Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A:

Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case
Dimitra Kaika, Efthimios Zervas n
School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Riga Feraiou 167, 26 222 Patra, Greece

H I G H L I G H T S

The evolution to the EKC-concept and the EKC-speculation is presented.

The possible factors—other than income—that may lead to an EKC-relationship are analyzed.

The EKC literature is quite large, and results are at best mixed. No clear conclusion can be drawn.

The relationship between income and CO2 emissions comes up to be positive due to energy consumption.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main purpose of this study is to capture the main features of the Environmental Kuznets Curve
Received 20 February 2012 (EKC)-concept. According to the EKC-theory, the process of economic growth is expected eventually to
Accepted 29 July 2013 limit the environmental degradation created in the early stages of development. The EKC concept leads
Available online 05 September 2013
many researchers from the early 1990s to assume that each economy should focus on its growth, and any
Keywords: environmental problems will be eventually eliminated by the process of economic growth. Several
EKC literature studies attempt to test empirically the EKC-hypothesis using data on many countries and examining
CO2 emissions various types of environmental degradation, while other studies examine the underlying factors that
Economic growth may drive such a relationship. This article reviews the evolution of the EKC-concept and the possible
causes of an EKC-pattern, like the distribution of income, the international trade (pollution haven
hypothesis), structural changes, technical progress and improvements in energy efficiency, institutions
and governance and consumer preferences. As CO2 emissions are a pollutant with global effects, several
studies deal with the possible EKC-pattern for CO2 emissions and these studies are discussed separately.
The various critiques on the EKC-concept are reviewed in the second article of this work.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Classical economics consider land, labor and capital as the
primary factors of production. Land is the physical capital (envir-
onment) which provides the indispensable natural resources that
allow every economic activity to take place. However, the exhaust-
ibility of the natural resources gives rise to concerns about its
possible effect on the productive capabilities (Tahvonen, 2000).
The oil crises in the 1970s, signaled that the world would run out
of oil and, consequently, of energy (Tahvonen, 2000) leading to a
slowdown of productivity (Stern, 2004a). Moreover, scientific
researches point out the negative effects of economic growth on
the environment such as the over-accumulation of greenhouse
gases, the upsetting of air pollution and the significant increase in
the generation of wastes.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2610 367 566.
E-mail address: zervas@eap.gr (E. Zervas).
Such facts hint that it is the limited ability of nature to act as a
sink of human wastes and not the finite source of resources in
nature that may restrict the growth process (Brock and Taylor,
2004). Environmental deterioration is a by-product of economic
activity and many authors attempt to study the possible relation-
ship between environmental degradation (pollution) and eco-
nomic growth (income). This is called the PIR (pollution–income
relationship) literature (Lieb, 2003). According to this literature,
the relationship between pollution and income may take several
forms of which the most widely supported is the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (cited hereafter EKC). The EKC is tested empirically
on various pollutants. The EKC literature shifts the main issue from
the exhaustion of natural resources and environmental degrada-
tion to issues concerning the necessity of economic growth to
overcome environmental deterioration and pollution.
The first part of this work focuses on studies dealing with the
EKC-concept. Undoubtedly, the EKC-literature including empirical
studies is very large. Therefore, the current review is not exhaus-
tive. Rather, the focus of interest is to capture the main features of
the EKC-subject. This article consists of two parts. The first part is

