Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 1 (2018) 19-28 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.212 19 Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies (JAEBS) Journal homepage: https://jaebs.com ISSN (Print): 2523-2614 ISSN (Online) 2663-693X Impact of shocks in domestic aggregate demand for natural gas on domestic aggregate energy consumption in China Manzoor Ahmad1, Shehzad Khan2, Kiran Alim3 1 PhD Scholar, Department of Industrial Economics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China 2 Institute of Business Studies and Leadership, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Garden Campus 3 Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia ABSTRACT This paper examines the possible asymmetric transmissions from domestic aggregate demand for natural gas to domestic aggregate energy consumption in China using time series data from 1970 to 2016. The nonlinear autoregressive distributed lags (NARDL) model is employed to check the possibility of long-term asymmetric nexus among variables. The empirical findings confirm the existence of symmetric cointegration between the domestic aggregate demand for natural gas and domestic aggregate energy consumption. The results also indicate that positive shocks in domestic aggregate energy consumption lead an increase in domestic aggregate energy consumption in both short-run and long-run. While the NARDL dynamic multiplier graph suggests that the positive component of domestic aggregate demand for natural gas has deep impact on domestic aggregate energy consumption. Keywords Energy Consumption, Demand of Natural Gas; Natural Gas Production; China JEL Classification E20; Q11; Q41 Copyright © 2018 SAEBR - All rights reserved 1. Introduction Natural gas (NG) is a low-carbon, clean, high-efficient energy and is a part of three mainstays of the global energy mix together with coal and oil. In 2016, NG constituted 24.13% of the world’s primary energy consumption mix, and this ratio is expected to increase to 25.17% in 2035 (Zhang, Ji, & Fan, 2018). In addition to this, NG is the rapidly mounting primary energy source and is anticipated to be the fuel of choice for many developed and under developing economies (Lim & Yoo (2012). These days, the use of gas is rising due to many reasons, including fuel diversification, price, energy security, overall market growth, market deregulation and price (Yazici & Demirbas, 2001). Generally, the most important use of NG is not only generating electricity but also used in heating. Additionally, natural gas has grown in importance and therefore is one of the most important sources of clean energy for heating in domestic uses during the last several decades (Boran, 2015). Besides, in the literature of economics total energy use has drawn Open Access Manzoor Ahmad, Shehzad Khan & Kiran Alim 20 an immense attention than other commodities due to its economic, social, overlapping generation, political and multi-dimensions, and environmental issues (Bilgili, 2014). China is affluent in natural resources. As stated by the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR), China’s geological conservative NG reserve potential volumes to sixty-two trillion cubic meters, and China’s mineable reserve conceivable quantities are estimated to be thirty-two trillion cubic meters (Dong et al. (2017). As China has recognized the significance of uncontaminated energy resources and advances the utilization of the natural gas, the output of China’s NG is gradually raising (BP statistical review of world energy, 2015). An expansion of NG in China presents a confusing picture to worried stakeholders comprises of industrial participants, academics as well as policymakers. The growing pressure to enhance air quality appears to be compelling China to aggressively take up NG as a cleaner source of energy (Li, Yin, & Wang, 2018). The domestic demand for NG has been staggering too. The use of NG has increased rapidly over the period from 2007 to 2014, expanding from 70.52 to 186.89 billion cubic meters (bcm), about an annual percentage change of 15 percent. However, in 2015 the domestic aggregate demand for NG 193.2 bcm, an increase of merely 5.7% (Natural Gas Industry, 2016). The growth of China’s domestic aggregate demand for NG was quite slow (Qian, Duan, & Wang, 2013). After 2000, China built many long-distance gas pipelines as well as branch pipelines, stimulating the fast development of the NG industry (See Figure 1). The domestic aggregate demand for NG expanded from 25.3 bcm to 185.5 bcm, with a mean annual growth rate of 15.3 percent. Figure 1: China’s domestic aggregate demand for