An analysis of biomass consumption and economic growth in transition countries

Abstract

In this paper, the relationship between biomass energy consumption and economic growth was analysed for some European Transition Countries. Two econometrical methods, which are time series (Autoregressive Distributed Lag (A.R.D.L.) bounds testing approach and Granger Causality) and Panel data methods (Pedroni test, Panel Johansen test and Panel Causality test) were used to determine the cointegration relationship between the variables. A.R.D.L. and Granger Causality methods were practiced for Albania, Bulgaria and Romania for the 1981-2014 period. Panel Cointegration and Causality methods were applied for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia and Slovak Republic for the 1991-2014 period; and Croatia, Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia for the 1995-2014 period. According to the results, while short-run and long-run causality results demonstrate that the conservation hypothesis is valid for Albania and the countries in group 1, evidence of the growth hypothesis is supported for Bulgaria, Romania and the countries in group 2. In strong causality results, evidence of bidirectional causality for all countries is found.

The determinants and interrelationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in African economies: Fresh insights from static and dynamic models

“…Recently, institutional qualities have also been assigned a chief role in determining economic growth (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2005; Barro, 2003; Bildirici, 2008; Butkiewicz & Yanikkaya, 2006; Chong & Calderon, 2000; Fraj, Hamdaoui, & Maktouf, 2018; Gwartney, Holcombe, & Lawson, 2004; Henderson, Papageorgiou, & Parmeter, 2011; Ji, Magnus, & Wang, 2014; Klein, 2005; Law, Azman‐Saini, & Ibrahim, 2013; Sobel, 2008; Valeriani & Peluso, 2011). A large number of studies acknowledged energy (both nonrenewable and renewable) as determinants of growth (Alam, Ahmed, & Begum, 2017; Arifin & Syahruddin, 2011; Bildirici, 2016; Bildirici & Özaksoy, 2018; Carmona, Feria, Golpe, & Iglesias, 2017; Cetin, 2016; Destek, 2017; Koengkan, 2018; Liu, Zhang, & Bae, 2018; Menegaki & Ozturk, 2016; Ohlan, 2016; Zafar, Shahbaz, Hou, & Sinha, 2019).…”

Bioeconomy credentials and intellectual capital: a comparative modelling approach for the E.U.-13 and E.U.-15

“…Implementation of the bioeconomy in Europe provides the prerequisites for new major implications in 'education, training, and research' (e.g., Bildirici & € Ozaksoy, 2018;Braha, Qineti, & Seren c e s, 2015;Zilberman, Gordon, Hochman, & Wesseler, 2018). Analysing the general changes in academia and food industry paradigms in order to meet the challenges of innovation, Saguy (2011) highlighted several major changes that need to be made in this respect, such as removing the barriers between universities (tertiary education emphasis) and industry, and applying a revised model of intellectual improvement.…”

An investigation into the anthropogenic effect of biomass energy utilization and economic sustainability on environmental degradation in E7 economies

“…Mankind has been using biomass products for centuries, like wood fires for heat. Bildirici and Ozaksoy 14,15 (Bildirici and Ozaksoy 2017;Bildirici and Özaksoy 2018) clarified that biomass production is classified under three types: woody or compact biomass is developed in agriculture-manufacturing crops in addition to wetlands, built-up trees, scrubland trees, and farm trees; non-woody biomass is created in yield wastes such as grass, leaves and plant stems, and manufactured wastes such as wood chips, bagasse, seeds, and husks; and agricultural garbage such as food rough. Different varieties of biomass can be used explicitly or implicitly for the generation of heat and energy by way of distribution fuel and additives.…”