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131
 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
organized as follows. Initially, we briefly discuss the debate about
the exhaustion of natural resources, environmental degradation
and economic growth from the early 1970s onwards. Next, we
describe the general concept of the EKC-theory. Then, insights into
the EKC-concept follows, as many studies focus on specific factors,
other than income, that may drive the relationship between
pollution and income. Finally, we present empirical EKC-studies
dealing with the specific link between economic growth and CO2
emissions since CO2 emissions is a special case of environmental
degradation with global effects.
As soon as the first empirical studies on the EKC concept
appeared, the first critiques evolved. These critiques are reviewed
in the second part of the current study and are necessary to
capture the entire EKC-speculation (Kaika and Zervas, 2013).
2. The transition from the “Limits to Growth” in 1970s, to the
EKC-literature in 1990s
Historically, there are opposing views in economic theory that
deal with issues related to the natural resource scarcity (Klassen
and Opschoor, 1991; Ekins, 1993; Tahvonen, 2000). Over the last
decades, there has been a transition from issues concerning the
depletion of natural resources into current issues concerning
either the sustainability of economic growth or the necessity of
economic growth to overcome environmental degradation.
In 1972, the report of the Club of Rome “The Limits to Growth”
concludes that economic growth has significant environmental
impacts and the future world will collapse because world economy
will reach its physical limits in terms of nonrenewable resources,
agricultural production and excessive pollution (Tahvonen, 2000).
A year after the publication of the report of the Club of Rome, the
first oil crisis occurs, leading to a general sense that the world is
entering a future of increasing scarcity of energy and of natural
resources (Tahvonen, 2000). This leads to concerns about the
exhaustibility of natural resources that question the possibility of
attaining a positive consumption level forever. This concern lays
the foundations of sustainability. Two conflicting views appear at
the time. On one side, economists argue that through substitution
and technical progress, consumption can be sustained even if
production depends on depleting natural resources (Klassen and
Opschoor, 1991). In their view, sustainability is assumed a priori to
be technically feasible due to substitution (Klassen and Opschoor,
1991) and the main concern for them is to investigate the
institutional arrangements that will lead to sustainability (Stern,
2004a). On the other side, environmental economists argue that
substitution possibilities are restricted by physical laws even if
technological change is continuous (Klassen and Opschoor, 1991;
Tahvonen, 2000). Moreover, the environment, either as a produc-
tion factor or as a consumer good or as a waste sink, can restrict
the process of economic growth (Klassen and Opschoor, 1991).
Some years later, it became clear that future world would not
collapse at least due to depleting natural resources (Tahvonen,
2000). Through new discoveries and technological change, the
nonrenewable resources have been saved from exhaustion
(Tahvonen, 2000). However, for environmental economists this is
not the case with respect to pollution. In line with this, the concept
of “sustainable development” replaces the concept of “Limits to
growth” in the early 1970s. Sustainability of the economic growth
process and welfare comes up as an evolution from the first UN
Conference on the Environment in Stockholm (1972), followed by
the Brundtland report in 1987, which laid the groundwork for
the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 (Ekins, 1993). Sustainability
is referring to the development process which meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs. Sustainability of economic
1393
development aims at a certain level of consumption or welfare
per capita that has to be maintained for future generations. It
includes three constituent parts, the environmental sustainability,
the economic sustainability and the sociopolitical sustainability
(Ekins, 1993).
Contrary, for economists, pollution remains an outcome of
market failures despite the fact that there have been considerable
reconsiderations in economic growth models. For instance, eco-
nomic growth models until the mid 1980s, consider technological
change as an exogenous variable in the economic system (Stern,
2004a). After the mid-1980s, some economic theories start to
place technological development as an endogenous variable in the
system (endogenous growth models). Despite this evolution, these
new models do not consider the finiteness of natural resources
(Tahvonen, 2000). As Stern (2004a) notes, there is still an inbuilt
bias in mainstream production and growth theory to downplay the
role of resources in the economy, though there is nothing inherent in
economics that restricts the potential role of resources in the
economy. What is more, given the publication of new empirical
evidence in the early 1990s, the main idea in economics turns out
to be “too poor to be green” (Beckerman, 1992). That is to say, less
developed countries lack the resources for environmental protec-
tion and the economic growth can solve environmental problems
(Tahvonen, 2000; Stern, 2004a). The “World Development Report”
in 1992 concludes that some environmental problems are exacer-
bated by the growth of economic activity and are associated with the
lack of economic development (Ekins, 1993). The Report proposes to
accelerate equitable income growth in order to achieve higher world
output and a better environmental protection (Ekins, 1993). This
proposal lays the foundation of the so-called Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) literature, which appears in the early 1990s.
The EKC-literature is studied in the following sections.
3. The pollution–income relationship (PIR) and the
Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory
The basic philosophy of the EKC-theory is reflected in Beck-
erman's view about the effect of economic growth on environ-
mental degradation: there is «clear evidence that, although
economic growth usually leads to environmental deterioration in
the early stages of the process, in the end, the best and probably the
only-way to attain a decent environment in most countries is to
become rich» (Beckerman, 1992:482).
According to the EKC-hypothesis, further economic growth can
improve environmental degradation after an economy has reached
an adequate level of economic growth. In the early stages of
economic growth, when primary production dominates, there is
an abundance of natural resource stock and a limited generation of
wastes because of limited economic activity. In the course of
development and through industrialization, there occurs a sig-
nificant depletion of natural resources and wastes accumulate.
During this phase, there is a positive relationship between income
or economic growth (per capita) and environmental degradation
(per capita). With further economic growth, services, improved
technology and information diffusion limit the material basis of an
economy and result in reduced environmental degradation
(Panayotou, 2003).
An EKC-curve has the form shown in Fig. 1. The relationship
between environmental degradation (per capita) and income (per
capita) is plotted as an inverted U and is similar to the original
curve proposed by Simon Kuznets (Kuznets, 1955) concerning the
relationship between income inequality and economic growth.
The turning point in Fig. 1 represents the level of income (per
capita) beyond which environmental degradation can be de-linked
1394 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
Fig. 1. An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC).
from the process of economic growth. For higher income levels,
economic growth improves the quality of environment.
In Fig. 1, the dependent variable on the vertical axis is an
indicator of environmental degradation. Indicators of environmental
degradation can be emissions of a specific air pollutant, concentra-
tion of a particular pollutant in a local level or an alternative form of
environmental degradation like deforestation. The most common
forms of pollution that are studied in empirical EKC-estimations are
air pollution, water pollution, and land or soil pollution. The
independent variable on axis x in Fig. 1, is income or alternatively
economic growth (per capita) which is calculated by dividing the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with the population of the economy.
Empirical studies test the EKC-hypothesis using the following
general reduced-form model (Dinda, 2004):
yit ¼ ai þ β1 xit þ β2 x2it þ β3 x3it þ β4 zit
þeit ; i ¼ 1; ::::; N countries; t ¼ 1; ::::; T years
In Eq. (1), y is the depended variable of environmental
degradation, x is the independent variable of income, z reflects
other variables that may affect y, α is the constant term, and βi are
the estimated coefficients of the κ explanatory variables. The e
represents the error term. Depending on the study, the model
(1) varies. For instance, the cubic term of x is included in studies
that try to examine an N-shaped rather than an inverted U
relationship between environmental degradation and income.
Many studies work on a (natural) logarithmic transformation of
(1) using ln(x) and ln(y) instead of x and y in order to avoid zero or
negative indicators (Stern, 2004b). In any case, the final choice of
the functional form is done on the model that best fits the
available data and has the higher explanatory power inside the
data range (Lieb, 2003).
In general, the estimation of the model tests the significance of
the coefficients βi. The following cases may occur (Dinda, 2004):
i. If β1 ¼ β2 ¼ β3 ¼ 0 then there is no relationship between x and
y.
ii. If β1 4 0 and β2 ¼ β3 ¼ 0, then a monotonic increasing or linear
relationship exists between x and y.
iii. If β1 o 0 and β2 ¼ β3 ¼ 0, then a monotonic decreasing rela-
tionship between x and y exists.
iv. If β1 4 0, β2 o0 and β3 ¼ 0, then an inverted U relationship
(EKC) exists.
v. If β1 o 0, β2 4 0 and β3 ¼ 0, then a U-shaped relationship exists.
vi. If β1 4 0, β2 o 0 and β3 4 0, then there exists an N-shaped
relationship.
vii. If β1 o0, β2 4 0 and β3 4 0, then an inverted N-shaped rela-
tionship exists.
Only the (iv) case indicates an EKC-relationship. Therefore, the
EKC is a specific form of the PIR. If the (iv) case holds, then the
turning point is calculated as (Dinda, 2004):
β1
xn ¼ 
2β2
or xn ¼ expððβ1 =2β2 ÞÞ, in the logarithmic version.
The model (1) is a reduced-form equation. This implies that
Eq. (1) is the solution of a structural system of (unknown)
equations that form the final relationship between environmental
degradation and income. Using a reduced-form model allows us to
measure directly the impact of income on environmental degrada-
tion. However, a disadvantage of using it is that we do not know
the underlying structural functions of the (economic) system that
lead to this relationship (Grossman and Krueger, 1995).
Most empirical studies estimate the model using time series-
cross sectional data (TSCS) or panel data (Shafic and
Bandyopadhyay, 1992; Suri and Chapman, 1998; Dinda et al.,
2000; Richmond and Kauffmann, 2006). The combination of data
from many countries i for certain years or periods t1 increases the
sample. Only few empirical studies estimate the model using time-
series data due to the lack of available data over a long time-period
(De Bruyn et al., 1998; Asafu-Adjaye, 2000; Egli, 2002).
The first empirical studies on the EKC-relationship appear
independently in the early 1990s (Shafic and Bandyopadhyay,
1992; Grossman and Krueger, 1995; Selden and Song, 1994). These
empirical studies make use of data on various pollutants that
become available due to the Global Environmental Monitoring
System (GEMS), the OECD environmental data compendium and
the estimates of CO2 emissions from the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) (Dinda, 2004).
4. Possible causes of an EKC
ð1Þ
Shafic and Bandyopadhyay (1992), Grossman and Krueger
(1995) and Selden and Song (1994) estimate that income has the
most consistently significant effect on most indicators of environ-
mental quality, as many environmental indicators deteriorate
initially when income rise but tend to improve as countries
become richer. Their empirical findings imply that it is possible
for a country to “grow out of” its environmental problems,
although this process is not automatic. These studies lay the
groundwork for intensive work on the EKC-hypothesis both on
theoretical and empirical basis. The main issue for the subsequent
researchers is to find other than income possible driving forces
that may lead to an EKC-relationship. The following subsections
review the major driving forces, other than income, of an EKC-
pattern. This allows us to deepen our understanding of the EKC-
concept.
4.1. Equity of income distribution
The original Kuznets curve deals with issues related to the
effect of economic growth on the distribution of income (Kuznets,
1955). Similarly, many researchers examine whether the equity of
income distribution is the underlying factor beyond income in an
EKC-pattern (Torras and Boyce, 1998; Magnani, 2000; Bimonte,
2002). The basic thought is that the economic growth process can
lead to a more equitable income distribution that improves the
1
TSCS look like panel data but differ because TSCS refer to relatively long T and
short N, while panel data include observations for many N and short T.
 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
relative position of the median agent (citizen). As a result, public
awareness of environmental degradation rises and suitable envir-
onmental regulations are imposed on the economy.
The crucial question is whether economic growth leads to a
more equitable income distribution or increases income inequal-
ity. According to Torras and Boyce (1998) pollution is abated or
generated depending on the gap of power between those (agents)
who bear the burden of pollution against those (agents) who
benefit from pollution. However, the power of each part is a
function of income distribution. That is to say, if income inequality
worsens when income rises, then the environment will keep
deteriorating, and vice versa, because those who suffer from
pollution will not be in (economic) position to impose environ-
mental regulations on those who benefit from pollution. There-
fore, the demand for environmental protection is determined by
the improved participation of the people who bear the burden of
pollution that results from a more equitable income distribution,
better information access and education (Bimonte, 2002).
Empirical estimations confirm a significant effect of income
equality on pollution abatement in certain countries or regions.
Magnani (2000) uses data on OECD countries from 1980 to 1991
and results indicate that income equality raises expenditure on
research for environmental protection. Therefore, the downward
slope of an EKC may emerge in high-income countries if and only if,
economic growth does not lead to a “large” increase in income
inequality (Magnani, 2000:442). A similar conclusion is reached by
Bimonte (2002) who uses a sample of countries being at the last
stage of economic development. According to the author, the
participation of the agents in the growth process depends on
income inequality, information access and education and acts as a
shifter translating the EKC upward or downward (Bimonte,
2002:152). This can explain why some economies that are at the
same level of economic growth have different levels of environ-
mental degradation (Bimonte, 2002). With respect to CO2 emis-
sions and their relationship with inter-country income inequality,
Coondoo and Dinda (2008) estimate an EKC-pattern in European
countries. According to Cantore and Padillia (2010) there is a
robust correlation between income inequality and emissions
distribution and, possibly, the differences in GDP per capita
between rich and poor regions are significant determinants of
emission distribution among countries.
A major limitation in examining the effect of income distribu-
tion on environmental degradation is that there are few, or poor in
quality data that measure income inequality (Torras and Boyce,
1998). This makes hard to examine whether people's perception of
environmental degradation is significantly affected by their rela-
tive position on the income distribution.
4.2. International trade and the pollution haven hypothesis
Many authors support that an EKC-pattern may appear as a result
of international trade (Suri and Chapman, 1998; Cole, 2004; Kearsley
and Riddel, 2010). The main argument is that trade openness helps
the expansion of an economy through increased production of
(pollution-intensive) goods to support its exports. Yet, higher produc-
tion creates pollution. When income and environmental degradation
rise substantially, more severe environmental regulations are imposed
on the economy which results in a shift of its domestic production of
pollution-intensive goods to other, usually low-income countries that
have less strict environmental legislation. This way, the exports of
goods in a developed country generate the upward slope of its EKC,
while, consequently, its imports of goods from developing countries
generate the downward slope of its EKC. This is reported the
“pollution haven hypothesis” (PHH) (Dinda, 2004).
Suri and Chapman (1998) use a model that includes ratios of
imports, exports and total manufacturing in GDP as additional to
1395
income independent explanatory variables to estimate CO2 emis-
sions. Results show that the inclusion of trade variables raises
substantially the turning point of an EKC. Industrializing countries
increase the consumption of energy required for the production of
goods that are exported to industrialized countries and reversely,
industrialized countries lower their energy requirements due to
imports of manufactured goods from the industrializing countries.
It is possible however that the overall result of the PHH on the
reduction of pollution is small (Grossman and Krueger, 1995).
Considering ten air and water pollutants and four developed-
developing trade-partners, Cole (2004) concludes that there is
little evidence that pollution havens exist. In an extended Cole's
model by Kearsley and Riddel (2010), authors again do not find
sufficient evidence that the PHH is a strong explanation of a
possible EKC-pattern. Trade possibly contributes to increased
emissions at a decreasing rate as income rises, but only over
certain periods of time (Panayotou et al., 2000). Or, pollution
havens may have a transient effect on environmental degradation
(Aldy, 2005) similar to the effect of low-wage havens on the
pattern of comparative advantage (Mani and Wheeler, 1998).
Statistical evidence indicates significant differences in traded
goods between developing and developed countries. For instance,
highly polluting industries are typical of the poorest states in USA,
while high-income states are oriented towards services and high-tech
industries (Stern, 1998). Therefore, the trade-specialization between
these states may explain the variations in their emissions (Stern,
1998). Usually, the industrialization process in developing countries is
based upon polluting industries and at the same time, developing
countries account for a steadily increasing proportion in world output in
many of the most highly polluting industries (Perrings and Ansuategi,
2000). Moreover, the net emissions transfers from developing to
developed countries have increased from 0.4 Gt of CO2 emissions in
1990 to 1.6 Gt of CO2 emissions in 2008 which implies that the
transfer of emissions through international trade often exceeds the
