TX_1~AT/TX_2~AT International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020368 International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy ISSN: 2146-4553 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2020, 10(5), 368-383. Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling Zeeshan Arshad*, Margarita Robaina, Anabela Botelho Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Portugal. *Email: arshad@ua.pt Received: 18 Apil 2020 Accepted: 13 July 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9956 ABSTRACT This study aims to estimate the effects of economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption (EC) and natural resources on carbon emissions for the period of 1990-2014, in 11 countries, using 3 panels: (i) Full countries panel, (ii) South Asian countries and (iii) Southeast Asian countries. For all panels, the long-run elasticities were estimated. The results suggest that non-renewable and renewable EC increase economic development in the three panels. Besides, natural resources impede the economic growth in South Asian and full countries panels while natural resources increase the economic activities in Southeast Asian countries. Non-renewable and economic growth increase CO2 emissions, whereas, renewable EC lessens the carbon emissions. Natural resources also contributed to CO2 emissions in the case of South Asian and full countries panels while improved the environmental quality in the Southeast Asian region. It was also observed that there is cointegration among the variables in all three panels. Policy recommendations can be made, in the sense that renewable energy sources should be preferred to decrease CO2 emissions, and education and corruption should be improved to estimulate the economic growth in the studied areas. Keywords: Renewable Energy, Non-renewable Energy, CO2 Emissions, Natural resources, CS-ARDL JEL Classifications: Q43, Q44, Q56 1. INTRODUCTION From the last few decades climate change has been a very wide spoken phenomenon and exhalation of carbon dioxide (CO2 emissions) is considered its chief source. The intensity of the CO2 emissions has been risen by 45% from the last 130 years which is constantly deteriorated the environmental quality (Carbon Footprint, 2018). According to the existing literature, several drivers of CO2 emissions (CO2) have been discussed such as economic growth (GDP), industrialization, urbanization (URB), deforestation, waste management, air pollution, renewable energy (RE) sources, non-renewable energy (NRE) sources (Arshad et al., 2020) and natural resources (NR) etc. To meet the demand for the ever increasing population of this planet, labor, capital and other inputs of production (especially energy sources), uplift of human efforts are considered liable for the world’s astonishing economic progress (Owusu and Asumadu-Sarkodie, 2016), which ultimately raised the level of carbon emissions. Briefly speaking the release of carbon dioxide has proved itself for the threat to environment system and human development (Bekun et al., 2019). The gaseous emission alarming increased from the figure of 9434.4 million tons in 1961 to a gigantic figure of 34649.4 million tons in year 2011 (IPCC, 2014). British Petroleum agency (2018) report reveals that a uplift of carbon dioxide from 29714.2 million tons in 2009-33444 million tons in 2017 was observed on the globe. This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 369 The dynamic that has affected the energy-related carbon emissions have been widely discussed in the existing literature: Farhani and Shahbaz (2014) for Middle East and North African (MENA) countries, Shafiei and Salim (2014) for OECD countries, Ben Jebli and Ben Youssef (2015) for Tunisia, Bhattacharya et al. (2017) for 85 developed and developing economies, Bento and Moutinho (2016) for the Italian case, Rasoulinezhad and Saboori (2018) for the commonwealth of independent states (CIS), Dong et al. (2019) for 128 countries and Adam and Nsiah (2019) for 28 Sub-Saharan African economies, are some examples. Besides, the economic growth and NR nexus is also discussed in the existing literature, that provides the mixed (positive and negative) substantiation of a NR on economic growth (Satti et al., 2014). The economies with abundant NR perform lesser than the NR-scarce nations (Sachs and Warner, 1995). For instance, Korea, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Switzerland, performed very well and made enormous progress with no or very limited access to natural resources (Krueger, 1998) and contrary to NR abundant countries made 3 times more progress (Auty, 2001; Sachs and Warner, 1995). Shaw (2013) also proved that NR abundance is the only reason for low economic growth in Azerbaijan. Conversely, some South American countries took advantage of the NR boom to enhance their economic growth. Notably, Ecuador increased its GDP per capita during the boom period of NR (Sachs and Warner, 1999). Besides, the resources of ore and coal in England and Germany were the significant ingredients behind the industrial revolution in Europe (Sachs and Warner, 1995). The exploitation of NR abundance was also behind the success story of Norway to achieve a high level of income prosperity with proper economic planning (Gylfason, 2001). Furthermore, natural resources (NR) are also included in different studies to investigate the impact on environmental quality. Recently, Bekun et al. (2019) analyzed the causal interaction between economic growth, NR rent, RE and NRE consumption in CO2 emissions for EU 16 countries covering the period of 1996-2014 by pooled mean group (PMG)-ARDL models. The Kao cointegration techniques confirmed the long-run relationship between the variables, and the study suggested that NR rent have a significant positive impact on CO2 emissions. It indicates that overdependence on the NR rent has effects on environmental sustainability if a proper management is ignored. The study also noted that NRE and economic growth increase, whereas RE consumption decrease the CO2 emissions. The causality results display a feedback result effect amidst NRE, RE and economic development. Further, the study also found feedback causality between NR rent and economic growth. The above discussion about energy (RE and NRE) consumption- CO2 emissions nexus disclosed mixed results for different countries and economies with different time spam. Moreover, NR abundance or scarce role in the economic growth has been a challenge in developing and developed countries, and their impact on CO2 emissions requires more research, as existing results are not consensual. For this purpose, the current study investigates the linkages between economic growth, NR rent, CO2 emissions, RE and NRE consumption over the period of 1990-2014 for the South and Southeast Asian countries (SSEA). We developed two models to full fill the aim of the study: Model 1, to access the impact of RE, NRE and NR effects on economic growth, Model 2, to access the impact of all the discussed variables on CO2 emissions. Although several studies have considered the factors influencing CO2 emissions at single-country, regional and global perspective, there is a limited number of studies examining the impacts of economic growth, NR rent, RE and NRE consumption on carbon emissions within the same framework for SSEA countries. Further, this piece of writing dissent from the current composition in several modes. Firstly, it is a humble effort to meet the literature gap, by studying SSEA economies, using the referred variables, as the estimations were made for 3 panels: (i) Full countries panel, (ii) South Asian countries and (iii) Southeast Asian countries. Secondly, this article considers advance panel data techniques that allow the heterogeneous unobserved parameters and cross-sectional dependence (CD) of the sample countries. Thirdly, the study uses the advance PMG technique to estimate the short and long-run dynamics. Fourthly, to robust the PMG estimation we have applied a new technique named as dynamic common correlated effects (DCCE) CS-ARDL introduced by Chudik et al. (2016). Finally, this paper controls for the result of diagnostic and specification tests, which have been rarely considered in prior studies. Different cointegration techniques such as Pedroni, Kao, Fisher and Westerlund allowed us to conclude a long-run relationship exist among the considered variables. Findings from the PMG and DCCE CS-ARDL estimations reveal that RE and NRE rise the economic development in the selected three panels. Besides, natural resources impede the economic growth in South Asian and full countries panels while increase the economic activities in Southeast Asian countries. In the case of Model 2, results demonstrated that NRE and economic growth increased the CO2 emissions, whereas, RE consumption lessens the carbon emissions in all three selected panels. However, natural resources also contributed to raise CO2 emissionsin the case of South Asian and full countries panels while improved the environmental quality in the Southeast Asian region. The policy implication in this regard, is that RE sources should be preferred to decrease CO2 emissions in the SSEA countries. Moreover, for the better use of natural resources, the government should concentrate on education and corruption to improve the economic growth in the selected studied areas. The remaining portion of paper has arranged in following way: The literature review chapter, the models construction, data overview and methodology chapter, the result and discussion chapter and in the end, the conclusions, policy implications, limitations and future recommendation chapter. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The anterior literature has discussed the linkages among energy consumption (EC), renewable energy (RE), non-renewable Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020370 energy (NRE), energy prices, industrialization, economic growth and other macro-economic variables such as foreign investment (FDI), financial development (FD), trade openness (TRD), and natural resource (NR) abundance, with CO2 emissions as a proxy of greenhouse gases (GHGs). We divided our literature into two strands: (i) The effect of (RE), (NRE), economic development and other macro-economic variables with environmental degradation in the form of carbon emissions and (ii) the influence of NR on economic growth and on CO2 emissions (CO2). 2.1. Economic Growth (GDP), CO2 Emissions (CO2), Renewable (RE) and Non-renewable Energy (NRE) Numerous studies that investigated the environmental pollution- macroeconomic variables nexus are quite insignificant to justify such extensive phenomenon at single-country level, territorial scale and worldwide. For instance, in the case of the MENA countries, Farhani and Shahbaz (2014) examined the relationship among RE, NRE, GDP and CO2 emissions for 1980-2009. The study used the fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least square (DOLS) method to investigate the long-run elasticities. The results show that RE and NRE consumption increase carbon emissions. The study also found an inverted U-shaped environment Kuznets curve (EKC) with economic growth and CO2 emissions. Unidirectional causality running from RE, NRE and output to CO2 emissions were found in the short run, while in the long run, bidirectional causality running from RE and NRE to CO2 emissions was observed. In addition to the concern mentioned above, Shafiei and Salim (2014) focused on the OECD countries during 1980-2011 and investigated with STIRPAT model the relationship between urbanization, CO2emissions, RE and NRE consumption. The results show that NRE has a direct impact on CO2 emissions, while RE decreases carbon emissions. The study also confirmed the EKC hypothesis with urbanization and CO2 emissions. Besides, in Tunisia, Ben Jebli and Ben Youssef (2015) derived similar results with data covering years 1980-2009. Further, Bhattacharya et al.( 2017) demonstrated the role of RE consumption and institutions on economic growth and in combating CO2 emissions for 85 developing and developed economies of different income groups around the globe. The results from the generalized moment method (GMM) and FMOLS show that RE has a significant favorable impact on economic growth and improved environmental quality. The production of RE is the key to mitigating carbon emissions in Italy, as concluded by Bento and Moutinho (Bento and Moutinho, 2016). For the case of Turkey, Pata (2018) analyzed the short and long-run dynamic relationship between GDP per capita, CO2 emissions, urbanization, RE consumption, FD, hydropower EC and alternative EC, during 1974-2014 with ARDL bound testing and FMOLS method. The work reveals the ultimate relationships among mutable with Gregory-Hansen and Hatemi-J cointegration approaches. In addition, the study noted that economic growth, urbanization andFD increase CO2 emissions, whereas RE consumption, hydropower consumption and alternative EC sources had insignificant effects on environmental quality. Inglesi-Lotz and Dogan (2018) confirmed the long-run relationships between income, TRD, NRE, RE consumption and CO2 emissions for the ten biggest electricity generators in Sub-Saharan Africa over the period of 1980 to 2011. Moreover, the authors concluded that the use of RE improved while NRE worsened the environment quality, and that there is unidirectional causality running from income, CO2 emissions, TRD and NRE towards RE. Top RE users countries need to increase RE production, FD and TRD to lessen the carbon emissions (Dogan and Seker, 2016). Conversely, Rasoulinezhad and Saboori (2018) noted the long-run connections between RE, NRE, TRD, GDP, financial openness and carbon emissions for the commonwealth of independent states (CIS) for 1992-2015. The results from panel cointegration methods such as FMOLS and DOLS declared that RE has no impact on CO2 emissions and that fossil fuel proxy of NRE consumption declined whereas financial openness improved the environmental quality in the long run. In more recent studies, authors illustrated different linkages between variables. For instance, Sharif et al. (2019) concentrated on the ultimate liaison connecting NRE, RE consumption and carbon emissions. The long-run elasticities show an inverse impact of RE and direct effects of NRE consumption on the environment for the panel of 74 nations during 1990-2015. Also, Belaïd and Zrelli (2019) and Chen et al. (2019) explored similar findings for 9 Mediterranean countries and regional study in China, respectively. However, Adam and Nsiah (2019) noticed that both RE and NRE consumption increased the CO2 emissions in 28 economies of Sub Saharan Africa. In another scenario, Dong et al. (2019) estimated the linkages between RE intensity, NRE and economic growth with STIRPAT modeling the global and regional context of an unbalanced panel dataset of 128 countries covering 1990-2014. The results indicated that at a global level, RE intensity, NRE, economic growth and population deteriorated the environment. Nonetheless, the regional perspective findings suggested that RE declined the CO2 emissions in the two regions such as South and Central America and Europe and Eurasia. 2.2. Natural Resources (NR)-Economic Growth (GDP)-Environmental Pollution Nexus The natural resources (NR)-economic growth (GDP) nexus has been discussed into two scenarios: resource abundance and resource dependence in the prior literature. Resource abundance can be explained by “annual per capita rent of resource production”(Apergis and Payne, 2014; Brunnschweiler, 2008) whereas resource dependence can be measured by “rents from NR over GDP” (Auty, 2007; Bhattacharyya and Hodler, 2014),“the share of total natural resource in total export” (Dietz et al., 2007), or “the share of total natural resource export in GDP” (Boschini et al., 2013; Sachs and Warner, 1995). Several studies have been discussed the linkages between NR abundance and economic indicators around the globe. For instance, Sarmidi et al. (2014) proved that NR abundance affects growth positively after the threshold level of institutional quality. After 2003, the oil abundance affects positively economic growth in MENA countries (Apergis and Payne, 2014). Conversely, Satti l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 371 et al. (2014) inspected the connection among NR abundance, economic growth, FD, capital and trade by ARDL bounds testing approach and VECM for 1971-2011. The findings confirmed the existence of long-run relationship between the considered variables and suggested that NR abundance impedes the economic growth whereas FD, trade openness and capital stock improve the economic development in Venezuela. Ahmed et al. (2016) also proved the association between NR, economic growth, capital, labour and exports by Cobb-Douglas production function. The results show that a 1% increase in NR results in 0.47% decline in GDP in the long-run. It means that NR abundance slowed the economic development in Iran during 1965-2011. The causality results proved the feedback effect between economic growth and NR abundance. Besides, Kim and Lin (2017) noticed similar linkages between NR abundance and economic growth by heterogeneous panel cointegration technique for 40 developing countries covering the period from 1990 to 2012. Ben-Salha et al. (2018) determined the causal connections between NR rent and economic growth by PMG estimator to identify the short and long-run dynamics for top NR abundance economies covering the period of 1970-2013. The result shows that NR rent increased the economic development (FD) in the long run. Further, the result of the causality analysis shows that bidirectional relationship exists between the selected variables. Shahbaz et al. (2018) also investigated the stimulating role of NR abundance in financial development for the USA for 1960-2016. The study also included additional variables such as education, economic growth and capitalization as FD in the financial demand function. The existence of cointegration confirmed between FD and its determinants. The empirical results also show that NR abundance, economic growth and education have a positive impact on FD while capitalization is inversely linked with FD. Furthermore, in the meta-analysis of last two decades studies about natural resources and economic growth, Havranek et al. (2016) observed that 40% of studies reported insignificant result, 40% studies supports the natural resource curse whereas the last 20% studies find blessing of natural resources. The authors noticed that institutional quality, investment activities, different nature of natural resources and natural resources scarce or abundance could be possible in explaining the differences across the studies. However, in recent years some studies found that NR-abundant countries have positive and rapid economic growth, especially with cross-sectional data. Researchers believe that to have a clear picture of the connection between economic growth and NR needs to be studied more in time series and panels frameworks (Badeeb et al., 2017). Moreover, the role of NR is also included in different studies to investigate the impact on environmental quality. Among of them, Balsalobre-Lorente et al. (2018) employed the carbon function to investigate the EKC hypothesis for European countries such as Germany, Spain, England, France and Italy for the 1985-2016 period. The study also included other additional variables such as TRD, NR abundance, RE consumption and energy innovation to augment the carbon emission function. Results confirmed the existence of the N-shaped EKC phenomenon. Findings also suggested that NR, RE consumption and energy innovation mitigate CO2 emissions whereas, TRD and the interaction between economic growth and RE consumption deteriorated the environmental quality. In this regard, the review of limited literature represents quite distinct results, that has influenced in extending the vagueness regarding the specific association between the variables, thus requiring new investigation to clarify and validate the inconclusive findings of existing studies (Balcilar et al., 2018). 