Diversity of activity, A Strategy to Promote Energy Productivity in Agriculture (Causality analytical approaches Toda - Yamamoto and Bounds test)

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Nowadays, continuous growth of developed countries and the rapid growth in developing countries owe to use of energy. But in recent decades, the need to move towards sustainable development, public thought to increase energy productivity to upgrade the production by the specific energy consumption. On the other hand, researchers believe that the move to a diversified production system and economies of scope due to it can increase the productivity of inputs. Hence, the present study has been checked the causal relationship between energy productivity and diversity of activities in the agricultural sector by the Toda-Yamamoto causality and Bounds tests. The results indicate the existence of a unidirectional causal relationship from energy productivity to diversity of activities. So, due to the positive influence of energy productivity from diversity of agricultural activities, it is suggested that government encourage agricultural system to more diversification instead of various supporting policies from specific products.

Keywords

References

  1. Abbasi Nejad, H., & Vafi Najar, D. (2004). Review of performance and energy efficiency in different economic sectors and institutions, and price elasticity estimates in the energy sector and transportation industry by TSLS Method (1971-2000). Journal of Economic Research, 66, 113-137.
  2. Cheng, B.S., & Lai, T.W. (1997) An investigation of cointegration and causality between energy consumption and economic activity in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 19, 435- 444.
  3. Geweke, J. (1984). Inference and causality in economic time series models, Handbook of econometrics, vol. 2, Amsterdam: North Holland.
  4. Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating causal relationship by econometric models and crros – spectral methods, conometrica, 37, 424 -438.
  5. Granger, C.W.J. (1986). Development in the study of cointegrated economic variables, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 48, 213- 228.
  6. Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.M.B., Anderson, J.R. & Lien, G. (2005). Croping with risk in agriculture, 2nd edition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
  7. Hsiao, c. (1981). Autoregressive modeling and money- income causality detection, Journal of Monetary Economics,7(1), 85-106.
  8. Morley, B. (2006). Causality between economic growth and immigration: An ARDL bounds testing approach. Economics Letters, 90(1), 72-76.
  9. Mortazvi, S., Shahbazi, H., Kavosi Kallashmi,M., & Khodaverdi Zade, M. (2010). Yielding varieties of wheat and barley in North Khorasan Razavi. Journal of Agricultural Economic, 4, 97-112.

10. Narayan, P.K., & Smyth, R. (2006). Higher education, real income and real investment in China: evidence from Granger causality tests. Educ Econ, 14, 107–125.

11. Odhiambo, N. (2009). Energy Consumption And Economic Growth Nexus In Tanzania: An ARDL Bounds Testing Approach. Energy Policy, 37(2), 617–622.

12. Odhiambo, N. (2010). Energy consumption, prices and economic growth in three SSA countries: A comparative study. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2463–2469.

13. Pesaran, M., Shin, Y., Smith, J. (2001), Bounds Testing Approaches To The Analysis Of Level Relationships, Journal Of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.

14. Sims, C. (1972). Money, Income and causality, American Economic Review, 62, 540- 552.

15. Tang, T. C. 2003. Japanese Aggregate Import Demand Function: Reassessment from ‘Bound’ Testing Approach, Japan and the World Economy, 4(15), 419–436.

16. Toda, H.Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector auto regressions with possibly integrated processes, Journal of econometrics, 66, 225- 250.

17. Zapata, H. O., & Rambaldi, A. N. (1997). Monte - Carlo evidence on cointegration and Causation, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 59, 285- 298.

18. Langeveld, H., Rufino, M., Hengsdijk, H., Ruben, R., Dixon, J., Verhangen, J., and Giller, K. (2007). Evaluation of economic and environmental performance of two farm household strategies: diversification and integration, conceptual model and case studies. Quantitative Approaches in Systems Analysis, 29.

19. Kim, K., Chavas, J. P., Barham, B., Foltz, J. (2012). Specialization, diversification, and productivity: a panel data analysis of rice farms in Korea. Agricultural Economics, 43: 687–700.

20. Salami, H. (2000). Determining the optimal size grasslanding firms units with a total productivity factor indicator: A Case Study of Fars Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 32: 51-67.

Mehrabi Boshr Abadi, H. & Esmaeeli, A. (2011). Analysis of input-outpot of energy in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 74, 1-28.

Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research
Volume 48, Issue 4
March 2018
Pages 547-556

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics