PurposeThe stringency policy and economic support policy in response to and to address the coronavirus disease 2019 have become a significant concern since the end of 2019. The motivation that led to this study is that, the selection of the stringency policy and the economic support policy appear to have brought about the opposite effects of the environmental costs of carbon dioxide emissions. The study's objective is to examine the contradictory impacts of these stringency and economic support policies on carbon dioxide emissions.Design/methodology/approachThis study applies panel data for the top four countries responsible for carbon dioxide emission, namely China, the United States of America, India and Russia. A fully modified ordinary least squares estimator and dynamic ordinary least squares estimator are employed to determine the long-run parameters.FindingsThe results indicate that the effect of reduced carbon dioxide emissions due to a one-unit increase in the stringency policy is greater than the effect of increased carbon dioxide emissions caused by a one-unit increase in the economic support policy. Hence, if the two policies are implemented simultaneously, a positive net effect on environmental costs will be gained.Research limitations/implicationsThe study investigates in a general scope, the impact these response policies have on the environment. Future researchers may enhance the research on environmental impact in different sectors due to the implementation of both policies to enrich the analytical perspective.Practical implicationsThe results have provided implications for policymakers to emphasize more on stringency-oriented policies while giving economic support to the low-income or unemployed households in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.Originality/valueDespite the foreseen effects of the stringency policy and economic support policy, there has hardly been any studies that have explored empirically the nexus between both policies with carbon dioxide emissions in one empirical model. Furthermore, the paper uses the high-frequency data in determining the contradictory impacts of stringency policy and economic support policy on CO2 emissions.

The outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) has aroused global interest and it had a significant impact on the global economy. The majority of the countries have implemented lockdown regulations and social distancing policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which has an unprecedented impact on the oil and gas market. Hence, this scenario motivated us to study how government responses aimed at banning the spread of COVID-19 affect oil prices? To answer this question, this study examines the Movement Control Order imposed by the government to responses the oil prices in Malaysia. The study emphasizes the period from the start of January 2020 to July 2020 when the coronavirus began spreading into Malaysia. We empirically investigate the impact of government responses on both BRENT and WTI’s oil prices. The findings report that the additional one-day stay at home requirements cause a reduction of 29% and 37% in the closing price for BRENT and WTI’s oil prices respectively. Workplace closing results in a 5.7% and 14.3% reduction in the closing price for BRENT and WTI correspondingly. In contrast, international travel controls, restrictions on gatherings, and debt or contract relief for households have a positive relationship with both oil prices of BRENT and WTI. The results of this study might assist the government and investors to understand the impact of Malaysia's government responses to COVID-19 on oil prices.

Environmental concerns have steadily gained attention as the economy has grown more rapidly. This ultimately impedes the growth of a high-quality economy. Several factors, namely forested area, agricultural land, energy consumption and foreign direct investment, have contributed significantly to economic expansion while simultaneously deteriorating the environment in the short and long run. Hence, this study empirically examines the effect of forested area, agricultural land, energy consumption and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in the case of Indonesia from 1990 to 2020 by employing the autoregressive distributed lags (ARDL) approach. The results indicate that forested area negatively and significantly impacts CO2 emissions in the short and long run. However, agricultural land, energy consumption and foreign direct investment positively influence CO2 emissions in the long run. Moreover, agricultural land and foreign direct investment demonstrate a negative relationship with CO2 emissions, whereas energy consumption positively affects CO2 emissions in the short run. Thus, the results are insightful for policymakers to develop efficient strategies to reduce carbon emissions and eradicate environmental deterioration in Indonesia.

“Tax the rich, subsidise the poor” is deemed one of the typical finance characteristics of democracy and a solution in reducing income inequality. The Malaysian government has also adopted this strategy in its income redistribution policy. Evidently, this strategy can minimise the income gaps at the country level. However, it is doubtful if it can be effectively done at the individual level. The rich have to pay more while the poor can enjoy the ‘free’ income. Would that lead to financial satisfaction? Hence, the main objective of this study was to investigate the impact of individual perceptions on the government’s democratic act in implementing "tax the rich, subsidise the poor" policy for financial satisfaction among Malaysians. For an empirical analysis, this paper discusses the study conducted which used the sixth wave of the World Value Survey (WVS) data with 1290 respondents and is regressed by the ordered logit and ordered probit modelling. The results indicated that the democratic act of ‘taxing the rich and subsidising the poor’ in reality reduces financial satisfaction among Malaysians. In contrast, these same Malaysians wish for a larger income difference as an incentive for individual efforts. In view of this, the government and policy makers should make revisions to the current progressive taxation system or look for other alternative taxation systems which may be seen as fairer and can improve financial satisfaction among Malaysians at each income level.