3. MODELS, DATA AND METHODOLOGY This section consists of three parts: (i) We will develop the empirical models, (ii) we will discuss the definition of the variables with data sources, and also demonstrate the individual country variables role over the year and descriptive statistics and (iii) we will discuss the different econometrics techniques which are going to be the part of the analysis. 3.1. Models Construction The focus of the study is to determine the linkages between economic growth, renewable energy (RE), non-renewable energy (NRE), natural resources (NR) rent and carbon emissions. For this purpose, we use two models. Model 1: We observe the impact of RE, NRE, NR rent on economic development. One of the aims is to examine the relationship between GDP, RE, NRE consumption and NR rent in SSEA region. The general form of the economic growth function model is designed as follows: GDP = f (RE, NRE, RENT) (1) Where RE, NRE, RENT and GDP represent renewable EC, non-renewable EC, natural resources rent and economic growth, respectively. A large number of studies have jointly examined the nexus between natural resources and economic growth along with other macro-economic indicators (Sarmidi et al., 2014; Satti et al., 2014; Ahmed et al., 2016; Kim and Lin, 2017; Shahbaz et al., 2018; Ben-Salha et al., 2018 etc). Based on the prior relevant studies, our empirical model is as follows: LGDP2it=α1it+αrit LREit+αnrit LNREit+αrenit RENTit+ϵit (2) Model 2: The role of economic growth, RE, NRE and NR rent in CO2 emissions is accessed. Further to probe the connection among dependent variable CO2 emissions and independent variables such as RE consumption, NRE consumption, economic growth and NR rent, the basic framework of carbon emission is established based on the model of Balsalobre-Lorente et al. (2018) and Bekun et al.(2019): CO2 =f (RE, NRE, RENT, GDP) (3) Where CO2 symbolizes CO2 emissions per capita and the rest of the variables we have already discussed in equation 1. The estimated equation for this model was: Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020372 LCO2it=β1it+βyit LGDPit+βrit LREit+βnrit LNREit+βrenit LRENTit+μit (4) For equation (2) and (3) L stands for log-linear specification; ϵit and μit are the idiosyncratic error terms, independent and identically distributed, that represents the standard normal distribution with unit variance and zero mean; i represent the country (i = 1, 2,…….14); t stands for a time period (t = 1, 2, 3,……..25); α1it is intercept; αrit, αnrit, αrenit are the long-run elasticity’s estimates of economic growth (LGDP) with respect to the explanatory variables such as renewable energy consumption (LRE), non -renewable energy (LNRE) and rent (LRENT) in Model 1. Furthermore, equation 4 implies that β1it is the intercept whereas βyit, βrit, βnrit and βrenit are the long-run elasticity’s estimates of CO2 emissions per capita (LCO2) concerning the independent variables such as real GDP per capita (LGDP), renewable energy consumption (LRE), non-renewable energy consumption (LNRE) and natural resources rent (LRENT) respectively. 3.2. Data Our empirical analysis is established on the yearly time series data covering the time span from 1990 to 2014 for 5 South1 and 6 Southeast 2 Asian countries. The data was retrieved both for the period and selected countries from World Development Indicator (2019). CO2 emissions are measured in (metric 1 Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal 2 Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore and Thailand tons per capita); renewable EC consists in EC from of hydro, solar, wind, biogas and biofuels, in percentage of total final EC; non-renewable energy (NRE) consumption refers to “use of primary energy before transformation to other end-use fuels, which is equal to indigenous production plus imports and stock changes, minus exports and fuels supplied to ships and aircraft engaged in international transport, measured in kg of oil equivalent per capita” (World Bank, 2019); real GDP was stated in per capita constant 2010 U.S. dollar and the total natural resources are “the sum of oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and forest rents in percentage of GDP” (World Bank, 2019). In Table 1 we present variables definition as well as supporting references for each one. Evolution of the selected variables with respect to countries is presented in Figure 1. Figure shows that Singapore has the highest income, while the lowest GDP per capita is verified in Nepal. Construct to these graphs, the highest CO2 emissions per capita was in Singapore although with a negative trend whereas the lowest level was in Nepal. In the case of RE and NRE consumption picture clearly shows that sample countries relay more on NRE rather than in RE sources. Besides, total natural resources have a decreasing rate over the years in all the sample countries. Furthermore, Table 2 reflects the statistics summary of selected variables for the three panels, between 1990 and 2014. The Table 1: Description and sources of the variables Variables Definition Supporting reference Source CO2 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) (Adams and Nsiah, 2019; Amri, 2019; Belaïd and Zrelli, 2019) WDI RE Renewable energy consumption (% of total final energy consumption) (Ben Jebli and Ben Youssef, 2015; Dogan and Seker, 2016; Sharif et al., 2019) WDI NRE Non-renewable energy consumption (kg of oil equivalent per capita) (Dogan, 2016; Shafiei and Salim, 2014; Sharif et al., 2019) WDI RENT Total natural resources rent (% of GDP) (Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2018; Bekun et al., 2019; Shahbaz et al., 2018) WDI GDP GDP per capita constant (2010 US$) (Belaïd and Zrelli, 2019; Dong et al., 2019; Mert et al., 2019) WDI WDI: World development indicator Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix Economies Variables Min Max Mean SD CO2 GDP NRE RE RENT South Asian CO2 0.03 1.73 0.56 0.39 1 0.38 0.75 ‒0.75 0.66 GDP 357.20 3506.73 997.31 671.29 1 0.54 ‒0.25 ‒0.19 NRE 118.89 636.57 366.57 122.44 1 ‒0.25 0.41 RE 36.65 95.11 61.72 16.68 1 ‒0.40 RENT 0.10 7.35 1.45 1.21 1 Southeast Asian CO2 0.30 18.04 3.94 3.99 1 0.77 0.90 ‒0.80 ‒0.22 GDP 431.8 52244.4 8805.10 13006.8 1 0.92 ‒0.67 ‒0.40 NRE 260.79 7370.65 1719.68 1698.1 1 ‒0.79 ‒0.31 RE 0.19 76.08 27.37 20.53 1 0.15 RENT 0.00 25.80 5.40 5.04 1 Overall CO2 0.03 18.04 2.40 3.40 1 0.804 0.92 ‒0.77 0.06 GDP 357.20 52244.4 5256.1 10362.0 1 0.92 ‒0.62 ‒0.15 NRE 118.65 7370.65 1104.63 1424.98 1 ‒0.74 ‒0.01 RE 0.19 95.11 42.99 25.47 1 ‒0.26 RENT 0.00 25.80 3.60 4.28 1 Authors own calculation based on the data over the period 1990-2014. Mean: Simple average, Max: Maximum; Min: Minimum; SD: Standard deviation and right columns presented pair-wise correlations and results reported till second decimal l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 373 Southeast Asian countries have the highest mean value of CO2 emissions per capita (3.99) compared to South Asian (0.56) whereas on the overall panel, countries are facing carbon emissions of 2.40. Besides, Southeast Asian countries have high volatility than South Asian countries. When analyzing the GDP per capita, we observe that Southeast Asian are richer than South Asian economies. Concerning renewable energy, the highest consumption is registered by South Asian countries (61.72) compared to the Southeast Asian (27.37). However, in the case of non-renewable energy Southeast Asian countries consumed more than South Asian economies. In terms of volatility, South Asian economies are more consistent users of RE and NRE sources as they have the lowest standard deviation. Furthermore, the average natural resources rent in South Asian countries is 5.40 while in South Asia is 1.40. Concerning the volatility of natural resources rent, Southeast Asian countries are more volatile than South Asian economies. 3.3. Methodology 3.3.1. Cross-sectional dependence (CD) and panel heterogeneity we used balanced panel data of 11 SSEA countries in the current study. One of the assumptions of panel data is that there may occur a cross- sectional dependence (CD) among the variables, which may produce unreliable and biased results (Pesaran, 2007). From the existing literature, it is concluded, that panel data models are expected to exhibit significant cross-sectional dependence in the errors (De Hoyos and Sarafidis, 2006). The reason for the cross-correlation of errors might be due to omitted common effects, unobserved components and spatial effects or the presence of common shocks (Pesaran, 2004). From Figure 1 it can be noted that the countries investigated in the present study illustrate a different pattern in their economic growth performance, RE, NRE, RENT and, therefore, provides an indication of inherent heterogeneity of individual cross-sectional units. Moreover, the CD across the Asian economies will be an essential issue to account because of the substantial economic and financial integration of the economies (Bhat, 2018). This indicates that there is Figure 1: CO2 emissions per capita, renewable energy consumption, non-renewable energy consumption, total natural resources rent by country from 1990 to 2014 Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020374 a strong interdependence between cross-sectional units (Belaïd and Zrelli, 2019). Moreover, these steps also allow us to choose suitable unit root tests for further analysis. Several tests has been performed to check the CD among the countries, as Friedman (1937), Breusch and Pagan LM (1980), Frees (1995) and Pesaran (2004) CD tests. However, for further empirical analysis we used well-known Breusch- Pagan LM (1980) test, since it works better in the case of panels featured with N < T, where N stand for cross-sectional dimensions while, T represents the time dimensions of the panel. It means that no desirable statically properties are required (Pesaran, 2004). Besides, it is applicable in balance or unbalance panel data. For the robustness of the LM results Pesaran (2004) CD test is also applied. 3.3.2. Stationarity The second step is to confirm the stationarity after investigated the CD in the panel data modelling. After the confirmation of cross-sectional dependence, the next step consists in examining the stationary problem in the panel of variables, in determining the presence of stochastic trends, which is broadly designed to elaborate on the postulation of cross-sectional dependence (Arshad et al., 2020). Numerous tests of the unit root have been discussed in the prior literature for instance, (Breitung, 2001; Choi, 2001; Hadri, 2000; Harris and Tzavalis, 1999; Im et al., 2003; Levin et al., 2002; Maddala and Wu, 1999; Pesaran, 2007; Quah, 1994). The researchers divided them into two groups such as first-generation (Breitung, Hadri and Levin Lin Chu tests) who deals with cross-sectional independence and second-generation (ADF-Fisher, PP-Fisher, CIPS, CADF and IPS [IM Pesaran shin]) that considered cross-sectional dependence. However, it is evident that the cross-sectional dependence exists, so we used two second- generation test names as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (CADF) and cross-sectional IPS (CIPS) who deals with heterogeneous panels and CD, as proposed by (Pesaran, 2007). 3.3.3. Cointegration The next step is the cointegration process after the confirmation of the stationarity of the variables at the same level. This process helps us to identify whether long-run relationships exist between considered variables, that means that the variables moves together in the long-run. This panel cointegration method can also be used to study the long- run equilibrium process. Therefore, we applied four cointegration methods. Three belongs to the first generation method such as Pedroni (2004), Kao (1999) and Fisher proposed by (Maddala and Wu, 1999) to identify the long-run relationships between variables. Besides, to robust the first generation cointegration tests, we applied Westerlund (2007) cointegration technique which is known as a second-generation method. and not only deals with the cross-sectional dependence but it also not relays on integrated order of the variables, what makes this method applicable in very general conditions. 3.3.4. PMG regression The PMG regression suggested by Pesaran (1997) and Pesaran et al. (1999) is applied, which permits convergence speed and short-run adjustment to estimate the heterogeneity of each country. The PMG estimation is the revised version of mean group regression (MG) (Pesaran and Smith, 1995). According to the Pesaran et al. (1999), MG is a kind of pooled estimation because this model use average values of the coefficients of each group and assume that the slope coefficients and error variance are indistinguishable. However, PMG model takes the cointegration form of the simple ARDL model and adapts it to a panel set by allowing the intercepts, short-run coefficients and cointegrating terms to differ across cross-sections. It further executes the restrictions of the cross-country homogeneity on the long-run coefficients (Pesaran et al., 1999). To achieve the Pesaran et al. (1999) PMG estimation, the ARDL (p, q) models are as follows: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 1 0 11     − − − −= = − − ∆ = ∆ + ∆  + − +  ∑ ∑p qi ii j i j it t j t jj j i i i i itt t j üüü GDP Y e (5) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 2 21 0 2 11     − − − −= = − − ∆ = ∆ + ∆  + − +  ∑ ∑p qi ii j i j it t j t jj j i i i i itt t j CO CO y CO Y e (6) Where and refer to short and long-run coefficients, respectively; and represents short and long-run patterns with reference to CO2 emissions respectively; and are the short-run coefficients; θi is the error correction term; (yi)t–j and (yj)t–j are the values of short-run and long-run variables; are the long-run coefficients; eit = μi+vit; μi and vit represents country-specific fixed and time-variant effects in both equations respectively. 3.3.5. DCCE CS-ARDL Chudik and Pesaran (2015) introduced a new panel technique named as “dynamic common correlated effects” (DCCE) which is helpful to handle the problem of cross-sectional dependence. Besides, this approach is the extension of common correlated effect (CCE) by Pesaran (2006). DCCE approach considers CD by assuming that the variables can be represented by common factor. DCCE technique is developed on the principle of mean group (MG), PMG and CCE estimations presented by Pesaran and Smith (1995), Pesaran (1997) and Pesaran (2006) respectively. According to the approach of DCCE we can make the estimator more consistent by including more lags of CD in regression. Moreover, DCCE have four advantages over the existing techniques in the relevant literature (Chudik and Pesaran, 2015) (1) deals the problem of CD by taking logs and average values of all the cross-sectional units. (2) It computes the DCCE by considering heterogeneous slopes and assuming the variables represented by common factor. (3) It can handle the small sample size. (4) This technique can also apply in the presence of structural breaks and un-balance panel data (Ditzen, 2016). Besides, for the long-run estimation of coefficients two methods can be applied, first, cross-sectional augmented distributed lag (CS-DL) which directly estimates the long-run coefficients (Chudik et al., 2016). Second, cross-sectional augmented ARDL (CS-ARDL) method (Chudik et al., 2016). However, we have employed DCCE CS-ARDL method to estimate the long-run coefficients. 3.3.6. Dumitrescu-hurlin causality (DH) test The last step of the empirical analysis is the causality test to identify the direction causality of the variables. The direction could be the unidirectional bidirectional or no causality. For this purpose, we used Dumitrescu and Hurlin (DH) (2012) causality test as it is an befitting approach for the directional causality and presents more advantages compared to the traditional Granger l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 375 (1969) causality test and presents the two critical spheres of heterogeneity, known as the heterogeneity of the regression model and the heterogeneity of the causal relationship. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Cross-sectional Dependence South and Southeast Asian economies such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia are being affected from cross-sectionald ependence (CD), transborder pollutants’ effect and cross-country heterogeneity (Behera and Dash, 2017). Due to different characteristics of the countries, and to robust the LM test results Breusch-Pagan LM (1980) CD and Pesaran (2004) CD tests were performed. Table 3 which describes the results of both tests denies the null hypothesis of no CD at 1% level of significance. There is significant evidence of the presence of CD among the variables considered, such as CO2 emissions, GDP, RE, NRE and NR rent in all cases. 