Nexus between Income Inequality-Institutional Quality and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Developing South Asian and ASEAN Countries

Samia Qureshi; Samina Sabir

doi:10.54938/ijemd-ss.2026.05.6.880

Authors

Samia Qureshi Kashmir Institute of Economics, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Samina Sabir Kashmir Institute of Economics, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54938/ijemd-ss.2026.05.6.880

Keywords:

Economic development, income inequality, institutional quality, environmental degradation

Abstract

This study examines the impact of institutional quality and income inequality on environmental degradation for the selected South Asian and ASEAN countries for the time span 1985-2022. To meet this objective, ecological footprint is used as a dependent variable to measure environmental degradation and independent variables include corruption, GDP per capita, GDP per capita square, trade openness, GINI coefficient and energy use. After checking the cross-sectional dependency, the second-generation unit root test is applied and results reveal a mixed order of integration, which enables us to use the panel ARDL approach. The Panel ARDL technique is used to find out the long run and short run relationship among the variables. It is expected that there will be estimated positive impacts of corruption, GINI coefficient, trade openness, energy use, and GDP per capita on ecological footprint. The study will also confirm the existence of the EKC hypothesis in South Asian and ASEAN countries. It is expected that institutional quality and income inequality will help to reduce environmental degradation. The better the quality of institutions, better the policies made by institutes to control income inequality and reduce environmental degradation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Abid, M. (2017). Does economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental quality? A comparative analysis of EU and MEA countries. Journal of environmental management, 188, 183-194.

[2] Ahmed, Z.; Wang, Z.; Mahmood, F.; Hafeez, M.; Ali, N. Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 18565–18582.

[3] Altinta¸s, H.; Kassouri, Y. Is the environmental Kuznets curve in Europe related to the per-capita

[4] ecological footprints or CO2 emissions? Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106187.

[5] Baiardi, D. (2014). Technological progress and the environmental Kuznets curve in the twenty regions of Italy. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 14(4), 1501-1542.

[6] David Coburn. (2000). Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism, Social Science & Medicine, 51(1), 135–146.

[7] Figge, L., Oebels, K., & Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 863-876.

[8] Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[9] Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: A nonparametric analysis for the G-20. Energy Economics, 40, 110-118.

[10] Hausmann, R.; Hidalgo, C.A.; Bustos, S.; Coscia,M.; Simoes, A.; Yildirim,M.A. The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014

[11] Kang, H., & Hwang, S. (2016). R&D and Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: CO 2 Case. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 25(1), 89-112.

[12] Kigpiboon, C. (2013). The development of participated environmental education model for sustainable mangrove forest management on Eastern part of Thailand. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 2(3), 33.

[13] LaBelle, M. (2012). Constructing post-carbon institutions: Assessing EU carbon reduction efforts through an institutional risk governance approach. Energy Policy, 40, 390-403

[14] Lapatinas, A., Garas, A., Boleti, E., & Kyriakou, A. (2019). Economic complexity and environmental performance: Evidence from a world sample

[15] Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Martindill, J.; Borucke, M.; Cohen, L.; Galli, A.; Lazarus, E.; Zokai, G.; Iha, K.; Eaton, D.; et al. Working Guidebook to the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts; Global Footprint Network: Oakland

[16] Nathaniel, S. P., Murshed, M., & Bassim, M. (2021). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: the role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 1-17.

[17] Naqvi, S.A.A.; Shah, S.A.R.; Mehdi, M.A. Revealing empirical association among ecological footprints, renewable energy consumption, real income, and financial development: A global perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 42830–42849

[18] Pata, U. K. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO 2 Neagu, O. (202. Sustainability, 12(21), 9031.

[19] emissions, and ecological footprints in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861.

[20] Shahbaz, M.; Mahalik, M.K.; Shah, S.H.; Sato, J.R. Time-varying analysis of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth nexus: Statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energy Policy 2016, 98, 33–48.

[21] Usman, M.; Makhdum, M.S.A.; Kousar, R. Does financial inclusion, renewable and nonrenewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 65, 102590.

[22] Xue, L., Haseeb, M., Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T. T. Y., & Murshed, M. (2021). Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 1613.

[23] Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248.