natural gas 1985-2014 (Source: Dong et al. (2017) Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 1 (2018) 19-28 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.212 21 To meet the domestic demand, China started to import NG during 2006, after which the total import quantity started to swiftly grow as well, and the dependence on other country’s NG has gradually expanded (Zhang, 2014). In 2014, the NG import in China reached to 58.4 billion bcm, and the degree of foreign dependence was 27.5 percent (see figure 2). Figure 2: China’s natural gas import situation (Source: Dong et al. (2017) Due to the aforementioned major development in production, extraction, import of NG and an increase in domestic aggregate demand for NG, its impact on domestic aggregate energy consumption of China cannot be ignored. Due to the variations in demand for energy consumption, it is expected that the relationship between domestic aggregate demand for NG and domestic aggregate energy consumption will be non-linear. Thus, to capture the asymmetry arises due to shocks in domestic aggregate demand for NG, I use the non-linear ARDL to explore the long and short run relationships. The rest of this article is arranged as follows. Section 2 examines the data source and econometric methodology. Section 3 evaluates the estimated results and interpret the computed findings. Finally, the paper is wind up in part 4. 2. Research methods This study uses secondary data on domestic aggregate energy consumption (DAEC) in kg oil equivalent, gross domestic product (GDP) in current US dollar, domestic aggregate demand for natural gas (DADNG), domestic aggregate natural gas production (DANGP) in billion cubic meters. The data series on GDP and DAEC have been gathered from World Bank Database. While the data series on DADNG and DANGP have been compiled from (BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2017). The data used in this study is from 1970-2016. All the data are transformed into a logarithm. Manzoor Ahmad, Shehzad Khan & Kiran Alim 22 2.1 Empirical model The general relationship between domestic demand for NG, gross domestic product, and aggregate domestic energy consumption can be represented in the following linear regression model: 𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡 = 𝜍0 + 𝜍1𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡 + 𝜍2𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 + 𝜍3𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡 + 𝜇𝑡 (1) whereas 𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡 represents domestic aggregate energy consumption in time period𝑡, 𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡 indicates gross domestic product in time period 𝑡 , 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 signifies domestic aggregate demand for natural gas in time period 𝑡 , 𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃 shows domestic aggregate natural gas production, 𝜍0 is constant, 𝜍1, 𝜍2 and 𝜍3 are respective coefficients. While 𝜇𝑡 is error term. To employ the ARDL method, based on Pesaran et al. (2001) ARDL framework, the following equation is employed. ∆𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡 = 𝜒0 + ∑ 𝜒1 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡−𝑘 + ∑ 𝜒2 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−𝑘 + ∑ 𝜒3 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡−𝑘 + ∑ 𝜒4 𝑝 𝑘=1 ∆𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡−𝑘 + 𝜗0𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡−1 + 𝜗1𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝜗2𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡−1 + 𝜗3𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡−1 + Θ𝑡 (2) whereas ∆𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡 indicates the first difference of domestic aggregate energy consumption in time period 𝑡 , ∆𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−𝑘 shows the first difference of gross domestic product in time period 𝑡 and lagged value 𝑘, ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡−𝑘 signifies the first difference of domestic aggregate demand for natural gas in time period 𝑡 and with lagged value 𝑘 , ∆𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡−𝑘 is the first difference of domestic aggregate natural gas production with lagged value 𝑡 − 𝑘 . Whereas 𝜒1 → 𝜒4 are short run coefficients, 𝜗0 → 𝜗3 are long run coefficients and Θ𝑡 is error correction term. In equation (2), the possible existence of long- term co-integrating association among sample variables is found out by testing the joint significance of lagged levels employing the standard F-test. Specifically, the null hypothesis of 𝜗0 = 𝜗1 = 𝜗2 = 0 or no long run association among sample variables is tested. The typical critical values of F-statistics cannot be utilized because it does not follow the standard normal F-distribution. To deal with this problem, the Pesaran et al. (2001) developed two different critical values that take into consideration the integrating characteristics of variables. The null hypothesis is rejected only if the estimated value of F-statistic is more than the upper (lower) critical values. If the sample variables provide an evidence of co-integration, then equation (2) is estimated to produce both short-term and long-term dynamics responses of China’s domestic aggregate energy consumption to Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 1 (2018) 19-28 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.212 23 changes in gross domestic product, domestic aggregate demand for natural gas and domestic natural gas production. The previous two equations are based on the assumption that domestic aggregate demand for natural gas has symmetric impacts on domestic aggregate energy consumption. As our primary objective is to test whether or not aggregate domestic demand for natural gas has symmetric or asymmetric affect on domestic aggregate energy consumption. Thus, to capture the asymmetric effects in the model, following Shin et al. (2013) methodology, domestic aggregate demand for natural gas is decomposed into two new variables where one variable captures merely positive shocks in domestic aggregate demand for natural gas (𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 +) and the other variable merely captures the negative shocks in domestic aggregate demand for natural gas (𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 −) as follows: 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 + = ∑ ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑗 + 𝑡 𝑗=1 = ∑ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑡 𝑗=1 (∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑗 +, 0) (3) 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 − = ∑ ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑗 − 𝑡 𝑗=1 = ∑ 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑡 𝑗=1 (∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑗 −, 0) (4) To get the full version of nonlinear ARDL model, I substitute 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 with 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 + and 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 − in equation (2): ∆𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡 = �̀�0 + ∑ �̀�1 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡−𝑘 + ∑ �̀�2 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−𝑘 + ∑ �̀�3 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 + + ∑ �̀�4 𝑝 𝑘=0 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡 + + ∑ �̀�5 𝑝 𝑘=1 ∆𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡−𝑘 + 𝜗0𝐷𝐴𝐸𝐶𝑡−1 + 𝜗1𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝜗2𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡−1 + + 𝜗3𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺𝑡−1 − + 𝜗4𝐷𝐴𝑁𝐺𝑃𝑡−1 + Θ𝑡 (5) After estimating equation (5), the Wald test is carried out to identify asymmetry effects of domestic aggregate demand for natural gas on China’s domestic aggregate energy consumption as follows: (1) short-run asymmetrical effects is recognized if the null hypothesis of − �̀�3 �̀�1 ⁄ = − �̀�4 �̀�1 ⁄ or, no short run symmetrical affects is rejected; and (2) long-term symmetrical affects is found out if the null hypothesis of − 𝜗2 𝜗0 ⁄ = − 𝜗3 𝜗0 ⁄ , or no long-term asymmetrical affects is rejected. Manzoor Ahmad, Shehzad Khan & Kiran Alim 24 3. Empirical results and discussion To identify the order of integration among the main variables, Augmented Dickey- Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) test have been employed. The findings of the unit root tests are depicted in Table 1. The outcome validates that all the main variable series are non-stationary at the level but become stationary at first difference. In addition to this, none of the variables is integrated of order two. So, we can carry out NARDL in our study. Table 1: ADF and PP unit root test Variables Level First Difference ADF PP ADF PP DAEC 0.643031 1.338733 -3.565457** -3.568900** GDP 1.658236 1.649734 - 5.275870*** - 5.344616*** DADNG - 0.984485 -0.424803 2.981044** -3.872180** DANGP - 0.386355 - 1.149038. -2.788603** -2.724029** Note: *** and ** represent 1% and 5% significance level, respectively The estimated short-term and long-term findings are reported