4.2. Unit Root Tests Countries have different characteristics and the panels may contain the presence of CD which may lead to unreliable and biased results (Park et al., 2018). Pesaran (2007) presented two unit root tests named IPS cross-sectional (CIPS) and augmented Dickey-Fuller (CADF) that are used to handle the ambiguity of CD. The results of the CADF and CIPS panel unit root tests have been described in Table 4. Table 3: Cross sectional dependence Tests Variables LCO2 LGDP LNRE LRE LRENT Pesaran CD South Asia 14.05a (0.00) 15.60a (0.00) 13.66a (0.00) 13.29a (0.00) 3.947a (0.00) Southeast Asia 6.86a (0.00) 18.68a (0.00) 6.13a (0.00) 7.90a (0.00) 3.84a (0.00) Overall 22.10a (0.00) 36.06a (0.00) 20.15a (0.00) 22.33a (0.00) 7.26a (0.00) Breusch-Pagan LM South Asia 198.50a (0.00) 243.41a (0.00) 189.07a (0.00) 178.03a (0.00) 107.19a (0.00) Southeast Asia 214.91a (0.00) 349.11a (0.00) 163.51a (0.00) 200.48a (0.00) 70.98a (0.00) Overall 936.30a (0.00) 1300.87a (0.00) 804.30a (0.00) 841.82a (0.00) 414.22a (0.00) aRepresents the significance level 1% and P-values reported in the parenthesis Table 4: Second generation unit root analysis Tests CADF CIPS Without trend With trend Economies Variables Without trend With trend T-bar Z-t-tilde-bar P-value T-bar Z-t-tilde-bar P-value Overall LCO2 ‒1.25 ‒1.88 ‒1.47 0.99 0.84 ‒1.93 1.39 0.91 ∆ LCO2 ‒6.04 a ‒6.15a ‒3.81a ‒6.98a 0.00 ‒3.49a ‒5.81a 0.00 LGDP ‒0.49 ‒2.32 ‒1.84 ‒0.25 0.40 ‒1.96 1.26 0.89 ∆ LGDP ‒5.71a ‒5.90a ‒2.93a ‒3.98a 0.00 ‒3.37a ‒3.77a 0.00 LNRE ‒1.04 ‒2.25 ‒1.70 0.22 0.59 ‒2.06 0.92 0.82 ∆ NRE ‒5.88a 6.09a ‒4.02a ‒8.33a 0.00 ‒4.27a ‒6.96a 0.00 LRE ‒1.08 ‒2.04 ‒1.67 0.32 0.62 ‒1.85 1.64 0.95 ∆ RE ‒5.62a ‒5.99a ‒3.80a ‒6.65a 0.00 ‒3.95a ‒5.81a 0.00 LRENT ‒0.51 ‒2.97 ‒1.50 0.92 0.82 ‒2.93 ‒2.19 0.01 ∆ LRENT ‒6.02a ‒6.22a ‒4.51a ‒9.37a 0.00 ‒4.63a ‒8.24a 0.00 South Asia LCO2 ‒0.39 ‒1.81 ‒0.91 1.95 0.97 ‒1.26 2.52 0.99 ∆ LCO2 ‒6.08 a ‒6.40a 2.96a ‒2.76a 0.00 ‒3.14b ‒2.01b 0.02 LGDP ‒0.037 ‒3.24 ‒2.50 ‒1.72 0.04 ‒2.36 ‒0.12 0.45 ∆ LGDP ‒6.11a ‒6.27a ‒3.73a ‒4.54a 0.00 ‒4.05a ‒4.20a 0.00 LNRE ‒0.16 ‒1.04 ‒1.03 1.67 0.95 ‒0.81 3.59 1.00 ∆ NRE ‒5.50a ‒5.96a ‒2.74a ‒2.26a 0.01 ‒3.07b ‒1.84b 0.03 LRE 0.10 ‒1.80 ‒1.35 0.93 0.82 ‒1.68 1.51 0.93 ∆ RE ‒5.14a ‒5.37a ‒2.63b 1.99b 0.02 ‒2.82c ‒1.24c 0.10 LRENT ‒0.30 ‒3.13 ‒0.97 1.81 0.96 ‒2.79 ‒1.71 0.12 ∆ LRENT ‒5.83a ‒6.03a ‒4.39a ‒6.07a 0.00 ‒4.39a ‒5.01a 0.00 Southeast Asia LCO2 ‒1.36 ‒1.84 ‒1.96 ‒0.50 0.30 ‒2.27 0.09 0.53 ∆ LCO2 ‒5.82 a 6.04a ‒3.79a ‒5.12a 0.00 ‒3.81a ‒3.97a 0.00 LGDP ‒1.92 ‒1.91 ‒1.82 ‒0.17 0.43 ‒1.45 2.24 0.98 ∆ LGDP ‒6.12a ‒6.42a ‒2.67a ‒2.30a 0.01 ‒3.03b ‒2.03b 0.02 LNRE ‒1.63 ‒2.55 ‒2.31 ‒1.39 0.08 ‒2.47 ‒0.44 0.32 ∆ NRE ‒5.83a ‒6.30a ‒3.97a ‒5.58a 0.00 ‒3.91a ‒4.22a 0.00 LRE ‒0.77 ‒2.34 ‒1.88 ‒0.30 0.38 ‒2.20 0.26 0.60 ∆ RE ‒6.12a ‒6.42a ‒3.75a ‒5.02a 0.00 ‒3.91a ‒4.22a 0.00 LRENT ‒0.58 ‒2.31 ‒1.52 0.60 0.72 ‒2.50 ‒0.50 0.30 ∆ LRENT ‒6.11a ‒6.36a ‒3.90a ‒5.41a 0.00 ‒4.06a ‒4.61a 0.00 a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. we also reported (T-bar) and Z (t-tilde-bar) statistics in the table Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020376 In all the three panels, almost all the variables represent non- stationary results at the level. Nevertheless, the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% as variables represent the stationary results at first difference. Thus, we can declare the similar findings both for CADF and CIPS. 4.3. Cointegration Following the first order integration of variables, further was to examine the cointegration process among variables. To do so, three traditional test, namely Pedroni (2004), Kao (1999), Fisher proposed by (Maddala and Wu, 1999), were used. Moreover, to handle the cross-sectional dependence and robust the traditional cointegration tests, Westerlund (2007) was applied. The results of Pedroni, Kao and Fisher panel cointegration tests are presented in Table 5. In the case of South Asian, Southeast Asian and of the full panel of the 11 countries, the results illustrated that a set of four out of seven (statistics) reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration. Furthermore, Kao results ensured the existing of cointegration among the variables and Fisher results also support this conclusion. To robust the traditional cointegration test results, the Westerlund cointegration test was also used, which even overcomes the issue of cross-sectional dependence. From, Table 6 it is disclosed that the alternative hypothesis of cointegration is accepted which means that considered variables move together in the long-run. The above mentioned four cointegration methods have the same results. This merely illustrates that the long-run relationship occurs between CO2 emissions, GDP, RE consumption, NRE consumption and NR rent in SSAE region over the period considered. The results of cointegration among the variables confirm the ones of Bekun et al., (2019) and Shahbaz et al. (2018). 4.4. PMG Regression versus Mean Group Regression (MG) The current study aim is to examine the effect of considerable explanatory variables on economic growth and CO2 emissions. First, we determined the impact of RE consumption, NRE consumption and NR rent on economic growth which is known as Model 1. In the second model, we investigated the impact of RE consumption, NRE consumption, NR rent and economic growth on CO2 emissions. To achieve the statements mentioned above for two proposed models, we applied PMG estimator to investigate the short and long-run dynamics in the South and Southeast Asian regions as PMG estimator constrains long-run coefficients to be equal across all group. In the case of the homogenous model, PMG estimator will be consistent whereas mean group (MG) estimator will be inconsistent. However, MG estimators and PMG estimators will be consistent and inconsistent respectively in case of heterogeneous model (Mert and Bölük, 2016). To do so first, we applied mean Table 5: Pedroni, Kao and Fisher cointegration analysis Pedroni test Null hypothesis: No cointegration Newey-west automatic bandwidth selection and Bartlett kernel Economies South Asia Southeast Asia Overall Statistic Weighted stat Statistic Weighted stat Statistic Weighted stat Within – dimension Panel v 0.7515 (0.22) ‒0.3322 (0.63) 0.1929 (0.42) 0.2472 (0.40) 0.4586 (0.32) ‒0.0797 (0.53) Panel rho ‒0.5826 (0.28) ‒0.1686 (0.43) 1.028 (0.84) 0.7933 (0.78) 0.8706 (0.80) 0.4107 (0.65) Panel PP ‒4.2189a (0.00) ‒4.2234a (0.00) ‒4.0364a (0.01) ‒1.548c (0.06) ‒1.4410c (0.07) ‒4.1479a (0.00) Panel ADF ‒2.2965a (0.01) ‒3.7051a (0.00) ‒0.5058a (0.00) ‒1.1653c (0.09) ‒1.7504b (0.05) ‒3.0163a (0.00) Between‒ dimension Group rho 0.2820 (0.61) 1.6985 (0.95) 1.4446 (0.92) Group PP ‒4.8840a (0.00) ‒5.083a (0.00) ‒7.0474a (0.00) Group ADF ‒3.1626a (0.01) ‒2.7371a (0.00) ‒2.8798a (0.00) Kao residual cointegration test ADF T-Stat Prob T-Stat Prob T-Stat Prob ‒3.1591a 0.0008 ‒2.9940a 0.0014 ‒4.2508a 0.0000 Automatic lag length selection based on SIC Newey-west automatic bandwidth selection and Bartlett kernel Johansen Fisher panel cointegration test No of cointegration Trace Max eigen test Trace Max eigen test Trace Max eigen test None 94.47a (0.00) 56.95a (0.00) 280.1a (0.00) 232.1a (0.00) 490.2a (0.00) 374.8a (0.00) At most 1 46.53a (0.00) 27.68a (0.00) 188.8a (0.00) 140.4a (0.00) 286.6a (0.00) 189.9a (0.00) At most 2 26.61a (0.00) 11.82 (0.29) 86.57a (0.00) 69.13a (0.00) 144.8a (0.00) 110.9a (0.00)a At most 3 24.16a (0.00) 19.29b (0.03) 33.29a (0.00) 27.27a (0.00) 60.75a (0.00) 45.82a (0.00) At most 4 20.42b (0.02) 20.42b (0.02) 24.98a (0.01) 24.98a (0.01) 53.65a (0.00) 53.65a (0.00) a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively. The P-values for Pedroni and Fisher tests reported in parenthesis Table 6: Westerlund cointegration Statistics South Asia Southeast Asia Full countries Value Z-value P-value Value Z-value P-value Value Z-value P-value Gt ‒6.058 ‒7.873 0.00a ‒3.226 ‒2.002 0.02b ‒2.879 ‒1.505 0.06c Ga ‒3.552 3.573 1.00 ‒8.035 1.573 0.94 ‒8.497 1.930 0.97 Pt ‒9.489 ‒3.617 0.00a ‒6.360 ‒1.213 0.10c ‒5.889 ‒1.705 0.04b Pa ‒5.679 2.132 0.98 ‒4.954 1.406 0.92 ‒4.487 2.108 0.98 a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 377 group regression along with PMG estimator. Hereafter we used a Hausman test to confirm the long-run homogeneity (Blackburne and Frank, 2007). The findings of the Hausman test indicated the rejection of the null hypothesis in both models for all the cases such as South Asian, Southeast Asian and full countries panels. Hence, the findings of the Hausman test confirmed the homogeneity of the models. It implies that the PMG estimator is more appropriate than MG estimator for different panels and models of SSEA region (Table 7). 4.4.1. PMG regression 4.4.1.1. Long-run elasticity’s (Model-1) The PMG results reported in Table 8 to explain the short and long-run dynamics in the two proposed models. According to the PMG long-run results of model 1, the results show that NRE and RE are a significant positive contribution to economic development in all three considered panels. It is also observed that NRE has a stronger impact on economic growth than RE. Our results for RE and NRE impact on economic growth are in line with (Paramati et al., 2018). Concerning, NR nexus economic growth results show that NR impedes the economic development for the cases of South Asia and full country for 1990-2014. It means that NR slows down the economic activities in the case of South Asian and overall countries. There are four main channel of transmissions to NR to slow down economic growth such as Dutch disease, overconfidence, neglect of education and rent-seeking (Gylfason, 2001). However, we found the inverse role of NR in economic development in the Southeast Asian panel. Our results are consistent with (Ahmed et al., 2016; Ben-Salha et al., 2018; Sarmidi et al., 2014; Satti et al., 2014). Moreover, the significant negative error terms –0.47, –0.26 and –0.23 in Southeast Asia, South Asia and full countries panels respectively confirm the long-run relationships between variables. The error correction terms show that the speed of adjustment back towards the equilibrium is corrected by 47%, 26% and 23% in Southeast, South and overall country’s panels respectively in each year. 4.4.1.2. Short-run analysis (Model-1) For the short-run analysis, we found that only NRE has a significant and positive impact on economic growth, in the case of South Asia and full countries panels. However, we did not find any significant results in the case of the Southeast Asian region. 