Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2020) 27:2760–2772

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07158-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Urban concentration, non-renewable energy consumption,

and output: do levels of economic development matter?
Rafael Alvarado 1 & Cristian Ortiz 1,2 & Diana Bravo 3 & José Chamba 1

Received: 8 August 2019 / Accepted: 21 November 2019 / Published online: 13 December 2019
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The accelerated urbanization process generates a significant increase in energy, whose sources are mainly polluting. The harmful
effects of both processes are reflected in climate change. This article examines the equilibrium and causality relationship among
urban concentration, non-renewable energy consumption, and the real per capita output in 110 countries during 1971–2017.
Using data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (2018), we classify countries into four groups according to
their level of development. Our evidence suggests that urban concentration has a negative effect on real per capita output in high-
income countries, while non-renewable energy consumption has a positive effect on all groups of countries. The cointegration
tests show that there is short- and long-term equilibrium in all groups of countries. The results of the DOLS and PDOLS models
indicate that the strength of the cointegration vector is weak in most of the countries and groups analyzed. The Granger-type
causality tests show that there is bidirectional causality from the real per capita output to the urban concentration in high and
middle-low-income countries. There is unidirectional causality from the population concentration towards the real per capita
output in the low-income countries; from the non-renewable energy consumption to the real per capita output in high-income
countries; from the real per capita output to the non-renewable energy consumption in the countries of medium-high and
medium-low income; and from urban concentration to non-renewable energy consumption in high- and medium-high-income
countries. Our results highlight the importance of promoting policies of urban planning and generation and consumption of
renewable energy without limiting the expansion of the output.

Keywords Urban concentration . Real per capita output . Non-renewable energy . DOLS . PDOLS