reduction of emissions at a single developed-country level (Peters
et al., 2011). Concerning the effect of the cost of pollution abatement
due to imposed environmental regulations on exports and imports,
Levinson and Taylor (2004) estimate that an 1% increase in the cost of
pollution abatement in USA is associated with a 0.2% and 0.4%
increase in net imports (or decrease in USA' net exports) from Mexico
and Canada respectively (Levinson and Taylor, 2004).
Contrary, in Kahn's study (2003), the trends in international trade
in USA during the period 1958–1994 show no evidence that “dirty”
(pollution-intensive) trade has increased with the exception of the
African nation's exports to the USA which are considered as energy-
intensive rather than pollution-intensive. In a similar study, the
Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) may serve as a pollution
haven for USA and UK over time but there is a general shift of
manufacturing from the latter to the former, which does not include
only the pollution-intensive industries (Nahman and Antrobus, 2005).
According to another study, USA have not substituted domestic
pollution-intensive production for imports over the 1978–1994 per-
iod. Rather, value-added in the domestic manufacturing industry
increases as a result of a rise in the number of less-polluting industries
and a reduction in tariff-barriers which eventually result in a
compositional change in favor of dirtier industries in the USA
(Ederington et al., 2004). In the European Union case, evidence
provide mixed results: imports of energy-intensive goods from poorer
countries seem to increase when more stringent environmental
standards are applied in the EU, but this is not the case with respect
to toxic-intensive imports (Cave and Blomquist, 2008).
4.3. Structural change and technical progress
Many authors support that two fundamental driving forces
of an EKC-pattern are structural changes and technical progress
1396 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
(Shafic and Bandyopadhyay, 1992; De Bruyn et al., 1998; Dinda
et al., 2000; Hettige et al., 2000). Structural changes may include
the transition of the production process from the pollution-
intensive industry to the information-based service sector, which
is considered as less-polluting (Panayotou, 2003), or/and any other
qualitative reformation of the economic structure. Technical pro-
gress includes any improvement in the production techniques,
which result in less use of inputs or/and the adoption of less
polluting technologies in the production process of goods.
At early stages of development, pollution is generated as a
result of increasing production and extraction of natural resources.
This is called the scale effect of production on environment.
Recalling Fig. 1, on the revised Fig. 2, the scale effect generates
the upward trend of an EKC when production shifts from primary
production to industrial production. At this phase, economic
development gives the opportunity of investing in information-
based industry and services as well as improving production
techniques or adopting cleaner technology. These are the called
the composition and technique effect respectively. Both effects can
overcome the scale effect and generate the downward trend of an
EKC curve (Dinda, 2004).
The composition effect is associated with shifts in production-
patterns from the more material and energy-intensive manufac-
turing sector towards the (assumingly) more environmentally-
friendly services sector. Pollution is initially generated as the
composition of production shifts from light industry (agriculture
or textile) to heavy industry (minerals, chemical, machinery etc.)
but, subsequently, shifts towards information-based industries
and services which are less polluting (Panayotou, 2003).
The technique effect reflects improvements in technology that
allow the use of less inputs per unit of output or the adoption of
cleaner technologies that substitute the old and dirtier technolo-
gies in the production of goods. The development of cleaner
techniques is encouraged by investments in environmental R&D
for which, a sufficient level of economic growth is required
(Neumayer, 1998).
It should be mentioned that both structural changes (composi-
tion effect) and technical progress (technique effect) focus on the
economic activity of production rather than that of consumption.
Moreover, the scale effect may depend on business-cycle fluctua-
tions while the composition and technique effect may operate
more gradually (Bouvier, 2004). In addition, some authors indicate
that the market mechanisms, based upon the cost-criterion
determine eventually whether a new technology, not necessarily
being the cleanest one, will be adopted (Smulders et al., 2010).
Fig. 2. Scale, composition and technique effect on EKC.
4.3.1. The effect of structural changes and technical progress in EKC-
studies
Advances in technology over time seem to be the major cause
of improved environmental quality (Shafic and Bandyopadhyay,
1992). De Bruyn et al. (1998) use proper indicators reflecting
changes in the composition and technology and examine their
effect on various indicators of emissions. The authors conclude
that emissions may have declined over time probably due to
technological and structural changes and not due to economic
growth. Observed changes in pollution levels over time or across
region can be attributed to shifts in production techniques and to
sectoral-output composition with respect to SPM and SO2 (Dinda
et al., 2000). Concerning industrial water pollution, Hettige et al.
(2000) use as explanatory variables the share of industry in total
output, the share of polluting sectors in industrial output and ‘the
end-of-pipe’ pollution intensities per unit of output in the pollut-
ing sectors. According to their results, the share of industry in total
output alone follows an EKC-pattern.
It is possible however, that structural and technological changes
may have a transient effect on pollution abatement (Pasche, 2002).
Grossman and Krueger (1995) already point out that improvements
in indicators of urban air quality may result from technological
innovation but this outcome reflects specific technological, political
and economic conditions of the time under examination. In a similar
notion, an EKC-curve may reflect in the short-run the cycle of
diffusion-externality generation- innovation of each new technol-
ogy. In the long-run, a nonlinear EKC envelops a series of EKCs
corresponding to different and subsequent technologies (Dinda,
2010).
4.3.2. Energy intensity
Many studies emphasize the significant effect of technology
and structural changes on CO2 emissions over time (Lindmark,
2002; Kander, 2005; Lantz and Feng, 2006; Tol et al., 2009). The
key factor for this outcome is the evolution of energy intensity
over time and particularly the shifts in energy mix and in
conversion efficiency. Energy intensity emerged as a crucial matter
after the oil crises in the 1970s that gave rise to a general concern
about energy conservation. As a result, the structure of the oil-
depended economies had to be transformed with the adoption of
new techniques that would lower the energy-intensity per unit of
output or/and the reinforcement of the service sector that is based
on a lighter productive structure (Lindmark, 2002; Kander, 2005;
Tol et al., 2009).
When dealing with energy, most EKC-empirical studies indi-
cate a rather positive relationship among CO2 emissions, energy
and economic growth (Richmond and Kauffmann, 2006; Luzzati
and Orsini, 2009). This is attributed to the fact that energy
accompanies economic growth (Humphrey and Stanislaw, 1979;
Hamilton and Turton, 2002; Ang, 2007, 2008; Marrero, 2010)
while energy is based (mostly) on fossil fuels that are the
primary source of human-related CO2 emissions. However, redu-
cing energy consumption with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions
can have negative effects on economic growth (Chontanawat et al.,
2008).
The evolution of energy intensity depends on various factors
such as energy prices and energy mix (Asafu-Adjaye, 2000).
A large part of EKC-studies deals with these issues. For instance,
Agras and Chapman (1997, 1999) estimate energy prices as a
significant factor affecting both CO2 emissions and energy con-
sumption despite the fact that no EKC-pattern arises. The authors
place emphasis on the oil shocks in the 1970's that led to shifts in
the energy mix. Moomaw and Unruh (1997) draw a similar
conclusion in 16 OECD countries.
 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
Stern (2004a) estimates that energy intensity per unit of output
has declined over time, but this is due, to a large extent, to a shift
from the direct use of fossil fuels to the use of higher quality fuels
and especially electricity. Such changes in fuel-mix are associated
with technological innovations (Stern, 2004a; Turner and Hanley,
2011). However, changes in energy intensity are not common in all
countries. Hamilton and Turton (2002) estimate that the large fall
in the energy intensity of OECD economies over 1982–1997 has been
driven primarily by falling energy intensities in the services and
industry sectors of the USA and the services sector of the EU, but these
have been offset somewhat by rising energy intensity of services in
Japan (Hamilton and Turton, 2002:70).
1397
pattern (McConnell, 1997; Roca, 2003). The main question is how
the consumer's preferences with respect to environmental quality
shift when their income changes. That is to say, changes in income
alter the elasticity of demand for environmental quality η which is
defined as (Pearce, 2003):
ðΔEÞ% θE Y
η¼ ¼ ð2Þ
ðΔYÞ% θY E
In Eq. (2), E is the quantity of environmental good demanded
and Y is income. Therefore, the income elasticity of demand for
environmental quality η is the change in the demanded quantity of
environmental
  quality with respect to   a change in income. If
η 4 1, then E is a luxury good and, if η o 1, E is a normal good.
 
