, A. 2007. Electricity consumption and economic growth: Evidence from Spain. Biltoki 1(1): 1-16.
13 Cole, M. A. 2004. US Environmental Load Displacement: Examining Consumption, Regulations and the Role of NAFTA, Ecological Economics . 48(4): 439-450.
14 Diks, C., and Panchenko, V. A. 2006. New statistic and practical guidelines for nonparametric Granger causality testing. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 30(9-10): 1647-1669.
15 D inda, S. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics . 49(4): 431-455.
16 D inda, S., Coondoo, D. 2006. Income and Emission: A Panel-Data Based Cointegration Analysis, Ecological Economics . 57(2): 167-181.
17 G. Bordogna, M. FedrLiu, S., Chang, T., Lee, C. -H. et al . 2012. Nonlinear adjustment to purchasing power parity: the ADL test for threshold cointegration, Applied Economics Letters , 19(6):1-5.
18 Galeott, i M., Lanza, A., Paul, i F. 2006. Reassessing the Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emission: A Robustness Exercise, Ecological Economics. 57(1): 152-163.
19 Gazi Salah Uddin, Muhammad Shahbaz, Mohamed Arouri, Frédéric Teulon. 2014. Financial development and poverty reduction nexus: A cointegration and causality analysis in Bangladesh. Economic Modelling , 36(1):405-412.
20 Gooijera, J. G. De, Sivarajasingham, S. 2008. Parametric and Nonparametric G ranger Causality Testing: Linkages Between International Stock Markets, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications . 387(11): 2547-2560.
21 Heil M. T., Selden, T. M. 2001. Carbon Emissions and Economic Development: Future Trajectories based on Historical Experience, Environment and Development Economics . 6: 63-83.
22 Hiemstra C., and Jones J. D. 1994. Testing for linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. J. Financ. 49(5): 1639- 1664.
23 Hiroshi Ono. 2014. The government expenditure-economic growth relation in Japan: an analysis by using the ADL test for threshold cointegration. Applied Economics . 46( 28): 3523-3531
24 H oltz-Eak in, D., Seld en, T. M. 1995. Stoking the Fires? CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth, Journal of Public E conom ics. Vol. 57: 5-101.
25 jay, iRichard A., Serletis. 2009. A Testing for causality in the Transmission of Eurodollar and US Interest Rates. Applied Financial Economics, 19, 439-443.
26 Kumar, S., Webber, D. J. and Fargher, S. 2012. Wagner’s Law revisited: cointegration and causality tests for New Zealand, Applied Economics , 44(5): 607-623.
27 Lee, C. C., and Chang, C. P. 2005. Structural breaks, energy consumption, and economic growth revisited: Evidence from Taiwan. Energ. Econ . 27(6): 857-872.
28 Li, J. and Lee, J. 2010. ADL test for threshold cointegration, Journal of Time Series Analysis , 31, 241-54.
29 Lindmark, M. 2002. An EKC-pattern in Historical Perspective: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Technology, Fuel Prices and Growth in Sweden, 1870-1997, Ecological Economics , 42(1): 333 -347.
30 Lise, W., and Montfort, K. V. 2007. Energy consumption and GDP in Turkey: Is there a co-integration relationship? Energ. Econ . 29: 1166-1178.
31 Mohammed Alzahrani, Mansur Masih, Omar Al-Titi. 2014. Linear and non-linear Granger causality between oil spot and futures prices: A wavelet based test.. Journal of International Money and Finance , 48, 175-201.
32 Odhiambo, N. M. 2009. Energy consumption and economic growth nexus in Tanzania: An ARDL bounds testing approach. Energ. Policy, 37: 617-622.
33 Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, Journal of Applied Econometrics , 16, 289-326.
34 S. Nazlioglu, S. Kayhan, U. Adiguzel. 2014. Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in Turkey: Cointegration, Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality. Energy Sources. Part B . 9(4): 315-324.
35 Soytas, U., Sar, iR. 2009. Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, and Carbon Emssions: Challenges Faced by an EU Candidate Member, Ecological Economics . 68(6): 1667-1675.
36 W. and Siklos, P.. 2001. Cointegration and threshold adjustment, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics , 19:166-76.
37 Yoo, S. 2006. Oil consumption and economic growth: Evidence from Korea. Energ. Source. Part B, 1: 235-243.
38 ZHANG Leqin, CHEN Suping, ZHU Yawen, et al . The Measurement of Carbon Emission Effect of Construction Land Changes in Anhui Province Based on the Extended LMDI Model. Journal of Resources and Ecology . 4(2):186-192.