JEL classifications O57 . C23 . C01

Introduction
Responsible editor: Muhammad Shahbaz
One of the main characteristics of modern economies is the
* Rafael Alvarado constant increase in the rate of urban concentration, particu-
jose.r.alvarado@unl.edu.ec
larly in countries in transition to development. According to
Cristian Ortiz
data from the United Nations (2014), about 54% of the
cristian.ortiz@unl.edu.ec world’s population lived in urban areas in 2014 and estimate
that this percentage will reach 66% in 2050. United Nations
Diana Bravo
dbbravo@utpl.edu.ec points out that the largest urban expansion will occur in India,
China, and Nigeria, which together will account for 37% of
José Chamba
the expected increase between 2014 and 2050, and almost
jose.chamba@unl.edu.ec
90% of this increase will occur in Asia and Africa. In 1990
1
Carrera de Economía, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja, Ecuador there were ten megacities in the world with more than 10
2 million inhabitants, and in 2014 it increased to 38 megacities.
Departamento de Economía, Universidad Católica del Norte,
Antofagasta, Chile The accelerated urbanization process implies greater demand
3 for energy by households and firms. A significant part of the
Departamento de Economía, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja,
Loja, Ecuador global energy consumption comes from non-renewable
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
sources, which generates a greater amount of emissions of
polluting gases with harmful effects on climate change.
Some empirical evidence finds bidirectional causality among
the consumption of non-renewable energy and the emissions
of polluting gases (Saboori and Sulaiman 2013), particularly
in countries that are experiencing an accelerated urbanization
process. Moreover, the available evidence suggests the pres-
ence of positive externalities originated in the growth of urban
areas, which are reflected in the real per capita output (Yang
et al. 2017), at least within certain income ranges (Henderson
2000). This effect is more robust in countries with a medium
level of development, where urban expansion is an important
source of economic growth and improvements in the quality
of life (Henderson 2003; World Bank 2009). However, excess
urban concentration can generate efficiency problems based
on a per capita income threshold (Easterly and Levine 1997;
Brülhart and Sbergami 2009; Atienza and Aroca 2013;
Alvarado et al. 2017a).
The urban agglomeration offers several economic and so-
cial benefits for workers and firms, for example, transportation
costs decrease, facilitate the interaction between supply and
demand, facilitate the communication among economic
agents and the specialization of the labor force, allow the
physical infrastructure to be used at lower cost, develop the
labor market, and disseminate the advantages of technology
and knowledge (Henderson 2003; Romer 1989; Martin and
Ottaviano 2001; Fujita and Thisse 2003; Rosenthal and
Strange 2004). Likewise, urban concentration facilitates ac-
cess to telecommunications and financing (Glaeser et al.
1992). However, the speed and magnitude of the urbanization
process pose enormous challenges in the sustainable develop-
ment of the countries, especially in the aspects related to the
growing energy demand and environmental pollution. As ur-
ban centers grow, pollution problems associated with poor
urban planning also increase, with greater emphasis on coun-
tries in transition to economic development. In addition, weak
environmental regulation reinforces the growth of greenhouse
gas emissions and to a greater extent in developing countries.
In parallel, there is contradictory evidence on the effect of
non-renewable energy consumption on the real per capita out-
put. The nexus that relates energy consumption and per capita
output is urban concentration, because urban inhabitants con-
sume more energy and pollute the environment more than
their rural counterparts. In this context, the objective of this
research is to examine the short- and long-term causal rela-
tionship among urban concentration, non-renewable energy
consumption, and the growth of real per capita output at a
global level and groups of countries. In order to capture the
differences in the productive structure and in the level of de-
velopment, the countries were classified into four groups fol-
lowing the Atlas method (2018). The first group consists of
high-income countries (HIC), the second group is formed by
middle-high-income countries (MHIC), in the third group are
2761
the low-middle-income countries (LMIC), and finally, the
fourth group consists of low-income countries (LIC). The
availability of data for the three variables limited the research
to the 1971–2017 period for 110 countries. The models were
estimated after assuring that the variables do not have the
problem of the unit root through the tests of Levin et al.
(2002) and Breitung (2000).
The first part of the econometric strategy is to estimate a
model with generalized least squares (GLS) to measure the
direction of the relationship among the three variables.
Second, we estimate the long- and short-term relationship
using Pedroni (1999, 2001) heterogeneous cointegration
techniques and Westerlund (2007) error correction models
for panel data. Finally, we applied the Granger-type causality
test developed by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012). Similar
methodological strategies have been used by Ozturk et al.
(2010); Salim et al. (2014); Bakirtas and Akpolat (2018), re-
spectively. The results of the GLS model show that urban
concentration and non-renewable energy consumption have
a positive effect on the real per capita output at all income
levels, except in high-income countries. The cointegration test
developed by Pedroni (1999) showed that the variables are
cointegrated in the long term. Likewise, the cointegration tests
proposed by Westerlund (2007) indicate that there is equilib-
rium relationship among the variables included in the re-
search. The results of the dynamic panel model with ordinary
least squares (PDOLS) proposed by Pedroni (2001) show that
the strength of the cointegration vector is not strong in most
countries and groups of countries. Similarly, using DOLS
models, we find that there is a long-term relationship among
the variables. Finally, we find bidirectional Granger-type cau-
sality among the real per capita output and the urban concen-
tration in the HICs and LMICs; unidirectional causality from
the real per capita output to non-renewable energy consump-
tion in the MHIC and MLIC; and unidirectional causality
from the urban concentration to non-renewable energy con-
sumption in the HICs and MHICs.
Our research offers a new look at the causal nexus among
non-renewable energy consumption and real per capita prod-
uct, including the dynamics of urban concentration, where a
strong demand for energy originates and is responsible for a
significant portion of emissions greenhouse gases. Second, the
classification of countries according to their level of income
allows capturing the heterogeneity associated with the produc-
tive structure and obtaining more consistent results (Alvarado
et al. 2017b: Alvarado et al. 2018). Third, we evaluate the
strength of the cointegration vector among the variables,
which has been little studied in the literature that relates the
urban concentration, the non-renewable energy, and the real
per capita output. Finally, we include in the debate about the
nexus among non-renewable energy consumption and the out-
put of the importance of the application of policies of sustain-
able development associated with the urban concentration,
2762
where the massive consumption that happens in the urban
centers can accelerate the economic growth, but at the same
time, they can increase the environmental pollution. Is impor-
tant that policy makers promote sustainable energy consump-
tion patterns and adequate urban planning as mechanisms to
reduce the harmful effects of climate change, without limiting
the expansion of the output.
In addition to the introduction, this article is organized in
four parts. In the second part, we summarize the conclusions
and findings of the most relevant previous empirical works
and highlight the theoretical contributions that support our
estimates. The third section contains a description of the data
sources and the transformations to obtain the variables. We
also propose the econometric strategy used to verify the hy-
pothesis. The fourth section shows the results and the discus-
sion with the findings presented in the previous literature.
Finally, in the last part, it shows the conclusions and policy
implications that were raised from the results.
Review of the literature
The accelerated urbanization process experienced by emerg-
ing and developing countries generates enormous challenges
for public planning and has several implications derived from
the interaction between market forces. This process is associ-
ated with one of the great challenges of modern development:
meeting the growing energy needs. Research on the causal
link among economic growth and urbanization has been con-
solidated over time (Henderson and Wang 2007; Martin and
Ottaviano 2001). There is empirical evidence that suggests the
existence of unidirectional causality from urban concentration
towards economic growth (Williamson 1965; Henderson
2003, 2005, 2010; Glaeser and Henderson 2017). On the other
hand, there is partial evidence in favor of bidirectional causal-
ity, where economic development implies the transition from a
mainly agricultural and rural economy to a manufacturing
economy (Prebisch 1962; Singer 1950; Gylfason 2001;
Sachs and Warner 2001), whose economies tend later to spe-
cialize in the service sector, which are located mainly in urban
areas (Hwang 2006; Young 1991; Matsuyama 1992; Salim
and Shafiei 2014). During the process of urbanization, posi-
tive externalities arise, and efficiency increases that stimulates
economic growth. In developing countries, about 75% of the
output is produced in cities (Asuad 2001). Urban concentra-
tion responds to several factors, including the natural increase
in population or a lower urban mortality rate (Jedwab et al.
2015; Jedwab and Vollrath 2015) and migration from rural
areas to cities (Christaller 1966), generating benefits of ag-
glomeration such as the reduction of transportation costs and
the transition to service activities (Moomaw 1981; Fujita et al.
2001). Urban concentration facilitates the transfer of knowl-
edge and technology within urban areas (Lucas 1988), while
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
in rural areas, the cost is high. However, there are also known
diseconomies of agglomeration, such as wage gaps between
urban and rural areas (Balchin et al. 1995) and environmental
pollution. A part of the empirical evidence has found positive
externalities of urbanization (Firebaugh 1979; Frick and
Rodríguez-Pose 2018), and another part shows that the pro-
cesses of urban concentration can generate urbanization with-
out efficiency, in particular in some countries of Africa and
Latin America (Fay and Opal 2000; Brückner 2012; Alvarado
et al. 2017a), where the sustained growth of the urban concen-
tration does not necessarily improve the quality of life of the
population, but the excess of concentration population in large
cities can generate inefficiency from certain thresholds of the
real per capita output (Easterly and Levine 1997; Brülhart and
Sbergami 2009; Atienza and Aroca 2013). This has led to
some countries opting to adopt mechanisms to reduce levels
of urbanization, including policies to strengthen controls on
rural-urban migration (Yao et al. 2015). The results of the
research that suggest that there is no relationship among the
per capita output and urban concentration is limited (Bucci
2008; Jedwab et al. 2015).
At the same time, it is evident that as the urban concen-
tration increases, the demand for energy for the consump-
tion of households and the productive processes of firms
also increase. Several research shows that the increase in
urban concentration leads to increased consumption of
non-renewable energy (Salim and Shafiei 2014; Yang
et al. 2017; Gozgor et al. 2018), with greater emphasis on
markets emerging economies (Bakirtas and Akpolat 2018),
whose urbanization processes are associated with the con-
solidation of the manufacturing industry. China and India
are a clear example of this fact. It is logical to expect that
the benefits of concentration will be greater than the costs
of congestion or diseconomies of agglomeration up to a
threshold of development. However, from the point of
view of environmental sustainability, the increase in urban
concentration, which increases energy consumption, leads
to environmental deterioration due to an increase in emis-
sions of polluting gases and other forms of environmental
degradation (Alvarado and Toledo 2017; Alvarado et al.
2018). This demonstrates the need for an urgent change
in the energy matrix, where the energy consumed comes
from nonpolluting sources and at the same time, the expan-
sion of the output is not limited. Consequently, there is a
need to robustly identify the causal effect among the non-
renewable energy consumption and the real per capita
output in a generalized manner over an extended period
and a large set of countries. The results found by Noor
and Siddiqi (2010) indicate the existence of unidirectional
causality from per capita output to energy consumption.
The relationship among energy consumption and output
has been studied extensively, generating different policy
implications. However, the evidence remains divergent
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
(Razzaqi et al. 2011). In addition, several studies support
the feedback hypothesis (bidirectional causality), and this
means that a higher energy consumption is expected to
generate growth and vice versa (Eggoh et al. 2011).
Likewise, the productive structure differs significantly be-
tween countries. For example, there are net-exporting coun-
tries of energy, while others are net importers. Some countries
have a greater preference for sustainable energy, and others
consume energy from polluting sources (World Bank 2018a,
b, Gozgor et al. 2018). This structure can determine the direc-
tion of causality between growth and energy. Mehrara (2007)
finds evidence of a strong unidirectional causality from eco-
nomic growth to energy consumption in oil-exporting coun-
tries. Chiou-Wei et al. (2008) and Bakirtas and Akpolat (2018)
find results that support the existence of causality from the
output towards energy consumption. Belke et al. (2011) offer
results in favor of bidirectional causality, specifically for 25
OECD countries, whose results are similar to those obtained
by Nasreen and Anwar (2014), who find that, in 15 countries
in Asia, there is bidirectional causality among the output and
the energy consumption, even after controlling for modern
patterns of open economies such as commercial opening.
Conclusions obtained by Lee (2005) are similar for a group
of developed countries. Using cointegration techniques, they
find that the non-renewable energy consumption, renewable
energy, and per capita output have a long-term relationship
(Halicioglu and Ketenci 2018) in 30 sub-Saharan African
countries, while Adams et al. (2018) find that cointegration
relationships exist in only 7 of the 15 countries of the
European Union.
The empirical evidence that relates some measure of
urban concentration, the non-renewable energy consump-
tion, and the real per capita output is limited. Among the
few exceptions is the research developed by Kanjilal and
Ghosh (2013), who find a long-term relationship between
energy, urbanization, and output in India, while the
Granger-type causality tests indicate unidirectional causal-
ity that goes from energy to output and from economic
activity to urbanization. Likewise, Zhao and Wang (2015)
show that there is a short- and long-term relationship
among energy, urbanization, and economic growth in
China. These authors find bidirectional causality ranging
from urbanization rate to energy consumption and from
output to urbanization rate. Finally, Liu (2009) found that
there is a stable long-term relationship among total energy
consumption, population, output and urbanization, and uni-
directional causality that goes from urbanization to total
energy. However, these results do not allow us to generalize
the findings globally because they are focused on research
in countries or groups of countries. Likewise, the lack of
coherence of the results and the lack of comparability arise
due to the sample of data and the diversity of the econo-
metric methodologies (Chen et al. 2007; Ozturk 2010).
2763
Data and methodology
Statistical sources
The data used in this research comes from the World Bank.
The variables included in the research are the real per capita
output (GDP), the non-renewable energy consumption in kg
of oil per capita (NRE), and the urban concentration measured
by the urbanization rate (UC). The three variables are mea-
sured in annual growth rates. The research includes 110 coun-
tries during 1971–2017. In practice, we cannot expect the
same strength of the relationship between the variables in all
countries; rather, the intensity of the strength of the relation-
ship between the three series differs depending on the produc-
tive structure and the level of development (Alvarado and
Toledo 2017; Alvarado et al. 2018). Consequently, we use
the Atlas method to group the 110 countries into four groups
based on their real per capita gross national income (GNI).
Following to Ortiz et al. (2019), LICs are those that have a
GNI of US $ 1025 or less, MLICs are those that have a GNI
among US $ 1026–4035, MHICs have a GNI between US $
4036–12,475, and HICs are those with a GNI of US $ 12,476
or more. In econometric regressions, the dependent variable is
the growth rate of the real per capita output, and the indepen-
dent variables are the annual growth rates of the population
concentration and the annual growth rate of non-renewable
energy consumption.
Several countries have experienced significant changes in
their urban structure, and a greater urban concentration can be
found in relative terms in many developing countries (World
Bank, 2018). Some countries in Asia and Africa are a clear
example of this. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the
series. The variables form an exactly balanced panel with 5060
observations over 46 years (t = 1, 2, …, 46) and 110 countries
(i = 1, 2, …, 110). The real per capita output is more stable
within countries than between countries, the standard deviation
(SD) between countries is 1.562, and within countries is 4.884.
Similarly, population concentration shows greater variability
between countries than within countries, and the SD between
countries is 1.689, which exceeds the standard deviation within
countries (1.337). The consumption of non-renewable energy
has greater stability within countries than between countries,
the SD within the countries is approximately 7, and the SD
among the countries is approximately 1.80.
Empirical strategy
In order to examine the causal link among urban concentra-
tion, non-renewable energy consumption and the real per
capita output, globally and by groups of countries, the empir-
ical strategy is divided into three stages. Each stage is applied
for the 110 countries included in the research and for the
groups according to the economic development achieved.
2764 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772