4.4. Institutional framework and governance
A government's willingness to impose environmental regula-
tions is cited as a crucial factor affecting environmental degrada-
tion (Panayotou, 1997; Bhattarai and Hammig, 2001). The main
speculation is that when an economy grows, its government is
expected to respond properly to public awareness on environ-
mental degradation and to countervail market failures by impos-
ing suitable regulations that prevent further pollution from
increasing. In view of this, the growth of an economy is an
essential condition to overcome pollution but it is not an adequate
condition alone: whether environmental quality improvements (or
reduced degradation) will materialize or not, when, and how,
depends critically on government policies, social institutions and
the completeness and functioning of markets (Panayotou, 1997). In
practice, however, it is difficult to accurately assess the effective-
ness or ineffectiveness of a country's governance or, in general, of
its political institutions that would allow for a better estimation of
their impact on environmental degradation (Panayotou, 1997).
Some studies already estimate an EKC-pattern in some devel-
oped countries which are characterized by better governance,
stronger political institutions, better socioeconomic conditions
and greater investment in education (Dutt, 2009). Considering
tropical deforestation, Bhattarai and Hammig (2001) estimate that
institutional factors are more significant for the deforestation
process than income or other macroeconomic conditions. How-
ever, the institutional development is a time-consuming process
but stronger regulation is one of the keys to reduce pollution
(Dasgupta et al., 2002). Economic growth provides the necessary
tools to enforce environmental activities and public authorities
have the legal mandate to collect information on pollution that
allow local communities to set higher environmental standards
(Dasgupta et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, as a rule, the governments are elected for a
limited period. This fact may deter a government, due to the
potential political cost, from imposing environmental regulations
that would protect the environment from market failures that
generate long-term externalities (pollution) (Ansuategi and
Escapa, 2002). In addition, when the political system is highly
corrupted or less effective, then the agent's willingness to improve
environmental quality will not be noticed by their governments
because corruption affects the economic growth process (Leitao,
2010). Similarly, if governmental institutions are weaker, less
effective and/or more corrupted, then a possible EKC-curve may
peak at higher income levels, well above the social optimal income
level (Lopez and Mitra, 2000). In poor countries, however,
improved governance and/or policy reform are sufficient condi-
tions to reverse this outcome (Dasgupta et al., 2006).
4.5. Consumers' preferences
Some EKC studies focus on the microeconomic implications of
consumer preferences as a partial explanation of an inverted-U
Most authors accept that η 4 1 treating clean environment and
preservation as “luxury” goods (Dinda, 2004). However, it is
difficult to measure the quantity of environmental good
demanded. An alternative way is to measure the income elasticity
of the Willingness to Pay (WTP), which accounts the change in the
willingness to pay for some environmental quality in response to a
change in income. Most studies show that, while the income
elasticity of demand on environmental quality is marginally over
unit, the income elasticity of willingness to pay is less than unit
(Pearce, 2003).
Kander and Lindmark (2004) estimate that environment in
Sweden is appreciated at a higher value after the 1970s, which
leads to deliberate action to prevent further pollution and as a
result, pollutants decrease. However, with respect to Italian house-
hold's consumption expenditures, results indicate that the income
elasticity of the willingness to pay is close to unity for all income
groups implying that becoming richer does not necessarily leads to
cleaner environments (Martini and Tiezzi, 2010).
Examining the microeconomic implications of consumer pre-
ferences on the environment is a difficult and complicated task.
For instance, suitable preferences can always lead to an EKC-
pattern, but there is no guarantee that such suitable preferences
exist (Plassmann and Khanna, 2006). If consumers do not exercise
enough environmental effort as they get richer, then, even the
most sophisticated and effective abatement technologies cannot
prevent pollution from increasing. Furthermore, it is difficult to
predict the effect of a shift in consumers' preferences, because
such shift may depend on various spatial and time conditions
(Plassmann and Khanna, 2006). For example, inhabitants of a city
may not need concern themselves with the negative health effects
of a waste treatment installation located in a sparsely populated
area, or across a great distance, or generally, when the cost of
pollution can be transferred to a remote future. In such cases, the
inhabitants have few incentives to alter their consumption pat-
terns, unless they sincerely worry about the effects of environ-
mental degradation to others (Roca, 2003; Khanna and Plassmann,
2004).
On the whole, different preferences shape different consump-
tion-patterns, which, in turn, need different abatement policies,
while the recognition of an environmental problem takes a long
time (Kander and Lindmark, 2004; Cantore, 2010). Even when
such a problem is realized, the undertaken actions depend on the
utility of the agents, their relative economic position and their
spatial ability to separate themselves from the source of pollution
(Roca, 2003). Above all, the income–pollution issue is a macro-
economic subject and any microeconomic foundations of this
relationship, although helpful and meaningful, are hard to be
analyzed in a sufficient way (McConnell, 1997).
5. EKC for CO2 emissions
Empirical EKC-studies analyze various indicators of environ-
mental degradation such as air quality indicators (SO2, SPM, NOX,
1398 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402