4.4.1.3. Long-run elasticity’s (Model-2) Table 8 also reported the Model 2 estimation, where PMG long-run results revealed that economic growth increased the CO2 emissions Table 7: Hausman results Model 1 dependent variable: Economic growth Economies Variables Coefficients (b) MG (B) PMG (b-B) Difference Sqrt (diag (V_b-V_B)) S. E Overall LNRE 0.16 1.16 –1 1.26 LRE –0.62 0.02 –0.64 0.70 LRENT –0.09 –0.11 0.02 0.06 Chi2 (3)=(b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=1.79, Prob>Chi2=0.61 South Asia LNRE 0.27 0.99 –0.72 0.80 LRE –1.06 0.13 –0.93 0.96 LRENT –0.08 –0.25 0.17 0.26 Chi2 (3)=(b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=1.89, Prob>Chi2=0.82 Southeast Asia LNRE 0.07 0.47 –0.40 0.70 LRE –0.25 0.21 –0.46 0.89 LRENT –0.09 0.07 –0.16 0.20 Chi2 (3)=(b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=1.96, Prob>Chi2=0.58 Model 2 dependent variable: CO2 emissions Economies Variables Coefficients (b) MG (B) PMG (b-B) Difference Sqrt (diag (V_b-V_B)) S. E Overall LNRE –0.39 1.27 –1.66 2.04 LGDP 0.76 0.35 –0.41 0.70 LRE –3.94 –0.25 –3.69 5.49 LRENT –0.12 0.02 –0.14 0.23 Chi2 (4)=(b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=5.01, Prob>Chi2=0.28 South Asia LNRE –2.48 1.34 –2.88 4.48 LGDP 1.06 0.40 0.66 0.99 LRE –9.29 –0.04 –9.25 12.11 LRENT –0.33 0.04 –0.37 0.45 Chi2 (4) = (b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=4.32, Prob>Chi2=0.36 Southeast Asia LNRE 1.34 0.70 0.64 0.94 LGDP 0.50 0.26 0.24 0.31 LRE 0.51 –0.42 0.93 1.03 LRENT –0.04 –0.01 –0.03 0.10 Chi2 (4)=(b-B)’[(V_b-V_B)–1] (b-B)=2.89, Prob>Chi2=0.57 b: Consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtpmg, B: İnconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtpmg and Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020378 in all the selected panels. It means that the economic activities deteriorated the environmental quality in SSEA region. According to our first model, results suggested that NRE increases economic growth. Notably, NRE is mostly produced by fossil fuels to fulfill the requirement of different economic activities which ultimately increases the CO2 emissions. Our results are consistent with Al- Mulali et al. (2015) in the case of 77 developed and developing countries. Long-run elasticities of CO2 emissions concerning NRE consumption are 1.34%, 0.70% and 1.27% in the South, Southeast and full countries panels, respectively. It means that NRE deteriorated the environmental quality in the SSEA region, with a higher impact on South countries. The rapid wave of urbanization is one of the causes of energy demand, which ultimately raises CO2 emissions in the SSEA regions. Besides, the rapid changes in population in the South and Southeast Asian region, especially in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, lead the companies to accelerate their shifting towards this region because of cheap labor and intense market. Moreover, upcoming projects increase the energy demand, the significant portion of non-renewable electricity is derived by fossil fuels which ultimately increases the CO2 emissions. Moreover, the impact of RE on CO2 emissions in long run implies that 1% increase in the RE consumption improved the environmental quality 0.04%, 0.42% and 0.25% in the South, Southeast Asian and 11 countries panels, respectively. It means that the use of RE sources mitigates the carbon emissions in the selected countries, with a remarked impact on the Southeast countries. Our results about NRE and RE impacts on CO2 emissions are in line with (Belaïd and Zrelli, 2019; Ben Jebli et al., 2016; Bölük and Mert, 2015; Inglesi-Lotz and Dogan, 2018; Sharif et al., 2019). Finally, results suggest that natural resources have significant positive impact on CO2 emissions in the South Asian and full countries panel. Our results are consistent with Bekun et al. (2019). However, in the case of Southeast Asian countries natural resources decrease the CO2 emissions in the long-run. Our findings are in line with Balsalobre-Lorente et al. (2018). Moreover, the significant negative error terms also confirm the long-run relationships between variables in all three selected panels. 4.4.1.4. Short-run analysis (Model-2) Moreover, in the short run analysis we did not find any significant effect of RE, NRE, NR rent and GDP on CO2 emission for all three selected panels. 4.4.1.5. Coefficient diagnostics Furthermore, coefficient diagnostics test has been performed, the red mark in the center confirms that the estimation of the proposed models presents a significant confidence level (Figure 1 in appendix). 4.5. DCCE CS-ARDL The traditional methods such as MG, PMG, FMOLS, DOLS and AMG may be provided weak outcomes due to CD (Chudik and Pesaran, 2015; Dogan et al., 2017). Therefore, we also applied the DCCE CS-ARDL technique to calculate the coefficients of the considered variables and to robust the PMG estimation. However, we find similar signs of the coefficients, although coefficients of the variables are different than PMG estimation (Tables 8 and 9 for comparision). Table 8: Pooled mean group regression Model 1 dependent variable: GDP Variables South Asia Southeast Asia Overall Long-run coefficients Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob LNRE 0.9919a 0.0000 0.4765a 0.0002 1.1696a 0.0000 LRE 0.1393c 0.0769 0.2127a 0.0022 0.0252b 0.0428 LRENT ‒0.2597a 0.0000 0.0713a 0.0000 ‒0.1077a 0.0000 Error correction coefficients ‒0.2676a 0.0019 ‒0.4741a 0.0006 ‒0.2346a 0.0001 Short-run coefficients D (LNRE) 0.5880b 0.0126 0.0327 0.7881 0.4302a 0.0009 D (LRE) 0.1173 0.6216 ‒0.2790 0.1816 ‒0.0608 0.4894 D (LRENT) ‒0.0016 0.7873 ‒0.0492 0.1680 0.0043 0.7197 Constant 1.6127a 0.0078 2.0124a 0.0005 1.4519a 0.0002 Model 2 Dependent Variable: CO2 Emissions Long-run coefficients Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob LGDP 0.4070a 0.0000 0.2627a 0.0000 0.3537a 0.0000 LNRE 1.3489a 0.0000 0.7064a 0.0000 1.2721a 0.0000 LRE ‒0.0453 0.8582 ‒0.4294a 0.0000 ‒0.2522a 0.0005 LRENT 0.0430b 0.0403 ‒0.0184c 0.0910 0.0266a 0.0286 Error correction coefficients ‒0.4067a 0.0064 ‒0.4894b 0.0144 ‒0.3566a 0.0002 Short-run coefficients D (GDP) ‒0.8004a 0.0052 0.1562 0.8393 ‒0.0130 0.8856 D (LNRE) 0.8997c 0.0926 0.1679 0.5448 ‒0.3970 0.3377 D (LRE) ‒1.8111 0.2470 0.0239 0.9312 0.4186 0.1902 D (LRENT) ‒0.0142 0.5751 ‒0.0812 0.1605 ‒1.0956 0.1307 Constants ‒4.5572a 0.0056 ‒2.4130a 0.0093 ‒0.0511 0.1729 a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 379 Table 9: Dynamic common correlated effects Model 1 dependent variable: GDP Variables South Asia Southeast Asia Overall Long-run coefficients Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob LNRE 0.7762a 0.000 0.8682b 0.000 0.7780a 0.000 LRE 0.4292a 0.003 0.1902b 0.003 3.6441b 0.042 LRENT ‒0.0003a 0.000 0.0236a 0.000 ‒0.1477b 0.050 Short‒run coefficients D (LNRE) 0.2237a 0.006 0.1317b 0.072 0.2219a 0.011 D (LRE) 0.2063 0.322 ‒0.1253 0.524 0.0764 0.585 D (LRENT) 0.0030 0.868 0.0213 0.544 ‒0.0162 0.322 Model 2 dependent variable: CO2 emissions Long-run coefficients Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob Coefficients Prob LGDP 0.4236a 0.041 8.1753b 0.051 2.9541a 0.014 LNRE 1.3701b 0.071 0.6797b 0.087 0.0552 0.919 LRE ‒0.3190b 0.086 ‒1.7937 0.298 ‒0.6606b 0.058 LRENT ‒0.0024c 0.091 ‒0.3761c 0.101 0.2493c 0.084 Short-run coefficients D (GDP) ‒1.1889 0.579 ‒1.7695 0.418 ‒1.2825 0.233 D (LNRE) 2.3701 0.041 0.3202 0.420 0.9447 0.082 D (LRE) 0.4002 0.862 ‒0.5632 0.263 ‒0.1040 0.842 D (LRENT) ‒0.0460 0.649 ‒0.1729 0.332 ‒0.1543 0.247 a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 10: Pairwise dumitrescu hurlin panel causality test Economies Overall South Asia Southeast Asia Null hypothesis W-Stat. Z bar-Stat. Prob. W-Stat. Z bar-Stat. Prob. W-Stat. Z bar-Stat. Prob. LGDP ----- LCO2 3.29 4.28 0.00 a 6.10 3.38 0.00a 3.96 1.64 0.09c LCO2 ----- LGDP 0.40 ‒1.37 0.16 1.17 ‒0.93 0.34 2.22 ‒0.02 0.98 LNRE ----- LCO2 1.91 1.58 0.10 c 3.79 1.35 0.17 2.47 0.21 0.83 LCO2 ------ LNRE 2.35 2.43 0.01 b 3.12 0.76 0.44 2.21 ‒0.03 0.97 LRE ------ LCO2 1.33 0.45 0.65 2.18 ‒0.05 0.95 1.98 ‒0.25 0.79 LCO2 ------ LRE 2.25 2.24 0.02 b 4.37 1.85 0.06c 4.32 2.07 0.06c LRENT ------ LCO2 1.94 1.63 0.10 c 4.04 1.57 0.10c 3.54 1.68 0.09c LCO2 ------ LRENT 3.75 5.18 0.00 a 5.30 2.67 0.00a 2.41 0.15 0.87 LNRE ------ LGDP 0.53 ‒1.11 0.26 1.98 ‒0.22 0.81 2.84 0.57 0.56 LGDP ------ LNRE 3.93 5.53 0.00a 6.69 3.89 0.00a 3.73 1.66 0.09a LRE ------ LGDP 0.78 ‒0.63 0.52 2.43 0.16 0.86 1.23 ‒0.97 0.33 LGDP ------ LRE 1.92 1.61 0.09c 4.34 1.83 0.06b 2.22 1.62 0.09c LRENT ------ LGDP 1.32 0.42 0.66 2.60 0.30 0.75 2.37 0.12 0.90 LGDP ------ LRENT 2.38 2.50 0.01a 7.34 4.46 0.00a 1.87 ‒0.35 0.72 LRE ------ LNRE 2.60 2.93 0.00a 2.88 0.55 0.57 2.43 0.18 0.85 LNRE ------ LRE 1.20 0.19 0.84 2.79 0.47 0.63 3.10 1.64 0.08c LRENT ------ LNRE 0.89 ‒0.41 0.67 3.24 0.87 0.38 0.93 ‒1.26 0.20 LNRE ------ LRENT 4.04 5.74 0.00a 6.22 3.48 0.00a 3.12 0.84 0.39 LRENT ------ LRE 1.77 1.30 0.19 2.70 0.39 0.69 4.53 2.19 0.02b LRE ------- LRENT 4.49 6.62 0.00a 7.02 4.18 0.00a 4.10 1.78 0.07c a,b,cRepresents the significance level 1%, 5% and 10% respectively and ----- stands as does not homogeneously cause Figure 2: Causality directions South Asia Southeast Asia Overall Source: ↔, → shows bidirectional, unidirectional causality between variables Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020380 4.6. Pairwise Dumitrescu Hurlin (DH) Panel Causality Table 10 report the causality results and Figure 2 illustrate the causality direction of the selected variables in the South, Southeast Asian and full countries panels. For the case of South Asian economies causality, results show that six significant unidirectional causalities are running from GDP to CO2 emissions, GDP to RE, GDP to NRE, GDP to rent, NRE to rent and RE to rent. Furthermore, we found a bidirectional causality running from CO2 emissions to rent. Concerning the Southeast Asian region, results show that significant unidirectional causality running from GDP to CO2, GDP to NRE, GDP to rent, CO2 to RE, NRE to RE and rent to CO2 while bidirectional causality found between RE and rent. Lastly, full countries panel results illustrate unidirectional causality running from GDP to RE, GDP to rent, GDP to CO2, CO2 to RE, RE to rent, RE to NRE and NRE to rent, while CO2 and NRE, CO2 and rent represent bidirectional causality. 5. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The current study tried to develop the linkages between renewable (RE) and non-renewable energy (NRE) consumption, economic growth (GDP), natural resources (NR) and CO2 emissions in the South and Southeast Asian (SSEA) countries for the period of 1990-2014. Our empirical findings confirmed the long-run relationship by using Pedroni, Kao, Fisher and Westerlund cointegration tests in the selected panels. Moreover, we examined the long-run elasticities with two proposed models by using PMG method. Firstly, we explored the long-run elasticities of RE consumption, (NRE) consumption, and NR concerning economic growth. Our results suggested that RE consumption and NRE consumption increased the economic growth in all panels. Furthermore, in South Asian and full countries panels, NR decreased the economic development in the long run. However, we found a significant and positive impact of NR on economic growth in the Southeast Asian region. Secondly, we identified the long-run impact of RE consumption, NRE consumption, economic growth, and NR on CO2 emissions. The findings demonstrated that NRE and economic growth worsened the environment quality in all three selected panels. Conversely, in the case of RE consumption, results suggested that RE consumption mitigates the carbon emission for all three panels. However, NR also contributed to CO2 emissionsin the case of South Asian and full countries panels while NR improved the environmental quality in the Southeast Asian region. The DH causality test was applied to examining the causal relationship. The causality results illustrated that unidirectional causality running from GDP to CO2 emissions, GDP to RE and GDP to NRE consumption in South, Southeast and overall countries panels. However, we found bidirectional causality exists between CO2 emissions and natural resources. The current results lead to some policy implications. For instance, the countries should be concentrating on RE sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass etc. rather than NRE sources to improve the environmental quality. Besides, policymakers need to encourage environment-friendly projects to sustain economic growth. On the other hand, policymakers should be aware of the natural resource’s management. The best way to improve the contribution of NR in economic growth could be by decreasing corruption and improving education level. Particularly, in South Asian countries, natural resources can be a curse on the economic growth, while in Southeast Asian region, NR can be managed as an important source of economic development. As stated by Sovacool (2010) ASEAN region promoted entrepreneurial activities and private actors in the resource production process. They encourage industrialization, and each country has co-operated as an active partner to the exploration, production, and distribution process, especially with international oil and gas firms. Finally, we have a few limitations for this research which will give us direction for future research. For instance, we have ignored some GHG emissions such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and particulate matter PM2.5, PM10 as an air pollutant due to unavailability of data. Moreover, we use CO2 emissions per capita instead of ecological footprints and its sub-components such as biocapacity, cropland, fishing grounds, carbon footprint, grazing lands, and forest products. Future studies can use these proxies of environment quality to see how the results vary across these indicators. Furthermore, we have taken 11 countries out of a total of 19 SSEA by dropping 8 countries due to non-availability of data between 1990 and 2014. The future study will consider the dropping countries on the availability of the data. Besides, the future study can estimate the EKC hypothesis with the quadratic or cubic function. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was financially supported by the research unit on Governance, competitiveness and public policy (UIDB/04058/2020), funded by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. REFERENCES Adams, S., Nsiah, C. (2019), Reducing carbon dioxide emissions; does renewable energy matter? Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133288. Ahmed, K., Mahalik, M.K., Shahbaz, M. (2016), Dynamics between economic growth, labor, capital and natural resource abundance in Iran: An application of the combined cointegration approach. Resources Policy, 49, 213-221. Al-Mulali, U., Sheau-Ting, L., Ozturk, I. (2015), The global move toward Internet shopping and its influence on pollution: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(13), 9717-9727. l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 381 Amri, F. (2019), Renewable and non-renewable categories of energy consumption and trade: Do the development degree and the industrialization degree matter? Energy, 173, 374-383. Apergis, N., Payne, J.E. (2014), The oil curse, institutional quality, and growth in MENA countries: Evidence from time-varying cointegration. Energy Economics, 46, 1-9. Arshad, Z., Robaina, M., Shahbaz, M., Veloso, A.B. (2020), The effects of deforestation and urbanization on sustainable growth in Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(9), 10065-10086. Auty, R.M. (2001), The political state and the management of mineral rents in capital-surplus economies: Botswana and Saudi Arabia. Resources Policy, 27(2), 77-86. Auty, R.M. (2007), Natural resources, capital accumulation and the resource curse. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 627-634. Badeeb, R.A., Lean, H.H., Clark, J. (2017), The evolution of the natural resource curse thesis: A critical literature survey. Resources Policy, 51, 123-134. Balcilar, M., Ozdemir, Z.A., Ozdemir, H., Shahbaz, M. (2018), The renewable energy consumption and growth in the G-7 countries: Evidence from historical decomposition method. Renewable Energy, 126, 594-604. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D., Farhani, S. (2018), How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356-367. Behera, S.R., Dash, D.P. (2017), The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emission in the SSEA (South and Southeast Asian) region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 96-106. Bekun, F.V., Alola, A.A., Sarkodie, S.A. (2019), Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of The Total Environment, 657, 1023-1029. Belaïd, F., Zrelli, M.H. (2019), Renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption, environmental degradation and economic development: Evidence from Mediterranean countries. Energy Policy, 133, 110929. Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S. (2015), The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 173-185. Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., 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. Ben-Salha, O., Dachraoui, H., Sebri, M. (2018), Natural Resource Rents and Economic Growth in the Top Resource-Abundant Countries: A PMG Estimation. Resources Policy. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0301420717304294?casa_to ken=nmn0uoqvgz4aaaaa:68xzzfxo4wn0uv4bih hlx0aljr0wwl_1z6 mjntiytthkffhkue1tdwnybq9eeg8piqfslswxta. Bento, J.P.C., Moutinho, V. (2016), CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 142-155. Bhat, J.A. (2018), Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption- ımpact on economic growth and CO2 emissions in five emerging market economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(35), 35515-35530. Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S.A., Paramati, S.R. (2017), The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157-167. Bhattacharyya, S., Hodler, R. (2014), Do Natural resource revenues hinder financial development? The role of political ınstitutions. World Development, 57, 101-113. Blackburne, E.F., Frank, M.W. (2007), Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels. The Stata Journal, 7(2), 197-208. Bölük, G., Mert, M. (2015), The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: An ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 587-595. Boschini, A., Pettersson, J., Roine, J. (2013), The resource curse and its potential reversal. World Development, 43, 19-41. Breitung, J. (2001), The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R. (1980), The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. British Petroleum. (2018), BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Available from: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy- economics/statistical-review-of-worldenergy/downloads.html. Brunnschweiler, C.N. (2008), Cursing the blessings? Natural resource abundance, ınstitutions, and economic growth. World Development, 36(3), 399-419. Carbon Footprint. (2018), Climate Change. Available from: https://www. carbonfootprint.com/warming.html. Chen, Y., Zhao, J., Lai, Z., Wang, Z., Xia, H. (2019), Exploring the effects of economic growth, and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on China’s CO2 emissions: Evidence from a regional panel analysis. Renewable Energy, 140, 341-353. Choi, I. (2001), Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272. Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M.H., Raissi, M. (2016), Long- run effects in large heterogeneous panel data models with cross- sectionally correlated errors. In: Essays in Honor of Man Ullah. Vol. 36. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p85-135. Chudik, A., Pesaran, M.H. (2015), Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. De Hoyos, R.E., Sarafidis, V. (2006), Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., Soysa, I.D. (2007), Corruption, the resource curse and genuine saving. Environment and Development Economics, 12(1), 33-53. Ditzen, J. (2016), Xtdcce: Estimating Dynamic Common Correlated Effects in Stata. United States: The Spatial Economics and Econometrics Centre. Dogan, E. (2016), Analyzing the linkage between renewable and non- renewable energy consumption and economic growth by considering structural break in time-series data. Renewable Energy, 99, 1126-1136. Dogan, E., Seker, F. (2016), The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074-1085. Dogan, E., Seker, F., Bulbul, S. (2017), Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: A panel study of OECD countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1701-1719. Dong, K., Dong, X., Dong, C. (2019), Determinants of the global and regional CO2 emissions: What causes what and where? Applied Economics, 51(46), 5031-5044. Dumitrescu, E.I., Hurlin, C. (2012), Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. Farhani, S., Shahbaz, M. (2014), What role of renewable and non- renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 80-90. Frees, E.W. (1995), Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020382 Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393-414. Friedman, M. (1937), The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality ımplicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701. Granger, C.W. (1969), Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37(3), 424-438. Gylfason, T. (2001), Natural resources, education, and economic development. European Economic Review, 45(4), 847-859. Hadri, K. (2000), Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161. Harris, R.D.F., Tzavalis, E. (1999), Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed. Journal of Econometrics, 91(2), 201-226. Havranek, T., Horvath, R., Zeynalov, A. (2016), Natural resources and economic growth: A meta-analysis. World Development, 88, 134-151. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. (2003), Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. Inglesi-Lotz, R., Dogan, E. (2018), The role of renewable versus non- renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s big 10 electricity generators. Renewable Energy, 123, 36-43. IPCC. (2014), AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr. Kao, C. (1999), Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. Kim, D.H., Lin, S.C. (2017), Natural resources and economic development: New panel evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 66(2), 363-391. Krueger, A. (1998), Why trade liberalisation is good for growth. The Economic Journal, 108(450), 1513-1522. 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. Maddala, G.S., Wu, S. (1999), A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652. Mert, M., Bölük, G. (2016), Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to Kyoto Annex countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(21), 21669-21681. Mert, M., Bölük, G., Çağlar, A.E. (2019), Interrelationships among foreign direct investments, renewable energy, and CO2 emissions for different European country groups: A panel ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(21), 21495-21510. Owusu, P.A., Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. (2016), A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1167990. Paramati, S.R., Apergis, N., Ummalla, M. (2018), Dynamics of renewable energy consumption and economic activities across the agriculture, industry, and service sectors: Evidence in the perspective of sustainable development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(2), 1375-1387. Park, Y., Meng, F., Baloch, M.A. (2018), The effect of ICT, financial development, growth, and trade openness on CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(30), 30708-30719. Pata, U.K. (2018), Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770-779. 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(3), 597-625. Pesaran, M.H. (1997), The role of economic theory in modelling the long run. The Economic Journal, 107(440), 178-191. Pesaran, M.H. (2004), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. Pesaran, M.H. (2006), Estimation and ınference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. Pesaran, M.H. (2007), A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., Smith, R.P. (1999), Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634. Pesaran, M.H., Smith, R. (1995), Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79-113. Quah, D. (1994), Exploiting cross-section variation for unit root inference in dynamic data. Economics Letters, 44(1), 9-19. Rasoulinezhad, E., Saboori, B. (2018), Panel estimation for renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, CO2 emissions, the composite trade intensity, and financial openness of the commonwealth of independent states. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(18), 17354-17370. Sachs, J.D., Warner, A.M. (1995), Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth, Working Paper No. 5398. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Sachs, J.D., Warner, A.M. (1999), The big push, natural resource booms and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 59(1), 43-76. Sarmidi, T., Law, S.H., Jafari, Y. (2014), Resource curse: New evidence on the role of ınstitutions. International Economic Journal, 28(1), 191-206. Satti, S.L., Farooq, A., Loganathan, N., Shahbaz, M. (2014), Empirical evidence on the resource curse hypothesis in oil abundant economy. Economic Modelling, 42, 421-429. Shafiei, S., Salim, R.A. (2014), Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547-556. Shahbaz, M., Naeem, M., Ahad, M., Tahir, I. (2018), Is natural resource abundance a stimulus for financial development in the USA? Resources Policy, 55, 223-232. Sharif, A., Raza, S.A., Ozturk, I., Afshan, S. (2019), The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: A global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 133, 685-691. Shaw, D.L. (2013), Good governance in the Post-Soviet South: Testing theories of the resource curse in Azerbaijan. Journal of Politics International Studies, 9, 520-561. Sovacool, B.K. (2010), The political economy of oil and gas in Southeast Asia: Heading towards the natural resource curse? The Pacific Review, 23(2), 225-259. Westerlund, J. (2007), Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. World Bank. (2019), World Development İndicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available from: https://www.data.worldbank.org/ country. l Arshad, et al.: Renewable and Non-renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Impact on Environmental Quality: Empirica Evidence from South and Southeast Asian Countries with CS-ARDL Modeling International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 10 • Issue 5 • 2020 383 APPENDIX South Asia Model 1 Model 2 .0 .1 .2 .3 C( 2) -.3 -.2 0.9 1.0 1.1 C(1) C( 3) .0 .1 .2 .3 C(2) 0.8 1.2 1.6 C( 2) -.4 .0 .4 C( 3) .00 .02 .04 .06 .08 .3 .4 .5 .6 C(1) C( 4) 0.8 1.2 1.6 C(2) -.4 .0 .4 C(3) Southeast Asia .1 .2 .3 C(2 ) .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .2 .4 .6 C(1) C(3 ) .1 .2 .3 C(2) .64 .68 .72 .76 C( 2) -.48 -.44 -.40 -.36 C( 3) -.04 -.03 -.02 -.01 .00 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 C(1) C( 4) .64 .68 .72 .76 C(2) -.48 -.44 -.40 -.36 C(3) Overall .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 C(2 ) -.12 -.10 -.08 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 C(1) C(3 ) .00 .02 .04 C(2) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 C( 2) -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 C( 3) .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 C(1) C( 4) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 C(2) -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 C(3) Figure 1: Coefficient diagnostics confidence interval (ellipse test)