Table 1 Statistical description of

the variables Description Dimension Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum N

GDP (annual growth) Overall 1.985 5.126 − 64.997 53.932 N = 5060

Between 1.562 − 2.282 7.744 n = 110
Within 4.884 − 67.855 51.074 T = 46
UC (annual growth) Overall 2.757 2.148 − 5.268 17.089 N = 5060
Between 1.689 0.163 8.140 n = 110
Within 1.337 − 4.549 12.883 T = 46
NRE (annual growth) Overall 1.387 7.174 − 69.690 88.060 N = 5060
Between 1.787 − 1.847 11.416 n = 110
Within 6.950 − 66.445 84.508 T = 46

The classification of the countries into four groups allows to
determine if the level of development matters in the strength
of the relationship of the three variables analyzed in this re-
search. In the first stage, we estimate a regression model using
generalized least squares (GLS), which generates estimators
consistent with heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation with
panel data:
Y it ¼ λ0 þ λ1 URit þ λ2 NRE it þ φit ð1Þ
is the term that can represent panel-specific means according
the specification; and eit is a stationary error term. Equation 4b
formalizes the unit root test of Levin, Lin and Chu (2002)
when the variance is heterogeneous between the panels. In
addition, this test constitutes a robust test of the results of
equation 4a.
p
Δyit ¼ ∅i yit−1 þ z;it φi þ ∑ Δyit− j þ eit ð4aÞ
j¼1