Table 1
EKC studies on CO2 emissions.

Authors (year) Sample Results (income) Other significant parameters/notes

Shafic and Bandyopadhyay
149 countries ↗

(1992)
1960–1990

Panel data

Holtz-Eakin and Selden
130 countries ↗ Forecasts: ↗

(1995)
1951–1986

Panel data

Roberts and Grimes (1997)
Low-medium-high income countries \ rich countries Social-political factors

1962–1991 ↗ low/medium income countries PHH

Carson et al. (1997)
US states \

1990

Cross-sectional data

Lim (1997)
South Korea ↗

1980s onwards

Time series

Moomaw and Unruh
16 industrial OECD countries N Oil price shocks

(1997)
1950–1992

Panel data

Schmalensee et al. (1998)
141 countries \ Forecasts: ↗

1950–1990

Panel data

De Bruyn et al. (1998)
Netherlands, W.Germany, UK, USA ↗ Population

1960–1993 intervals Technology

Time series Structural changes

Galeotti and Lanza (1999)
110 countries \ Population/forecasts: ↗

1970–1996

Panel data

Agras and Chapman
34 countries ↗ Energy prices (oil shocks)

(1999)
Various years

Panel data

Borghesi (2000)
126 countries ↗ Income inequality

1988–1995

Panel data

Perrings and Ansuategi
114 countries ↗ Share of agriculture in GDP (negatively)

(2000)
1990

Panel data

Panayotou et al. (2000)
17 developed countries \ panel data Over time, different driving force of EKC

1870–1994 \ US, UK with time series

Panel data and time series

Azomahou and van Phu
100 countries ↗

(2001)
1960–1996

Panel data

Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh
24 OECD countries \ panel data Rejection of homogeneity using panel data
(2001)
1960–1997 \ time series: 5 countries

Panel data and Time series

Egli (2002)
Germany No conclusion

1966–1998

Time series
 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402 1399

Table 1 (continued )

Authors (year) Sample Results (income) Other significant parameters/notes

Lindmark (2002)
Sweden \ Technological and structural changes (nuclear

1870–1997 power)

Time series

Pauli (2003)
29 OECD countries No common EKC:

1970–1998 \ 12 countries

Panel data ↗ 2 countries
↘ 7 countries
No conclusion: 8 countries

Friedl and Getzner (2003)
Austria N PHH

1960–1999 Share of tertiary sector in GDP

Time series

Cole (2004)
21 countries \ PHH

1980–1997

Panel data

Aldy (2005)
USA states \ In few states Emissions-intensive trade

1960–1999 ↗ (consumption model) Climate conditions

Panel data Historic coal endowments

Azomahou et al. (2006)
100 countries ↗

1960–1996

Panel data

Richmond and Kaufmann
36 countries ↗ Fuel mix/limited support of a turning point in

(2006)
1973–1997 OECD countries

Panel data

Lantz and Feng (2006)
Canada (five regions) No significant relationship \ population

1970–2000 [ technology

Panel data

Kunnas and Myllyntaous
Finland ↗

(2007)
1800–2003

Time series

Coondoo and Dinda (2008)
88 countries \ only for Europe Inter-country income inequality

1960–1990 ↗ for whole

Panel data

Lee et al. (2009)
89 countries N for the whole panel PHH

1960–2000 \ in middle income, American and

Panel data European countries

Aslanidis and Iranzo
1971–1997 ↗

(2009)
77 Non-OECD countries

Panel data

Dutt (2009)
1960–2002 ↗ 1960–1980 Governance

124 countries \ 1984–2002 Political institutions

Panel data Socioeconomic conditions
Education

Halicioglu (2009)
Turkey ↗ Energy consumption

Time series Foreign trade

1960–2005

Jalil and Mahmud (2009)
China \ Energy consumption

1971–2005

Time series
1400 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
Table 1 (continued )
Authors (year) Sample
Narayan and Narayan
43 developing countries
(2010)
1980–2004

Panel data and Time series
Acararci and Ozturk (2010)
19 Europe countries

1960–2005

Time series
Iwata et al. (2011)
28 countries (17 OECD, 11 non-OECD ↗
countries)