in Table 2. As our central theme of this paper is to identify the asymmetrical effects, thus first we focus on estimated positive and negative components of DADNG. The short-term outcomes reveal that both coefficients of positive and negative components of DADNG are positive. For instance, the computed elasticities of DADNG increases (decreases) with respect to DAEC are 0.24 (0.05), pointing that a one percent increase (decrease) in DADNG is expected to increase (decrease) DAEC by 0.24% (0.05%). From table 2, it is clear that the coefficient of the positive component of DADNG is highly statistically significant. On the other hand, the coefficient of the negative component of DADNG is statistically insignificant. Based on the different statistical significance and magnitude of the computed elasticities, DADNG changes appear to have an asymmetric effect on China DAEC in the short run. In contrast, the result of Wald test (see Table 3) divulges that the null hypothesis of no asymmetrical effects, in short, is accepted, providing a strong evidence of short-term symmetric effects of DSDNG changes. The long-term outcomes also reveal that the positive component as a well negative component of DADNG are positive. For an instant, the elasticity of DADNG rises (decreases) with respect to DAEC is 0.47 (0.11), inferring that one percent rise (decrease) in DSDND is anticipated to increase (decrease) DAEC by 0.47% (0.10%). From table 2, it is clear that the coefficient of the positive component of DADNG is statistical significance at one percent level. On the other side, the long-term coefficient of the negative component of DADNG is statistically insignificant. Based on the different statistical significance and magnitude of the computed elasticities, DADNG changes seem to have Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 1 (2018) 19-28 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.212 25 an asymmetric effect on China DAEC in the long-run. However, the outcome of Wald test (see Table 3) indicates that the null hypothesis of no asymmetrical effects in long-run is accepted, providing a strong support of long-term symmetric effects of DADNG changes. Table 2: Results of short-run and long-run nonlinear ARDL equation (2, 0, 1, 0) Variable Short run Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic C 0.6596664*** 0.212307 3.107116 D(DAEC(-1)) 0.494879*** 0.128730 3.844327 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺 + 0.235091*** 0.062274 3.775113 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺 − 0.052579 0.091964 0.571732 GDP(-1) 0.059466** 0.021805 2.727163 GP(-1) -0.094435 0.060277 -1.566679 D(GDP) 0.191420*** 0.045569 4.200699 D(DANGP) 0.011761 0.105387 0.111600 ECT(-1) -0.500258*** 0.091981 -5.438691 Variable Long run Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺 + 0.469940*** 0.088145 5.331415 𝐷𝐴𝐷𝑁𝐺 − 0.105104 0.182473 0.575997 GDP 0.118870*** 0.035743 3.325670 DANGP -0.188772 0.115850 -1.629458 C 1.328648*** 0.342256 3.852816 NARDL Bound test F − statistic (HYP1) = 4.281223 [LB = 2.2, UB = 3.09 at 10%] [LB = 2.56, UB = 3.49 at 5%] [LB = 2.88, UB = 3.87 at 2.5%] Note: *** and ** represent 1% and 5% significance level, respectively. The short-run coefficient of GDP is not only positive but also significant at one percent level. Accordingly, one percent increase in GDP leads an increase DAEC by 0.19% in the short run. While the short-run coefficient of DNGP is positive and statistically insignificant. The long-run coefficient of GDP is positive as well as statistically significant at one percent level. This means that GDP increases China’s domestic aggregate energy consumption in the long run; for instance, when GDP increases by one percent, DAEC increase by about 0.12% in the long-run. While the long-run coefficient of DANGP is statistically insignificant. Table 3: Testing hypothesis of an asymmetrical effect Null Hypothesis Alternative Hypothesis F-Statistic Decision − 𝜗2 𝜗0 ⁄ = − 𝜗3 𝜗0 ⁄ − 𝜗2 𝜗0 ⁄ ≠ − 𝜗3 𝜗0 ⁄ 0.884 Long run symmetry − �̀�3 �̀�1 ⁄ = − �̀�4 �̀�1 ⁄ − �̀�3 �̀�1 ⁄ ≠ − �̀�4 �̀�1 ⁄ 0.659 Short run symmetry Manzoor Ahmad, Shehzad Khan & Kiran Alim 26 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Domestic Aggregate Demand for Natural Gas +1% Domestic Aggregate Demand for Natural Gas -1% Difference Figure 3: Dynamic Multiplier Graph It is north worthy to mention that the short-run and long-run estimated coefficients in equation (5) are important. We test for cointegration among the variables and we compare the computed F-statistic with the upper critical values with the tabulated values of Pesaran et al. (2001). When we carry out this test, the