where Yit represents the economic growth of the real per capita
output of country i in period t, URit the urbanization rate is a
proxy of the variable urban concentration, and NREit is the
non-renewable energy consumption, from country i in period
t, respectively. Finally, φit represents the error term. The re-
sults obtained in this stage are of interest because they indicate
the sign and the size of the effect of the independent variables
on the dependent variable. In the second stage, we verify the
existence of a long- and short-term equilibrium relationship
among the three variables. In order to ensure that the series do
not have the problem of the unit root, the dependency tests in
the cross sections suggest the homogeneity of the unit root.
Therefore, unit root tests were applied that implicitly consid-
ered such homogeneity. Hadri (2000) developed a procedure
to verify the existence of unitary root in the series based on the
Lagrange multiplier test, who plated the null hypothesis that
all panels are stationary (trend). An advantage of this test is
that it allows the incorporation of a fixed effect and time trends
in the data generating process (Choi 2001; Breitung 2000;
Baum 2006). In addition, we use the unit root test with and
without tendency. Equation 2 formalizes the unit root test in
general; however, the tests are performed for each series indi-
vidually.
yit ¼ ∅i yit−1 þ z;it φi þ eit ð2Þ
Δyit ¼ ∅i yit−1 þ z;it φi þ eit ð3Þ
where the null hypothesis is then H0 : ρi = 0 for all i versus the
alternative Ha : ρi < 0. Likewise, i = 1, …, N indexes panel; t =
1, …, T indexes time; yit represent the variable being tested; yit
pi
Δyit ¼ ∅i yit−1 þ z;it φi þ ∑ θij Δyit− j þ μit ð4bÞ
j¼1
Next, we use the Breitung test (2000) from the following
equation:
pþ1
yit ¼ αi;t þ ∑ βik xit−k þ εit ð5Þ
k¼1
The use of Breitung (2000) unit root tests ensures that the
series do not have a trend component and that the results of
cointegration and causality tests are reliable. Following
Ozturk et al. (2010), in the third stage, we verified the long-
term cointegration relationship between the urban concentra-
tion, the non-renewable energy consumption, and the growth
of the real per capita output through the cointegration test of
Pedroni (1999) for panel data:
Yit ¼ αit þ δit t þ γ 1i UC it þ γ 2i NREit þ ε1it ð6Þ
The parameters αit and δit allow to capture the fixed
effects of the country and the deterministic trend of time
respectively. The term ε1it is the estimated residuals that
represent deviations from the long-term relationship. This
test proposes seven different statistics, which are based on
the residuals of the cointegration regression for the test of
the null hypothesis of non-cointegration. These test statis-
tics are panel v, panel rho, group rho, panel t (nonpara-
metric), group t (nonparametric), panel (parametric t), and
group (parametric t). In the fourth stage, following Salim
et al. (2014) and after confirming that the variables in-
cluded in the model are cointegrated in the long term, it
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
is possible to incorporate the error correction vector
(VEC). From Eq. 3 through the error correction test of
Westerlund (2007) for panel data:
0 Pi
GDPit ¼ δ 1i d t þ α1i GDPit−1 −B0 1i UC it−1 ∑ α1iJ GDPit− j
Pi
−B0 2i NREit−1 ∑ α2iJ GDPit− j þ ∑ Y1ij UC it− J
j¼1
Pi
þ ∑ Y2ij NRE it− J þ e1it
j¼−qi
In Eqs. 4 and 5, there are three possible scenarios. The first
is that if dt = 0, there are no deterministic components in the
growth rates of urbanization and the consumption of non-
renewable energy. The second scenario is that if dt = 1, the
GDPit has a constant. In the third case, if dt = (1 – t)´, the
GDPit has a constant and a trend. For simplicity, we assume
that the k-dimensional vector of both UR it and NRE it
representing urbanization and non-renewable energy con-
sumption, respectively, is random and independent of eit. In
addition, we assume that these errors are independent through
i and t. The null hypothesis of this test is that there is no short-
term cointegration. Equation 8 verifies if the growth rates of
the real per capita output, urban concentration, and non-
renewable energy consumption are cointegrated with slopes
βi. The null hypothesis of this test is that βi = 1, which implies
that there is a strong cointegration relationship among the
variables. In the sixth stage, after estimating the short- and
long-term relationship between the variables as well as the
strength of the cointegration vector, following Bakirtas and
Akpolat (2018), we used the Granger-type causality test for-
malized for panel data by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) from
the following equations:
r r
ðrÞ
GDPit ¼ α1i þ ∑ γ 1i GDPit−r þ ∑ β 1i UC it−r þ ε1it
r¼1 r¼1
r r
ðr Þ ðr Þ
UC it ¼ α2i þ ∑ γ 2i UC it−r þ ∑ β2i GDPit−r þ ε2it
r¼1 r¼1
r
ðk Þ
r
GDPit ¼ α3i þ ∑ γ 3i GDPit−r þ ∑ β3i NREit−r þ ε3it ð11Þ
r¼1 r¼1
r r
ðrÞ
NREit ¼ α4i þ ∑ γ 4i NREit−r þ ∑ β4i GDPit−r þ ε4it ð12Þ
r¼1 r¼1
r r
ðr Þ ðrÞ
NRE it ¼ α5i þ ∑ γ 5i NREit−r þ ∑ β 5i UC it−r þ ε5it
r¼1 r¼1
r
ðr Þ
r
ðr Þ
UC it ¼ α6i þ ∑ γ 6i UC it−r þ ∑ β6i NRE it−r þ ε6it
r¼1 r¼1
where βi = βi(1), …. , βi(r) and αi denotes the individual effects
that must be corrected in time and r represents the length of the
lag and is assumed to be the same for all the cross section units
ðr Þ
of the panel, where the panel is balanced. The terms γ i and
ðr Þ
βi corresponding to each equation denote the lag and slope
parameters that differ between groups, respectively, which are
2765
assumed to be constant over time. The model is established as
a fixed coefficient model with fixed individual effects. The
null hypothesis is that the dependent variable does not cause
Granger-type causality to the independent variable in at least
ð7Þ one panel.
j¼1
Pi
j¼−qi
Results and discussion
In the Table 2, the Hausman test (1978) showed the existence
of a difference among the parameters using models of fixed
effects and random effects, accordingly, and we choose to
estimate a model with fixed effects. Also, the Wald test
modified to detect heteroskedasticity and the Wooldridge
test (1991) to detect serial autocorrelation point out the need
to estimate the parameters of Eq. 1 using generalized least
squares (GLS) for panel data (Wooldridge 2002). The fixed
effects of time and by country were included in the regressions
in order to obtain estimators consistent with heteroscedasticity
and serial autocorrelation. The results are reported for the
global panel and for the four groups of countries. We found
that the urban concentration has a negative effect on the global
panel and the HICs, while in the MHICs, MLICs, and LICs,
there is a positive effect on the real per capita output, although
in the MLIC and LIC the effect is statistically not significant.
One of the possible reasons that in low-middle and low-in-
come countries energy consumption does not have a signifi-
cant effect on the product is that energy consumption is mainly
associated with household consumption and not necessarily
with processes of the production.. Consequently, the effect on
economic growth is not significant. On the other hand, we
show empirical evidence that non-renewable energy generates
ðrÞ
ð9Þ a positive and statistically significant effect on all levels of
income, except in LIC where a statistically nonsignificant co-
ð0Þ efficient is found. These results offer preliminary information
on the negative effect of population concentration on real per
ðr Þ capita output, as other researchers have already identified
(Easterly and Levine 1997; Brülhart and Sbergami 2009;
Atienza and Aroca 2013; Alvarado et al. 2017a). In our re-
ðr Þ
search, following the Atlas method of the World Bank, HICs
are those that have a per capita gross national income greater
than US $ 12,476, a threshold similar to that found by Brülhart
ð13Þ
and Sbergami (2009), who emphasize that excessive concen-
tration can lead countries to generate inefficiency due to con-
ð15Þ gestion costs. In addition, it is necessary to add the costs gen-
erated by environmental pollution caused by large urban cen-
ters. In the MHIC, there are countries with an accelerated
urbanization process that move towards development, such
as China, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina, Malaysia, and
Thailand, among others. At the same time, the effect of non-
renewable energy consumption is positive and significant in
all groups, with the exception in the LICs.
2766 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772

Table 2 Results of the baseline

model Variables Global High Medium-high Medium-low Low
income income income income

Urban concentration − 0.193*** − 0.306*** 0.486*** 0.0854 0.123

(− 6.37) (− 3.80) (3.85) (0.77) (0.87)
Non-renewable energy 0.168*** 0.0730*** 0.209*** 0.151*** 0.0271
(19.76) (7.62) (11.96) (7.97) (0.68)
Constant 2.752*** 3.350*** − 1.807 1.678*** − 0.834
(9.55) (6.79) (− 1.43) (1.49) (− 0.57)
Serial correlation test (p 0.10 0.31 0.22 0.72 0.85
value)
Fixed effects (year) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fixed effects (country) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 5060 1932 1426 1196 506

Note: The t statistic is reported in parentheses; * indicates statistical significance of the p value < 5%, ** < 1%, and
*** < 0.1%

