Assessing the Impact of Market Supporting Institutions on Environmental Outcomes
Empirical Evidence from Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58329/criss.v3i3.169Abstract
Abstract Views: 40
There is a considerable debate on the impact of institutional quality including economic and political institutions on economic outcomes. Most of the existing discourse has focused only on their economic implications. This study, on the other hand, seeks to explore the role of market supporting institutions, measured by economic freedom, on environmental outcomes in Pakistan. While utilizing data for the period 2000–2020 and using ARDL bounds testing approach, we arrive at few important conclusions. The empirical results indicate that market supporting institutions such as economic freedom have strong negative impact on environmental degradation (measured by CO2 emissions per capita and CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production) in Pakistan. Importantly, the effect holds both in short-run as well as in the long-run, suggesting that the strength of market supporting institutions not only lowers environmental pollution in the country but it also mitigates the environmental degradation from electricity and heat production. The estimated results are robust through alternative estimation strategies. Ultimately, the study implies that the strength of market supporting institutions can be an eventual boon to the environmental outcomes of Pakistan’s economy.
Keywords:
Market supporting institutions, environmental outcomes, ARDL, Pakistan
References
Akadırı, S. S., Alola, A. A., & Usman, O. (2021). Energy mix outlook and the EKC hypothesis in BRICS countries: a perspective of economic freedom vs. economic growth. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(7), 8922-8926.
Anderson, D. A. (2019). Environmental economics and natural resource management. Routledge.
Block, W. E. (1998). The Necessity of Free Trade. Journal of Markets & Morality, 1(2).
Block, W. E. (2014). Toward a libertarian theory of evictionism. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35, 290-294.
Bronfenbrenner, M. (1955). Two concepts of economic freedom. Ethics, 65(3), 157-170.
Carlsson, F., & Lundström, S. (2003). The effects of economic and political freedom on CO2 emissions. Economic Studies, Department of Economics, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg University: Gothenburg, Sweden, 79.
Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with appucations to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
Khan, H., Weili, L., & Khan, I. (2022). Environmental innovation, trade openness and quality institutions: an integrated investigation about environmental sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-31.
Mahmood, M. T., Shahab, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2022). The relevance of economic freedom for energy, environment, and economic growth in Asia-Pacific region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(4), 5396-5405.
Perkin, E. K., Hölker, F., Richardson, J. S., Sadler, J. P., Wolter, C., & Tockner, K. (2011). The influence of artificial light on stream and riparian ecosystems: questions, challenges, and perspectives. Ecosphere, 2(11), 1-16.
Perron, P. (1988). Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Further evidence from a new approach. Journal of economic dynamics and control, 12(2-3), 297-332.
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
Pigou, A. (2017). The economics of welfare. Routledge.
Yameogo, C. E., Omojolaibi, J. A., & Dauda, R. O. (2021). Economic globalisation, institutions and environmental quality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Research in Globalization, 3, 100035.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CARC Research in Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
