ABSTRACT
5. Conclusion
The results of the equations for imports are also shown in Table 10. For the FMOLS results, a 1% increase in capital increases output by 0.434%. Therefore, a 1% increase in labor and energy, increase output by 0.562% and by 0.104%, respectively. A 1% increase in imports increases output by 0.204%. The coefficient of energy consumption is significant at 10% level. In the long run, this model shows that labor and capital has been a major role in economic growth. Energy also contributed to economic growth. All these coefficients except energy consumption are significant at the 1% level. The estimated coefficients for capital, labor, and energy from Tables 10 have the same sign as the ones found by Apergis and Payne (1010) and Sadorsky (2012) in their model related to output, capital, labor, exports, and imports.
consumption of this region may negatively affect the economic growth of this region.
In the long-run equilibrium, energy consumption deeply affects economic growth. Therefore, the environmental and energy policies that support stable energy consumption in this region positively affect the economic growth.
There is short-run Granger Causality from energy consumption to exports.
This implies that energy consumption can affect exports of this highly trade intensive region. The energy or environmental policies designed to restrict energy consumption may cause negative impacts on exports in this region, and may provide an unintended indirect effect on the economic growth of this region. Therefore environmental and climate change policies will have to get a policy to ensure a reliable a low carbon energy.
In the long run, the energy consumption has been increasing with economic growth in East Asian countries and the stable energy consumption has been supported economic growth and exports. Therefore the greenhouse gas mitigation policies that restrict energy consumption may affects the exports of this region, and may slow economic growth in this region as a result.
Therefore, greenhouse gas mitigation policies should be promoted in the way that encourages the low carbon energy sources such as the non-fossil fuel energy (new and renewable energy, nuclear energy etc) and in the way that provide the stable energy supply.
접수일(2014년 8월 14일), 수정일(2014년 10월 8일), 게재확정일(2015년 2월 2일)
Akinlo, A. E., (2008), “Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from 11 Sub-Sahara African countries, Energy Economics, Vol. 30, no. 5, 2391-2400.
Apergis, N. and J.E. Payne, (2009a), “Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model,” Energy Economics, Vol. 31, 211 216.
Apergis, N. and J.E. Payne, (2009b), “Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from the Commonwealth of Independent States, Energy Economics, Vol. 31, no. 5, 641-647.
Apergis, N. and J.E. Payne, (2009c), CO2 Emissions, energy usage and Output in Central America, Energy Policy, Vol. 37, no. 8, 3282-3286.
Apergis, N. and J.E. Payne, (2010), “Energy consumption and growth in South America:
Evidence from a panel error correction model,” Energy Economics, Vol. 32, 1421 1426.
Chen, S., Kuo, H. and C. Chen, (2007), “The relationship between GDP and electricity consumption in 10 Asian countries,” Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 2611 2621.
Chiou-Wei, S.Z., Chen, Ching-Fu and Z. Zhu, (2008), “Economic Growth and energy consumption revisited-evidence from linear and nonlinear Granger causality.” Energy Economics, Vol. 30 (6), 3063-3076
Dickey, D.A. and W.A. Fuller, (1979), “Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, 427 431.
Giles J.A. and C.L. Williams, (2000a), “Export-led growth: A survey of the empirical literature and some non-causality results,” Part 1. Journal of International Trade and Economic development, Vol. 9, no.3, 261 337.
Giles J.A. and C.L. Williams, (2000b), “Export-led growth: A survey of the empirical literature and some non-causality results,” Part 2. Journal of International Trade and Economic development, Vol. 9, no.4, 445 470.
Huang, B.N., Hwang, M. J. and C. W., Yang, (2008) “Causal relationship between energy
consumption and GDP growth revisited: a dynamic panel data approach”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 67, 41-54.
Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. and Y. Shin, (2003), “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels,” Journal of Econmetrics, Vol. 115, 53 74.
International Labor Organization, International Labor Statistics, Accessed at: http://laborsta.ilo.
org.
Lean, H.H. and R. Smyth, (2010a), “Multivariate Granger causality between electricity generation, exports and GDP in Malaysia,” Energy Vol. 35, 3640 3648.
Lean, H.H. and R. Smyth, (2010b), “On the dynamics of aggregate output, electricity consumption and exports in Malaysia: evidence from multivariate Granger causality tests,”
Applied Energy, Vol. 87, 1963 1971.
Lee, C.C., (2005), “Energy consumption and GDP in developing countries: A cointegrated panel analysis,” Energy Economics, Vol. 27, 415 427.