In the next steps, all the results of the five tests reported in
Table 3 show that the variables are stationary in levels.
Therefore, they have an integration order of I (0). These results
ensure the cyclicity of the series and the consistency of the
subsequent causal results.
In the next stage of this investigation, we verified the exis-
tence of long- and short-term cointegration vectors among the
variables. To determine the existence of long-term equilibri-
um, we used the heterogeneous panel cointegration test devel-
oped by Pedroni (1999), which allows transversal interdepen-
dence with different individual effects. Table 4 reports the
statistics within and between the dimensions. All the statisti-
cians reject the null hypothesis of non-cointegration in the
different levels of significance; therefore, our results indicate
that the growth rate of the population concentration, the non-
renewable energy consumption, and the real per capita output
has a joint movement and is simultaneous during the period
1971–2017 at all income levels. Our results agree with the
results of Zhang et al. (2017), who find that the real per capita
output, non-renewable energy consumption, urbanization, and
CO2 emissions have a long-term relationship. Ozturk et al.
(2010) also found that the energy consumption and the prod-
uct are cointegrated in all income levels studied (LIC, MLIC,
and MHIC). Similarly, Lee (2005) also found long-term
cointegration between non-renewable energy consumption
and output in 18 upper-middle income countries. Our results

Table 3 Results of the unit root

test Groups Levin, Li, and Chu Breitung Levin, Li, and Chu Breitung
Without trend With trend

Global GDP − 36.08a − 11.53a − 35.3a − 10.93a

UC − 11.48a 11.11 − 8.6b − 1.79a
NRE − 58.69a − 12.43a 55.01a − 7.34a
High income GDP − 21.23a − 7.24a − 22.43a − 7.22a
UC − 7.33a 6.21 − 5.43a − 1.02a
NRE − 37.22a − 8.52a − 36.35a − 4.68a
Medium-high income GDP − 17.35a − 7.33a − 18.62a − 5.32a
UC − 4.63a − 6.57 − 4.45a − 1.23c
NRE − 30.22a − 7.57a − 28.23a − 5.45a
Medium-low income GDP − 19.23a − 4.43a − 19.45a − 7.48a
UC − 9.32a 4.64 − 8.45a − 3.45a
NRE − 31.54a − 6.31a − 30.43a − 4.34a
Low income GDP − 14.13a − 4.22a − 15.22a − 3.44a
UC 2.96b 6.42b 0.45c − 0.05c
NRE − 15.46a − 1.1a − 13.33a − 5.27a

Note: c indicates statistical significance at 5%, b at 1%, and a at 0.1%

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772 2767

Table 4 Result of the cointegration test

Dimension Statistic Global High income Medium-high income Medium-low income Low income

Within Panel v-statistic 5.94a 3.43a 3.3a 2.3a 2.2a

Panel p-statistic − 28.9a − 16.4a − 15.8a − 15.0a − 11.1a
Panel PP-statistic − 39.1a − 21.3a − 13.9a − 12.5a − 9.5a
Panel ADF statistic − 31.6a − 17.6a − 21.3a − 20.1a − 14.8a
Between Panel p-statistic − 24.6 a − 13.7a − 23.1a − 20.7a − 15.5a
Group PP-statistic − 41.4 a − 21.9a − 18.0a − 16.1a − 13.3a
Group ADF statistic − 31.9a − 17.7a − 19.6a − 15.1a − 12.3a

Note: a denotes statistical significance at the level of 1%

also agreed with the results found by Salim et al. (2014) in its the short term. Salim et al. (2014) also find causal relation-
study for 29 OECD countries, which shows the existence of a ships with short-term cointegration vectors, both for renew-
long-term equilibrium relationship among the consumption of able energy and non-renewable energy that directly affect
renewable, non-renewable energy, industrial production, and GDP. Also, our findings are coupled with the results found
economic growth. by Zhang et al. (2017), which also find cointegration vectors
In the next stage, to obtain the equilibrium, we used a in the short term between GDP, non-renewable energy con-
cointegration model for panel data developed by Westerlund sumption, urbanization, and CO2 emissions as well as finding
(2007), whose results are reported in Table 5. Our results show a positive and significant short-term relationship between the
the existence of a short-term equilibrium in the variables of a variables in their study, for countries with different income
global level and in all groups of countries. These results are levels.
consistent with the studies conducted by Lee (2005), who In the next stage, derived from the results of Table 4, we
found cointegration vectors in the short term and showed pos- analyze some other relevant aspects such as the strength of the
itive effects of non-renewable energy consumption in GDP in cointegration vector. Our models for measuring this
cointegration force, as performed by Ozturk et al. (2010), are
based on the equation proposed by Pedroni (2001) formalized
Table 5 Results of the Westerlund cointegration test in Eq. 6 of this research. Table 6 reports the results of the
DOLS model for individual countries. These results reveal
Levels of development Statistic Value Z value P value
that many of the economies around the world are still depen-
Global Gt − 3.67 − 14.33 0.00 dent on non-renewable energy for their overall economic
Ga − 21.21 − 10.84 0.00 growth. In terms of urbanization, the results indicate that ur-
Pt − 44.93 − 23.21 0.00 banization rates negatively affect several HICs. Therefore, ur-
Pa − 25.76 − 23.71 0.00 ban concentration cannot be corrected by itself with economic
High income Gt − 3.58 − 8.10 0.00 development, as is often assumed within literature (Frick and
Ga − 20.82 − 6.35 0.00 Rodríguez-Pose 2018).
Pt − 26.93 − 13.42 0.00 In order to obtain the strength of the cointegration vector by
Pa − 23.99 − 12.95 0.00 groups of countries, Table 7 shows the results of the PDOLS
Medium-high income Gt − 3.90 − 9.08 0.00 panel estimates with and without time variables. The estima-
Ga − 20.76 − 5.41 0.00 tors βi of the different income levels do not approach 1, which
Pt − 22.56 − 10.89 0.00 rejects the null hypothesis and concludes that the force of the
Pa − 25.61 − 12.46 0.00 cointegration vector is not strong. The results of the individual
Medium-low income Gt − 3.67 − 6.98 0.00 tests and the panel tests overwhelmingly reject the null hy-
Ga − 22.10 − 5.89 0.00 pothesis of a strong relationship that ranges from urbanization
Pt − 23.98 − 13.65 0.00 rates and non-renewable energy consumption to the real per
Pa − 27.84 − 13.09 0.00
capita output. These results are consistent with the research of
Low income Gt − 3.42 − 3.51 0.00
Ozturk et al. (2010) who find a weak cointegration relation-
Ga − 21.85 − 3.71 0.00
ship between non-renewable energy consumption and real per
capita output.
Pt − 9.24 − 1.83 0.03
In the fourth stage, we determined the Granger-type
Pa − 17.28 − 3.33 0.00
causality of the variables from the formalization
2768 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772