1960–2003

Panel data
Jaunky (2011)
36 high-income countries

1980–2005

Panel data
CO, lead, VOC and CO2), water quality indicators (pathogens, heavy
metals, water oxygen regime) and various other environmental
indicators such as access to safe drinking water, municipal solid
wastes, deforestation etc (Dinda, 2004). The collection and mea-
sure of the relevant data calls into question their reliability and
comparability (Lieb, 2003).
As part of current issues concerning climate change and the
over accumulation of greenhouse gases, many studies examine the
relationship between CO2 emissions, the most prominent green-
house gas, and economic growth. Whether economic growth can
have a positive impact on CO2 emissions is a matter for debate.
Results seem at best mixed but in most cases, CO2 emissions tend
to rise monotonically as income grows. That is to say, no EKC-
pattern arises with respect to CO2 emissions. An explanation for
this is the fact that CO2 emissions are related with energy use
which is essential for economic growth. In addition, CO2 emissions
do not have local and recognizable effects on the environment
(Arrow et al., 1995; Ansuategi and Escapa, 2002).
Table 1 summarizes some EKC-studies that deal with CO2
emissions. Depending on the analysis used (cross-country or
time-series) and on the period under examination there seems
to be conflicting results. Even studies that examine the EKC-
hypothesis both on individual country-level and on group
country-level provide contradicting outcomes.
6. Conclusions
The EKC concept shifts the main subject from the exhaustion of
natural resources to issues related with the necessity of economic
growth to overcome environmental problems. According to the
EKC-hypothesis, further economic growth is expected to overcome
the environmental degradation occurred in earlier phases of
development and suggests that the relationship between income
(economic growth) and environmental degradation takes the form
of an inverted U.
Many studies attempt to test this hypothesis using various
indicators of environmental degradation, while a large part of
studies attempts to examine the significance of other than income
factors that may lead to an EKC-pattern. Such factors are the
international trade (pollution haven hypothesis), the equity of
income distribution, the structural changes, technical progress
and improvements in energy efficiency, the institutional frame-
work and governance and, finally, consumers' preferences. The
Results (income) Other significant parameters/notes
\ in 15 countries (time series)
\ in Middle Eastern and South Asia panels
\ in 2 countries Energy consumption
Nuclear power
\ in 5 countries
↗ for whole panel
significance of these causes may explain adequately or partially a
possible EKC-pattern.
In fact, the EKC literature is quite large, and results are at best
mixed. A large part of studies that deal with CO2 emissions,
indicate that the process of economic growth is not reducing such
emissions over time, thought that CO2 emissions are related with
economic growth through energy consumption.
References
Acaravci, A., Ozturk, I., 2010. On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2
emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35, 5412–5420.
Agras, J., Chapman, D., 1997. Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve for energy?
An econometric analysis. Working paper 97-07.
Agras, J., Chapman, D., 1999. A dynamic approach to the Environmental Kuznets
Curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics 28, 267–277.
Aldy, J.E., 2005. An Environmental Kuznets Curve analysis of U.S. state-level carbon
dioxide emissions. The Journal of Environment Development 14, 48–72.
Ang, J.B., 2007. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy
Policy 35, 4772–4778.
Ang, J.B., 2008. Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consump-
tion in Malaysia. Journal of Policy Modeling 30, 271–278.
Ansuategi, A., Escapa, M., 2002. Economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions.
Ecological Economics 40, 23–37.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B-O.,
Levin, S., Maler, K-G., Perrings, C., Pimentel, D., 1995. Economic growth,
carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics 15, 91–95.
Asafu-Adjaye, J., 2000. The relationship between energy consumption, energy
prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing
countries. Energy Economics 22, 615–625.
Aslanidis, N., Iranzo, S., 2009. Environment and development: is there a Kuznets
curve for CO2 emissions? Applied Economics 41, 803–810.
Azomahou, T., Van Phu, N., 2001. Economic growth and CO2 emissions: a nonpara-
metric approach. Available from: 〈http:/www.beta-umr7522.fr/productions/
publications/2001/2001-01.pdf〉.
Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., Van Phu, N., 2006. Economic development and CO2
emissions: a nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics 90,
1347–1363.
Beckerman, W., 1992. Economic growth and the environment: whose growth?
Whose environment?. World Development 20, 481–496.
Bhattarai, M., Hammig, M., 2001. Institutions and the Environmental Kuznets Curve
for deforestation: a cross-country analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia.
World Development 29 (6), 995–1010.
Bimonte, S., 2002. Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 41, 145–156.
Borghesi, S., 2000. Income Inequality and the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy. (Nota di Lavoro 83.2000).
Bouvier, R.A., 2004. Air Pollution and Per Capita Income: a Disaggregation of the
Effects of Scale, Sectoral Composition, and Technological Change. Political
Economy Research Institute, Working Paper Series, 84.
Brock, W.A., Taylor, M.S., 2004. Economic Growth and the Environment: a Review of
Theory and Empirics. NBER Working Paper Series, w.p. 10854. Available from:
〈http:/www.nber.org/papers/w10854〉.
 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
Cantore, N., 2010. Social preferences and Environmental Kuznets Curve in climate
change integrated assessment modelling. International Journal of Global
Environmental Issues 10 (½), 123–142.
Cantore, N., Padilla, E., 2010. Equality and CO2 emissions distribution in climate
change integrated assessment modelling. Energy 35, 298–313.
Carson, R.T., Jeon, Y., McCubbin, D.R., 1997. The relationship between air pollution
emissions and income: US Data. Environment and Development Economics 2,
433–450.
Cave, L.A., Blomquist, G.C., 2008. Environmental policy in the European Union: fostering
the development of pollution havens? Ecological Economics 65, 253–261.
Chontanawat, J., Hunt, L.C., Pierse, R., 2008. Does energy consumption cause
economic growth? Evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries.
Journal of Policy Modeling 30, 209–220.
Cole, M.A., 2004. Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental
Kuznets Curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics 48, 71–81.
Coondoo, D., Dinda, S., 2008. Carbon dioxide emissions and income: a temporal
analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecological Economics 65,
375–385.
Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., Wheeler, D., 2002. Confronting the Environ-
mental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1), 147–168.
(Winter).
Dasgupta, S., Hamilton, K., Pandey, K.D., Wheeler, D., 2006. Environment during
growth: accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Development 34
(9), 1597–1611.
De Bruyn, S.M., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Opschoor, J.B., 1998. Economic growth and
emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of Environmental Kuznets Curves.
Ecological Economics 25, 161–175.
Dijkgraaf, E.,Vollebergh, H.R.J., 2001. A Note on Testing for Environmental Kuznets
Curves with Panel Data. Available from: 〈http:/www.feem.it/web/activ/_activ.
html〉.
Dinda, S., Coondoo, D., Pal, M., 2000. Air quality and economic growth: an empirical
study. Ecological Economics 34, 409–423.
Dinda, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological
Economics 49, 431–455.
Dinda, S., 2010. Environmental Kuznets Curve: an Envelope of Technological
Progress. MPRA archive, paper no 28092. Available at: 〈http:/mpra.ub.uni-m
uenchen.de/28092〉.
Dutt, K., 2009. Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship:
a cross-country study. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11,
705–723.
Ederington, J., Levinson, A., Minier, J., 2004. Trade Liberalization and Pollution
Havens. Nber Working Paper Series, Working Paper 10585. Available from:
〈www.nber.org/papers/w10585〉.
Egli, H., 2002. Are Cross-Country Studies of the Environmental Kuznets Curve
Misleading? New Evidence from Time Series Data for Germany. Fondazione Eni
Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy. (Nota di Lavoro 25.2002).
Ekins, P., 1993. ‘Limits to Growth’ and ‘Sustainable Development’: grappling with
ecological realities. Ecological Economics 8, 269–288.
Friedl, B., Getzner, M., 2003. Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open
economy. Ecological Economics 45, 133–148.
Galeotti, M., Lanza, A., 1999. Richer and cleaner? A study on carbon dioxide
emissions in developing countries. Energy Policy 27, 565–573.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic growth and the environment. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (2), 353–377.