obtained F-statistic is 4.28 and 5% (2.5%) upper critical value is 3.49 (3.87). Hence, we strongly reject the hypothesis of no co- integration among variables. Another method of conforming cointegration among variables is that the equilibrium occurs when the error correction coefficient is not only negative but also statistically significant (Shin, Baek, & Heo, 2018). As a matter of fact, we obtained the negative coefficient of ECT (-1) (-0.50), and this is statistically significant at one percent levels. Hence, there is strong evidence supporting long-run association among sample variables. In order to evaluate the asymmetric adjustment of negative and positive shocks in the prevailing long-run equilibrium with respect to the newfangled long run equilibrium a NARDL’s dynamic multiplier graph has been plotted (see figure 3). In summary, the result of dynamic multiplier graph infers that negative DADNG shock has less or no impact than the positive DAEC shocks. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 1 (2018) 19-28 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.212 27 Table 4 Validation Test Test Test-Statistic Probability ARCH 1.662586 0.1973 LM Test 3.99755 0.1374 Ramsay Reset test 0.003244 0.9549 Ultimately, to validate our model selection, we carry out different diagnostic tests for the residuals of our data (see Table 4). The Lagrange multiplier (LM) statistic of residual serial correlation is LM = 3.99. Hence, there is no indication of the serial correlation in our model. The ARCH statistic of residual serial correlation is ARCH = 1.66, which confirmed that our model is free of the heteroscedasticity problem. The Ramsey’s Reset statistic is LM = 0.003, supporting a correctly specified optimum model. 4. Conclusion The current explored the linkages between gross domestic demand (GDP), domestic aggregate demand for natural gas (DADNG), domestic aggregate natural gas production (DANGP) and domestic aggregate energy consumption (DAEC) by utilizing the methodology of non-linear ARDL over the period of 1970-2016 for China. The ADF and PP unit root tests are employed to check the variables for an order of integrations. The results of both unit root tests indicated that all the variables are I(1). The NARDL bound test showed that there exists a long-run association among sample variables. While Wald test confirmed that there exist both short-run and long-run symmetric linkage between DADNG and DAEC. The findings also inferred that GDP is an important factor of DAEC in both long-run and short-run. References Bilgili, F. (2014). Long run elasticities of demand for natural gas: OECD panel data evidence. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(4), 334- 341. Boran, F. E. (2015). Forecasting natural gas consumption in Turkey using grey prediction. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 10(2), 208- 213. Dong, X., Pi, G., Ma, Z., & Dong, C. (2017). The reform of the natural gas industry in the PR of China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 582-593. Dudley, B. (2015). BP statistical review of world energy 2016. London, UK. Global, B. P. (2017). BP statistical review of world energy June 2017. Relatório. Disponível em: http://www. bp. com/en/global/corporate/energy- economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy. html. Manzoor Ahmad, Shehzad Khan & Kiran Alim 28 Kang, Z. (2014). Natural gas supply-demand situation and prospect in China. Natural Gas Industry B, 1(1), 103-112. Li, B., Yin, H., & Wang, F. (2018). Will China’s “dash for gas” halt in the future?. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 303-312. Lim, H. J., & Yoo, S. H. (2012). Natural gas consumption and economic growth in Korea: a causality analysis. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 7(2), 169-176. Natural Gas Industry, 2016. (n.d.). Natural Gas Operational Performances. (accessed 02.04.18). Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. Qian, X., Duan, Z., & Wang, H. (2013). Development status and prospects of China's natural gas industry. Econ Anal China Pet Chem Ind, 11:22–26. Shin, C., Baek, J., & Heo, E. (2018). Do oil price changes have symmetric or asymmetric effects on Korea’s demand for imported crude oil?. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 13(1), 6-12. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 281-314). Springer, New York, NY. Yazici, N., & Demirbaş, A. (2001). Turkey's natural gas necessity and consumption. Energy Sources, 23(9), 801-808. Zhang, Y., Ji, Q., & Fan, Y. (2018). The price and income elasticity of China's natural gas demand: A multi-sectoral perspective. Energy Policy, 113, 332-341.