Table 6 DOLS panel test results for countries individually

HIC UR NRE MHIC UR NRE MLIC UR NRE LIC UR NRE

Australia 1.48 − 0.30** Albania − 2.86 0.47** Bangladesh 0.07** 0.72** Benin − 0.73** − 0.93
Austria − 0.21** − 0.13** Algeria − 2.90 0.48** Bolivia 0.31** 0.24** D.R Congo 3.24** 3.82
Bahrain − 0.34** 0.87** Angola 4.76 − 1.85 Cameroon 1.15 1.16 Ethiopia 0.56** − 2.81
Belgium 0.21** − 0.10** Argentina 1.18 1.80 R. Congo 2.82 − 0.05** Haiti − 0.23** − 0.33**
Brunei − 1.39 0.16** Bahamas − 1.55 1.26 C.Marfil 1.73 0.36** India 0.61** 0.30**
Canada − 1.2 0.69** Belarus − 1.60 1.06 Egypt − 2.85 0.42** Mozambique − 0.96 − 1.39
Chile − 0.98** 0.60** Botswana 0.52** 0.94 Salvador 1.35 0.35** Nepal − 0.39** 1.99
Croatia 0.8** 0.37** Brazil 2.11** 0.82 Ghana 2.34 0.37** Nigeria 1.60 − 0.11
Cyprus 2.63 0.10** Bulgaria − 3.77 1.21** Honduras 2.96 0.29** Senegal − 1.39 0.58**
R.Czech 1.10 1.05 China 2.08 − 0.16** Indonesia − 1.86 1.04 Tanzania 0.11** 0.43**
Denmark − 1.13 0.22** Colombia − 7.12 0.24** Iran − 4.49 0.66** Zimbabwe 0.75** 1.33
Finland 0.59** 1.02 Costa Rica 0.58** 0.26** Iraq 0.16** − 0.50**
France − 0.59** 0.13** Cuba 3.12 1.27 Mongolia 2.49 − 0.04**
Germany − 0.05** − 0.22** Dominican R. 1.34 0.54** Morocco 2.15 − 0.06**
Greece 5.20** 0.56** Ecuador − 1.22 0.45** Myanmar 3.79 0.64**
Guatemala − 1.09 0.47** Gabon 2.69 1.56 Nicaragua 1.02 1.12
Iceland − 1.31 0.24** Hungary − 0.2** 0.39** Norway − 1.89 0.23**
Ireland 0.42** 0.90 Jamaica − 2.98 0.56** Philippines − 0.8** 0.39**
Israel − 0.79** 0.57** Jordan − 2.75 0.23** Sri Lanka 0.68** − 0.05**
Italy − 2.11 − 0.06** Lebanon 0.83** 0.56** Sudan 0.27** − 0.59**
Japan − 1.92 − 0.11** Libya 5.71 − 1.47 Syrian − 2.68 0.07**
Kuwait − 2.12 0.23** Malaysia − 0.1** 0.85** Tunisia 0.68** 0.45**
Luxembourg − 1.25 0.41** Mauritius − 2.39 1.11 Vietnam − 0.8** 0.33**
Malta − 4.43 − 0.07** Mexico 0.13** 0.64** Yemen 0.35** 0.53**
Netherlands 0.47** 0.14** Panama − 0.7** 0.58** Zambia 0.26** 1.04
N.Zealand − 0.17** 0.34** Paraguay − 2.98 1.16 Kenya − 0.1** 1.73
Oman 0.61** 0.04** Peru 1.67 0.75**
Pakistan 1.17 0.77** Romania − 0.7** 0.88**
Poland 0.14** 0.36** Thailand − 0.2** 0.70**
Portugal − 0.38** 0.52** Turkey − 0.5** 0.43**
S.Arabia − 1.43 0.13** Venezuela 0.86 0.33**
Singapore − 0.04** 0.21**
R.Slovak −0.38** 0.52**
Spain 0.26** 0.55**
Sweden 0.31** 0.73**
Switzerland − 0.15** 0.35**
T&Tobago 0.78** 0.65**
U. Emirates 0.20** − 0.08**
UK − 0.17** 0.57**
USA 0.20** − 0.11**
Uruguay 0.30** 0.65**
Korea, Rep. 0.80** 0.31**

Note: ** indicates rejection for H0: βi=1

developed by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) and found MHIC where Granger causality is not shown in any di-
that bidirectional causality exists among the growth rate rection, and in LIC where causality is observed unidirec-
of per capita GDP and the rate of urbanization, in all tional Granger from the growth rate of urbanization to the
countries. Income levels (UCi, t ↔ GDPi, t, except for GDP per capita growth rate (UC i , t → GDP i , t ),
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772 2769

Table 7 Results of PDOLS for countries groups

With dummy time Without dummy time

UR NRE UR NRE

Groups PDOLS t-statistics PDOLS t-statistics PDOLS t-statistics PDOLS t-statistics

Global − 0.26* − 3.483 0.53* 23.164 − 0.07* − 3.402 0.66* 25.764
High income − 0.13* − 1.740 0.34* 11.714 − 0.22* − 0.118 0.44* 16.295
Medium-high income − 0.59* − 0.931 0.59* 13.212 − 0.16* − 3.792 0.72* 17.661
Medium-low income 0.93* 2.489 0.42* 7.221 0.48* − 1.579 0.54* 9.246
Low income 0.29* − 0.456 0.26* 0.522 − 0.55* − 1.783 1.60* 5.746