Halicioglu, F., 2009. An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption,
income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37, 1156–1164.
Hamilton, C., Turton, H., 2002. Determinants of emissions growth in OECD
countries. Energy Policy 30, 63–71.
Hettige, H., Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 2000. Industrial pollution in economic develop-
ment: the Environmental Kuznets Curve revisited. Journal of Development
Economics 62, 445–476.
Holtz-Eakin, D., Selden, T.M., 1995. Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic
growth. Journal of Public Economics 57, 85–101.
Humphrey, W., Stanislaw, J., 1979. Economic Growth and Energy Consumption in
the UK, 1700–1975. Energy Policy 7, 29–43.
Iwata, H., Okada, K., Samreth, S., 2011. A note on the Environmental Kuznets Curve
for CO2: a pooled mean group approach. Applied Energy 88, 1986–1996.
Jalil, A., Mahmud, S.F., 2009. Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a
cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37, 5167–5172.
Jaunky, V.C., 2011. The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries.
Energy Policy 39, 1228–1240.
Kahn, M.E., 2003. The geography of US pollution intensive trade: evidence from
1958 to 1994. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33, 383–400.
Kaika, D., Zervas, E., 2013. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory. Part B: critical
issues. Energy Policy. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.130, this issue).
Kander, A., Lindmark, M., 2004. Energy consumption, pollutant emissions and
growth in the long run: Sweden through 200 years. European Review of
Economic History 8, 297–335.
Kander, A., 2005. Baumol's disease and dematerialization of the economy. Ecolo-
gical Economics 55, 119–130.
Kearsley, A., Riddel, M., 2010. A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis
and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 69, 905–919.
Khanna, N., Plassmann, F., 2004. The demand for environmental quality and the
Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics 51, 225–236.
Klassen, G.A.J., Opschoor, J.B., 1991. Economics of sustainability or the sustainability
of economics: different paradigms. Ecological Economics 4, 93–115.
1401
Kunnas, J., Myllyntaus, T., 2007. The Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and
air pollution in Finland. Scandinavian Economic History Review 55 (2),
101–127.
Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic
Review 45, 1–28.
Lantz, V., Feng, Q., 2006. Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on
CO2 emissions in Canada: Where’s the EKC? Ecological Economics 57, 229–238.
Lee, C-C., Chiu, Y-B., Sun, C-H., 2009. Does one size fit all? A reexamination of the
Environmental Kuznets Curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Review
of Agricultural Economics 31 (4), 751–778.
Leitao, A., 2010. Corruption and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: empirical
evidence for sulphur. Ecological Economics 69, 2191–2201.
Levinson, A., Taylor, M.S., 2004. Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect. NBER
Working Paper Series, working paper 10629.
Lieb, C.M., 2003. The Environmental Kuznets Curve – a Survey of the Empirical
evidence and of Possible Causes. University of Heidelberg – Department of
Economics, Discussion Paper Series, no 391.
Lim, J., 1997. Economic Growth and Environment: Some Empirical Evidences from
South Korea. Seoul Journal of Economics 10 (3), 273–292.
Lindmark, M., 2002. An EKC-pattern in historical perspective: carbon dioxide
emissions, technology, fuel prices and growth in Sweden 1870–1997. Ecological
Economics 42, 333–347.
Lopez, R., Mitra, S., 2000. Corruption, pollution, and the Kuznets environment
curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40, 137–150.
Luzzati, T., Orsini, M., 2009. Investigating the energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve.
Energy 34, 291–300.
Magnani, E., 2000. The Environmental Kuznets Curve, environmental protection
policy and income distribution. Ecological Economics 32, 431–443.
Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 1998. In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the
world economy. 1960–1995. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (3),
215–247.
Marrero, G.A., 2010. Greenhouse gases emissions, growth and the energy mix in
Europe. Energy Economics 32, 1356–1363.
Martini, C., Tiezzi, S., 2010. Is the Environment a Luxury? An Empirical Investigation
using Revealed Preferences and Household Production. Available from: 〈http:/
www.econ-pol.unisi.it/quaderni/599.pdf〉.
McConnell, K.E., 1997. Income and the demand for environmental quality. Envir-
onment and Development Economics 2, 383–399.
Moomaw, W.R., Unruh, G.C., 1997. Are Environmental Kuznets Curves misleading
us? The case of CO2 emissions. Environment and Development Economics 2,
451–463.
Nahman, A., Antrobus, G., 2005. Trade and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: is
Southern Africa a pollution haven? South African Journal of Economics 73 (4),
803–814.
Narayan, P-K., Narayan, S., 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth:
panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38, 661–666.
Neumayer, E., 1998. Is economic growth the environment's best friend? Zeitschrift
für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht (Journal of Environmental Law and Policy)
2/98, 161–176.
Panayotou, T., 1997. Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: turning a
black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics 2,
465–484.
Panayotou, T., Peterson, A., Sachs, J., 2000, August. Is the Environmental Kuznets
Curve driven by Structural Change? What Extended Time Series May Imply for
Developing Countries? CAER II Discussion Paper no. 80.
Panayotou, T., 2003. Economic Growth and the Environment 2003. Economic
Survey of Europe: UNECE, vol. no. 2; . ([chapter 2]).
Pasche, M., 2002. Technical progress, structural change and the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 42, 381–389.
Pauli, F., 2003, December. Environmental Kuznet Curve Investigation Using a
Varying Coefficient AR-Model. EEE Working Papers Series no.12.
Pearce, D., 2003, March. Conceptual Framework for Analysing the Distributive
Impacts of Environmental Policies. Prepared for the OECD Environment
Directorate Workshop on the Distribution of Benefits and Costs of Environ-
mental Policies, Paris.
Perrings, C., Ansuategi, A., 2000. Sustainability, growth and development. Journal of
Economic Studies 27 (1/2), 19–54.
Peters, G.P., Minx, J.C., Weber, C.L., Edenhofer, O., 2011, 25April. Growth in Emission
Transfers via International Trade from 1990 to 2008. doi: 10.1073/
pnas.1006388108 PNAS.
Plassmann, F., Khanna, N., 2006. Preferences, Technology, and the Environment:
Understanding the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis. Economics
Department Working Paper 0313.
Richmond, A.K., Kaufmann, R.K., 2006. Is there a turning point in the relationship
between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Econom-
ics 56, 176–189.
Roberts, J.T., Grimes, R., 1997. Carbon intensity and economic development 1962–
91: a brief exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Develop-
ment 25 (2), 191–198.
Roca, J., 2003. Do individual preferences explain the Environmental Kuznets Curve?
Ecological Economics 45, 3–10.
Schmalensee, R., Stoker, T.M., Judson, R.A., 1998. World carbon dioxide emissions:
1950–2050. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 15–27.
Selden, T., Song, D., 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a
Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 27 (2), 147–162.
1402 D. Kaika, E. Zervas / Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1392–1402
Shafic, N., Bandyopadhyay, S., 1992. Economic Growth and Environmental Quality.
Time-series and Cross Country Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper no.
904, World Development Report 1992, The World Bank.
Smulders, S., Bretschger, L., Egli, H., 2010. Economic Growth and the Diffusion of
Clean Technologies: Explaining Environmental Kuznets Curves. Environ
Resource Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9425-y.
Stern, D.I., 1998. Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Environment and
Development Economics 3, 173–196.
Stern, D.I., 2004a. Energy and economic growth. In: Cleveland, CJ (Ed.), Encyclope-
dia of Energy. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp. 35–51.
Stern, D.I., 2004b. The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World
Development 32 (8), 1419–1439.
Suri, V., Chapman, D., 1998. Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for
the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 25, 195–208.
Tahvonen, O., 2000. Economic Sustainability and Scarcity of Natural Resources: A
brief historical review. Resources for the Future. Available from: 〈www.rff.org〉.
Tol, R.S.J, Pacala, S.W., Socolow, R.H., 2009. Understanding long-term energy use
and carbon dioxide emissions in the USA. Journal of Policy Modeling 31,
425–445.
Torras, M., Boyce, J.K., 1998. Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the
environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 25, 147–160.
Turner, K., Hanley, N., 2011. Energy efficiency, rebound effects and the Environ-
mental Kuznets Curve. Energy Economics 33, 709–720.