Lee, C.C. and C.P. Chang, (2008), “Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian economies: A more comprehensive analysis using panel data,” Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 30, no 1, 50 65.
Lee, C.C., Chang, C.P. and P.F. Chen, (2008), “Energy-income causality in OECD countries revisited: The key role of capital stock,” Energy Economics, Vol. 30, 2359 2373.
Levin, A., Lin, C.F. and C. Chu, (2002), “Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and Finite sample properties,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 108, 1 24.
Lewer, J.J. and H. Van den Berg, (2003), “How large is international trade's effect on economic growth?” Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 17, 363 396.
Maddala, G.S., S. Wu, (1999) “A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 61, 631 652.
Mahadevan, R. and J. Asafu-Adjaye, (2007) “Energy consumption, economic growth and prices: A reassessment using panel VECM for developed and developing countries,”
Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 2481 2490.
Mehrara, M., (2007) “Energy consumption and economic growth: the case of oil exporting countries,” Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 2939 2945.
Narayan, P.K. and R. Smyth, (2008) “Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries:
New evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks,” Energy Economics, Vol.
30, 2331 2341.
Narayan, P.K. and R. Smyth, (2009) “Multivariate Granger causality between electricity consumption, exports and GDP: Evidence from a panel of Middle Eastern countries,”
Energy Policy, Vol. 37, 229 236.
Narayan, P.K., Smyth, R. and A. Prasad, (2007) “Electricity consumption in G7 countries: A panel cointegrating analysis of residential demand elasticities,” Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 4485 4494.
Ozturk, I., (2010) “A literature survey on energy-growth nexus,” Energy Policy Vol. 38, 340 349.
Payne, J.E., (2010) “Survey of the international evidence on the causal relationship between energy consumption and growth,” Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 37, 53 95.
Pedroni, P., (1999) “Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 61, 653 670.
Pedroni, P., (2000) “Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels” In: Baltagi, B.H., Fomby, T.B., Hill, R.C. (Eds.), Adv. Econometrics, Vol 15. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels, JAI Press, Elsevier Sciences, Amsterdam.
Pedroni, P., (2001) “Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, no.4, 727 731.
Phillips, P.C.B. and P. Perron, (1988) “Testing for a unit root in time series regression,”
Biometrika, Vol. 75, 335 346.
Sadorsky, P., (2009a) “Renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil prices in the G7 countries,” Energy Economics, Vol. 31, 456 462.
Sadorsky, P., (2009b) “Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies,”
Energy Policy, Vol. 37, 4021 4028.
Sadorsky, P., (2011) “Trade and energy consumption in the Middle East,” Energy Economics Vol. 33, 739 749.
Sadorsky, P., (2012) “Energy Consumption, Output and trade in South America,” Energy Economics, Vol. 34, 476-468.
Sari, R. and U. Soytas, (2007) “The growth of income and energy consumption in six developing countries,” Energy Policy Vol. 35, 889 898.
The Chinese Statistical Association, Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of China, Each year Republic of China(Taiwan), National Statistics, Accessed at: http:// eng.stat.gov.tw
World Bank, 2010. World Development Indicators Accessed at: http://www.worldbank.org/data.
김수이
에너지경제연구 제 14 권 제 1 호 Korean Energy Economic Review
Volume 14, Number 1, March 2015 : pp. 65~85
수력발전에 대한 수용성 결정요인 분석 1)
안소영* 원두환**
요 약
신재생에너지의 확보는 에너지 시장의 주요 관심으로 주목받고 있다. 수력발 전은 지속가능하고 공해가 없는 청정에너지로 분산형 전원, 첨두부하로써의 기 능을 인정받아왔기 때문에 필요성은 크다고 할 수 있다. 수력발전의 확대를 위 해서는 기술개발과 함께 소비자 수용성도 매우 중요하다. 본 연구는 수력발전 에 대한 장점을 7가지 특성으로 구분하고, 각 특성이 수용성 향상에 유의한 영 향을 미치는지 분석하였다. 순서형 로짓모형으로 분석한 결과, 수력발전의 수용 성 향상에 유의한 영향을 미치는 특성은 “발전 연료비 저감”, “에너지의존도 완 화”, “온실가스 및 오염물질 배출저감”, “홍수 및 가뭄 방지”로 나타났다.
주요 단어 : 수력발전, 수용성, 순서형 로짓모형 경제학문헌목록 주제분류：Q42, Q48
* 부산대학교 경제학부 대학원 (주저자). syahn13@naver.com
** 부산대학교 경제학부 부교수 (교신저자). doohwan@pusan.ac.kr