Note: * indicates rejection for H0: βi=1

bidirectional causality was also found between the rate of GDP growth rate (NREi, t ↔ GDPi, t) in the GLOBAL
growth of non-renewable energy use and the per capita and HIC panel and unidirectional causality in the MHIC
and MLIC of the product towards energy consumption
(GDPit → NREit) and no address causal in the HIC. On
Table 8 Results of the causality tests of Dumitrescu and Hurlin the other hand, unidirectional causality is observed in
Causalidad Group W- Z-bar p value the GLOBAL, HIC, and MHIC from the urbanization rate
bar towards energy consumption (UCi, t → NREi, t) and no
relation of Granger-type causality in the MLIC and LIC.
Global 1.72 5.39 0.000 These results are contrary to those found by Zhang et al.
UC → GDP High income 1.87 4.05 0.000 (2017) who find unidirectional causality from the use of
Medium-high income 1.37 1.48 0.238 non-renewable energy towards economic growth in the
Medium-low income 1.74 2.70 0.020 MHIC in his study conducted for countries with different
Low income 2.05 2.48 0.030 income levels in the world. They are also contrary to the
Global 2.55 11.58 0.000 results obtained by Lee (2005) which show that the long-
High income 3.86 13.27 0.000 and short-term causes range from energy consumption to
GDP → UC Medium-high income 0.80 − 0.76 0.379 GDP, but not vice versa in developing countries (Table 8).
Medium-low income 2.95 7.04 0.000 Our results are consistent with the results of Salim and
Low income 1.42 1.00 0.417 Shafiei (2014) which show a bidirectional causality in the
Global 1.33 2.49 0.051 short and long term between GDP growth and non-
High income 1.59 2.76 0.020 renewable energy consumption for OECD countries.
NRE → GDP Medium-high income 1.03 0.12 0.945 They also coincide with the results obtained by
Medium-low income 1.29 1.06 0.419 Alvarado et al. (2019) who find bidirectional causality
Low income 1.26 0.61 0.649 b etwe e n re n ewa bl e, no n- re ne wa ble en e rg y, an d
Global 1.98 7.36 0.000 economic growth for Latin American countries. In
High income 2.14 5.31 0.000 another study, Salim et al. (2014) also agree with our
GDP → NRE Medium-high income 2.15 4.55 0.000 results, given that they show bidirectional causality be-
Medium-low income 1.74 2.69 0.021 tween industrial production and the consumption of re-
Low income 1.46 1.09 0.368 newable and non-renewable energy in the short and long
Global 1.15 1.11 0.493 term in the OECD countries. Ozturk et al. (2010) also
High income 1.40 1.89 0.126 show results very similar to ours. Causality tests reveal
NRE → UC Medium-high income 1.09 0.36 0.875 that there is a causality in two directions among the UC
Medium-low income 0.54 − 1.62 0.097 and the GDP for the middle-income countries. In the con-
Low income 1.71 1.68 0.150 text of urbanization, our results coincide with the results
Global 1.77 5.80 0.000 of Zhang et al. (2017), who find causality from the urban-
High income 1.71 3.31 0.004 ization rate to economic growth. Arvin et al. (2015) also
UC → NRE Medium-high income 2.24 4.88 0.000 find coincident results as they find unidirectional causality
Medium-low income 1.29 1.05 0.421 from per capita output towards urbanization and show
Low income 1.88 2.07 0.072 bidirectional causality between these variables in their
study for the G-20 countries.
2770
Conclusions and policy implications
This paper analyzes the effect of urbanization rates and non-
renewable energy consumption on real GDP per capita in the
period 1971–2016 for a dynamic panel of data from 110 coun-
tries of the world, where we have classified countries accord-
ing to their income level through the Atlas method (2016)
developed by the World Bank. The results of this research
show that: First, in the baseline GLS regressions, we find that
the urbanization rate has a negative effect on the global panel
and the HICs, while in the MHIC, the MLIC, and the HIC,
there is a positive effect on economic growth, although in the
MLIC and HIC, the effect is statistically not significant. On
the other hand, we demonstrate that the non-renewable energy
has a positive and statistically significant effect on all levels of
income, except in HIC where a statistically nonsignificant
coefficient is found. Second, through the cointegration tests
of Pedroni (1999), we find that the growth rates of population
concentration, non-renewable energy consumption, and real
GDP per capita are cointegrated in the long term at all levels
of income. The DOLS models confirm the GLS regressions,
since they show negative effects of the urbanization rate in
most of the PIAs and positive in the MHIC, MLIC, and
HIC, while the consumption of renewable energy has a posi-
tive effect on the most countries of all income levels. The
DOLS and PDOLS models also reveal that the strength of
the long-term cointegration vector is weak in most countries
since the beta parameters are not close to 1. Third, through
cointegration tests of Westerlund (2007), it was found that the
growth rates of the urban population, non-renewable energy
consumption, and real GDP per capita are cointegrated in the
short term, since the presence of statistically significant
cointegration vectors was found in the data panels studied.
And fourth, through the Granger-type causality tests devel-
oped by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012), it was found that
bidirectional Granger-type causality exists between the per
capita output and the urban concentration in the HICs and
MLICs; unidirectional causality from the urbanization rate to
the output in the HIC; bidirectional causality between energy
consumption and per capita product in the GLOBAL and HIC
panel; unidirectional causality from the product to energy con-
sumption in the MHICs and MLIC; and unidirectional causal-
ity from the urbanization rate to the energy consumption in the
GLOBAL, HIC, and MHIC panel. One implication of eco-
nomic policy derived from this research is that countries
should promote mechanisms to achieve efficient urbanization,
which does not limit the expansion of the output but does not
disproportionately increase emissions of polluting gases. In
addition, policy makers should promote the transition towards
energy consumption patterns from renewable sources, which
can consolidate efforts aimed at reducing the adverse effects
of climate change. The process of transition from energy from
non-renewable sources to an energy matrix of renewable
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
sources can be successful if production processes incorporate
technology (Zafar et al. 2019; Sinha et al. 2019). The effective
protection of the environment requires greater attention when
designing public policies.
Acknowledgments The authors express their gratitude to the Club de
Investigación de Economía (CIE), Loja Ecuador.
References
Adams S, Klobodu E, Apio A (2018) Renewable and non-renewable
energy, regime type and economic growth. Renew Energy 125:
755–767
Alvarado R, Toledo E (2017) Environmental degradation and economic
growth: evidence for a developing country. Environ Dev Sustain
19(4):1205–1218
Alvarado R, Correa-Quezada R, Tituaña-Castillo M (2017a) Internal mi-
gration and urbanization without efficiency in developing countries:
evidence for Ecuador. Pap Poblac 23(94):99–123
Alvarado R, Iñiguez M, Ponce P (2017b) Foreign direct investment and
economic growth in Latin America. Econ Anal Policy 56:176–187
Alvarado R, Ponce P, Criollo A, Córdova K, Khan MK (2018)
Environmental degradation and real per capita output: new evidence
at the global level grouping countries by income levels. J Clean Prod
189:13–20
Arvin M, Pradhan R, Norman N (2015) Transportation intensity, urban-
ization, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in the G-20 countries.
Util Policy 35:50–66
Alvarado R, Ponce P, Alvarado R, Ponce K, Huachizaca V, Toledo E
(2019) Sustainable and non-sustainable energy and output in Latin
America: A cointegration and causality approach with panel data.
Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100369.
Asuad, N. (2001). Economía regional y urbana. Introducción a las teorías,
técnicas y metodologías básicas. Benemérita Universidad
Autónoma de Puebla, México.
Atienza M, Aroca P (2013) Concentration and growth in Latin American
countries. In: regional problems and policies in Latin America.
Springer, Berlin, pp 113–133
Bakirtas T, Akpolat A (2018) The relationship between energy consump-
tion, urbanization, and economic growth in new emerging-market
countries. Energy 147:110–121
Balchin, P. N., Bull, G. H., & Kieve, J. L. (1995). Urban land economics
and public policy. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Baum, C. F., & Christopher, F. (2006). An introduction to modern econo-
metrics using Stata. Stata press.
Belke A, Dobnik F, Dreger C (2011) Energy consumption and economic
growth: new insights into the cointegration relationship. Energy
Econ 33(5):782–789
Breitung J (2000) Nonparametric tests for unit roots and cointegration. J
Econ 108(2):343–363
Brückner M (2012) Economic growth, size of the agricultural sector, and
urbanization in Africa. J Urban Econ 71(1):26–36
Brülhart M, Sbergami F (2009) Agglomeration and growth: cross-
