Vol. 14 No. 3 (2026): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Energy transition, government effectiveness and CO₂ emissions by income groups: Panel data evidence from an extended EKC approach

Ökkeş Çelen
Res. Assist. Dr., Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Türkiye
Taner Taş
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Türkiye
Selim Baha Yıldız
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Türkiye

Published 2026-09-25

Keywords

  • Environmental Kuznets Curve, CO₂ Emissions, Renewable Energy, Income Groups
  • Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, CO₂ Emisyonları, Yenilenebilir Enerji, Gelir Grupları

How to Cite

Energy transition, government effectiveness and CO₂ emissions by income groups: Panel data evidence from an extended EKC approach. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1265-1282. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2803

How to Cite

Energy transition, government effectiveness and CO₂ emissions by income groups: Panel data evidence from an extended EKC approach. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1265-1282. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2803

Abstract

This study examines the determinants of per capita CO₂ emissions across income groups for 140 countries over 2002–2021. The Environmental Kuznets Curve framework is extended by incorporating per capita income, squared income, renewable energy consumption, fossil fuel consumption, energy intensity, urbanization, and government effectiveness. Countries are classified into four World Bank income groups, and the model is estimated separately for the full sample and each group. Following diagnostic tests, a fixed-effects model with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors is employed. The results show that per capita income is positively associated with CO₂ emissions in all samples. The squared income term is negative and statistically significant only in the full sample and high-income group; however, estimated turning points largely lie outside observed income ranges. Renewable energy consumption is negatively associated with emissions, whereas fossil fuel consumption and energy intensity are positively associated. Overall, the findings indicate that environmental improvement cannot be expected from income growth alone and should be considered together with energy structure, energy efficiency, institutional capacity, and income-group heterogeneity.

References

  1. Acaroğlu, H., Kartal, H. M., & García Márquez, F. P. (2023). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in terms of ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions through energy diversification for Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 63289–63304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26278-w
  2. Almeida, D., Carvalho, L., Ferreira, P., Dionísio, A., & Ul Haq, I. (2024). Global dynamics of environmental Kuznets curve: A cross-correlation analysis of income and CO₂ emissions. Sustainability, 16(20), 9089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209089
  3. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data (6th ed.). Springer.
  4. Das Gupta, S., Baudino, M., & Sarkar, S. (2025). Does the environmental Kuznets curve hold across sectors? Evidence from developing and emerging economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 211, 115201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.115201
  5. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  6. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
  7. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
  8. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
  10. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
  11. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700301
  12. Hu, Y., Guan, K., & Wang, S. (2026). Challenging the environmental Kuznets curve in China: Evidence from a dynamic panel threshold model with cross-sectional dependence. Journal of Environmental Management, 398, 128432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.128432
  13. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues (Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430). World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630421468336563314
  14. Mahmoodi, M., & Dahmardeh, N. (2022). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis with considering ecological footprint and governance quality: Evidence from emerging countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 849676. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.849676
  15. Perman, R., & Stern, D. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00216
  16. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (CESifo Working Paper No. 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240).
  17. Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.011
  18. Saboori, B., Mahdavian, S. M., & Radmehr, R. (2024). Assessing the environmental impact of institutional quality at aggregate and disaggregate levels: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in MENA countries. Sustainable Environment, 10(1), 2426833. https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2024.2426833
  19. Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
  20. Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
  21. Wang, Q., Li, Y., & Li, R. (2024). Rethinking the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across 214 countries: The impacts of 12 economic, institutional, technological, resource, and social factors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 292. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02736-9
  22. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
  23. World Bank. (2024a). World development indicators. World Bank. Erişim tarihi: 10 Ocak 2026. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  24. World Bank. (2024b). Worldwide governance indicators. World Bank. Erişim tarihi: 10 Ocak 2026. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators
  25. Zaland, Z., & Imamoglu, H. (2024). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the context of renewable and non-renewable energy in China. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(2), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i2.2348