country evidence. J Urban Econ 65(1):48–63
Bucci A (2008) Population growth in a model of economic growth with
human capital accumulation and horizontal R&D. J Macroecon
30(3):1124–1147
Chen S, Kuo H, Chen C (2007) The relationship between GDP and
electricity consumption in 10 Asian countries. Energy Policy
35(4):2611–2621
Chiou-Wei, S., Chen, C., & Zhu, Z. (2008). Economic growth and energy
consumption revisited
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. J Int Money Financ 20:249–
272
Christaller W (1966) Central places in southern Germany. Prentice Hall
Dumitrescu E, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for granger non-causality in het-
erogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460
Easterly W, Levine R (1997) Africa's growth tragedy: policies and ethnic
divisions. Q J Econ 112(4):1203–1250
Eggoh J, Bangake C, Rault C (2011) Energy consumption and economic
growth revisited in African countries. Energy Policy 39:7408–7421
Fay M, Opal C (2000) Urbanization without growth: a not so uncommon
phenomenon, vol 2412. World Bank Publications, Washington D.C
Firebaugh, G. (1979). Structural determinants of urbanization in Asia and
Latin America, 1950-1970. American Sociological Review, 199-
215.
Frick S, Rodríguez-Pose A (2018) Change in urban concentration and
economic growth (No. 1803). Utrecht University, Department of
Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic
Geography
Fujita M, Thisse J (2003) Does geographical agglomeration foster eco-
nomic growth? And who gains and loses from it? Jpn Econ Rev
54(2):121–145
Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A (2001) The spatial economy: cities,
regions, and international trade. MIT Press
Glaeser E, Kallal H, Scheinkman, & Shleifer, A. (1992) Growth in cities.
J Polit Econ 100(6):1126–1152
Glaeser E, Henderson V (2017) Urban economics for the developing
world: an introduction. J Urban Econ 98:1–5
Gozgor G, Lau C, Lu Z (2018) Energy consumption and economic
growth: new evidence from the OECD countries. Energy 153:27–34
Gylfason T (2001) Natural resources, education, and economic develop-
ment. Eur Econ Rev 45(4–6):847–859
Hadri K (2000) Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econ
J 3:148–161
Halicioglu F, Ketenci N (2018) Output, renewable and non-renewable
energy production, and international trade: evidence from EU-15
countries. Energy 159:995–1002
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics.
Econometrica, 1251-1271.
Henderson V, Wang H (2007) Urbanization and city growth: the role of
institutions. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37(3):283–313
Henderson V (2000) The effects of urban concentration on economic
growth (No. w7503). National bureau of economic research
Henderson V (2003) The urbanization process and economic growth: the
so-what question. J Econ Growth 8(1):47–71
Henderson V (2005) Urbanization and growth. Handb Econ Growth 1:
1543–1591
Henderson V (2010) Cities and development. J Reg Sci 50(1):515–540
Hwang J (2006) Introduction of new goods, convergence and growth, vol
15. Department of Economics, Harvard University
Jedwab R, Vollrath D (2015) Urbanization without growth in historical
perspective. Explor Econ Hist 58:1–21
Jedwab R, Christiaensen L, Gindelsky M (2015) Demography, urbaniza-
tion and development: rural push, urban pull and urban push? The
World Bank, Washington, D. C Working Paper
Kanjilal K, Ghosh S (2013) Environmental Kuznets’s curve for India:
evidence from tests for cointegration with unknown structural
breaks. Energy Policy 56:509–515
Lee C (2005) Energy consumption and GDP in developing countries: a
cointegrated panel analysis. Energy Econ 27(3):415–427
Levin A, Lin C, Chu C (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic
and finite-sample properties. J Econ 108(1):1–24
Liu Y (2009) Exploring the relationship between urbanization and energy
consumption in China using ARDL (autoregressive distributed lag)
and FDM (factor decomposition model). Energy 34(11):1846–1854
Lucas R (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monet
Econ 22(1):3–42
2771
Martin P, Ottaviano G (2001) Growth and agglomeration. Int Econ Rev
42(4):947–968
Matsuyama K (1992) Agricultural productivity, Comparative Advantage
and Economic Growth. J Econ Theory 58(2):317–334
Mehrara M (2007) Energy consumption and economic growth: the case
of oil exporting countries. Energy Policy 35(5):2939–2945
Moomaw R (1981) Productivity and city size: a critique of the evidence.
Q J Econ 96(4):675–688
Nasreen S, Anwar S (2014) Causal relationship between trade openness,
economic growth and energy consumption: a panel data analysis of
Asian countries. Energy Policy 69:82–91
Noor S, Siddiqi M (2010) Energy consumption and economic growth in
South Asian countries: a co-integrated panel analysis. Int J Human
Soc Sci 5(14):921–926
Ortiz C, Alvarado R, Salinas A (2019) The effect of military spending on
output: new evidence at the global and country group levels using
panel data cointegration techniques. Econ Anal Policy 62:402–414
Ozturk I (2010) A literature survey on energy–growth nexus. Energy
Policy 38(1):340–349
Ozturk I, Aslan A, Kalyoncu H (2010) Energy consumption and econom-
ic growth relationship: evidence from panel data for low and middle
income countries. Energy Policy 38(8):4422–4428
Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous
panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(S1):653–670
Pedroni P (2001) Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels.
Rev Econ Stat 83(4):727–731
Prebisch R (1962) The economic development of Latin America and its
principal problems. Econ Bull Latin Am 1:1–22
Razzaqi, S., Bilquees, F., & Sherbaz, S. (2011). Dynamic relationship
between energy and economic growth: evidence from D8 countries.
The Pakistan Development Review, 437-458.
Romer P (1989) Human capital and growth: theory and evidence (No.
w3173). National Bureau of economic research
Rosenthal S, Strange W (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of
agglomeration economies. In: Handbook of Regional and Urban
Economics, vol 4, pp 2119–2171
Saboori B, Sulaiman J (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and
economic growth in association of southeast Asian nations
(ASEAN) countries: A cointegration approach. Energy 55:813–822
Sachs J, Warner A (2001) The curse of natural resources. Eur Econ Rev
45(4–6):827–838
Salim R, Shafiei S (2014) Urbanization and renewable and non-
renewable energy consumption in OECD countries: an empirical
analysis. Econ Model 38:581–591
Salim R, Hassan K, Shafiei S (2014) Renewable and non-renewable
energy consumption and economic activities: further evidence from
OECD countries. Energy Econ 44:350–360
Singer H (1950) The distribution of gains between investing and borrow-
ing countries. Am Econ Rev 40(2):473–485
Sinha A, Sengupta T, Alvarado R (2019) Interplay between technological
innovation and environmental quality: formulating the SDG policies
for next 11 economies. J Clean Prod 242(1):118549 In Press
United Nations (2014) World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision.
Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Washington D.C
Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull
Econ Stat 69(6):709–748
Williamson J (1965) Regional inequality and the process of national
development: a description of the patterns. Econ Dev Cult Chang
13(4, part 2):1–84
Wooldridge J (1991) On the application of robust, regression-based diag-
nostics to models of conditional means and conditional variances. J
Econ 47(1):5–46
Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel
data. MIT Press, Cambridge
2772
World Bank (2009). Informe sobre el desarrollo mundial 2009. Una
nueva geografía económica. Washington DC, disponible en http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2009/Resources/WDR_
OVERVIEW_ES_Web.pdf (visitado por última vez el 22/2/2010)
World Bank (2018). World Development Indicators, Washington D.C.
World Bank. (2018). Atlas Method GNI per capita, Washington D.C.
Yang Y, Liu J, Zhang Y (2017) An analysis of the implications of China’s
urbanization policy for economic growth and energy consumption. J
Clean Prod 161:1251–1262
Yao X, Zhou H, Zhang A, Li A (2015) Regional energy efficiency, carbon
emission performance and technology gaps in China: A meta-
frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy
Policy 84:142–154
Young A (1991) Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of interna-
tional trade. Q J Econ 106(2):369–405
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:2760–2772
Zafar MW, Shahbaz M, Hou F, Sinha A (2019) From nonrenewable to
renewable energy and its impact on economic growth: the role of
research & development expenditures in Asia-Pacific economic co-
operation countries. J Clean Prod 212:1166–1178
Zhang Z, Zhang A, Wang D, Li A, Song H (2017) How to improve the
performance of carbon tax in China? J Clean Prod 142:2060–2072
Zhao Y, Wang S (2015) The relationship between urbanization, economic
growth and energy consumption in China: an econometric perspec-
tive analysis. Sustainability 7(5):5609–5627
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.