Revisiting the electricity consumption-led growth hypothesis: is the rule defied in France?

Rafindadi, Abdulkadir Abdulrashid; Aliyu, Isah Buhari; Usman, Ojonugwa

doi:10.1186/s40008-022-00290-8

Journal of Economic Structures

The Official Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS)

Table 4 ARDL cointegration test results

From: Revisiting the electricity consumption-led growth hypothesis: is the rule defied in France?

Cointegration: bound testing approach				Diagnostics
Models estimated	Optimal lag length	Structural break	F-statistics	\(\chi_{NORMAL}^{2}\)	\(\chi_{ARCH}^{2}\)	\(\chi_{RESET}^{2}\)	\(\chi_{SERIAL}^{2}\)
\(F_{\ln Y} (lnY/lnE,lnF,lnK,\ln TO)\)	2, 1, 2, 2, 1	1985	5.402***	1.0943	[1]: 0.2647	[3]: 0.1304	[2]: 0.5558
\(F_{\ln EC} (\ln EC/lnY,lnF,lnK,\ln TO)\)	2, 2, 2, 2, 2	2000	5.571**	1.5935	[1]: 0.3314	[1]: 0.9617	[3]: 1.4889
\(F_{\ln F} (lnF/lnY,\ln EC,lnK,\ln TO)\)	2, 1, 2, 2, 1	1978	5.992**	2.6725	[1]: 3.5300	[4]: 0.0931	[1]: 1.8095
\(F_{\ln K} (lnK/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,\ln TO)\)	2, 2, 2, 2, 2	1981	12.534*	0.6259	[1]: 1.2557	[1]: 0.2316	[1]: 0.3129
\(F_{\ln TR} (\ln TO/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,lnK)\)	2, 1, 2, 2, 1	1998	1.643	2.4347	[2]: 0.0206	[4]: 1.4110	[2]: 0.0872
\(F_{\ln Y} (lnY/lnEC,lnF,lnK,lnEX)\)	2, 1, 2, 2, 2	1985	6.68**	2.0518	[1]: 0.4499	[1]: 0.5662	[1]: 0.2249
\(F_{\ln EC} (\ln EC/lnY,lnF,lnK,lnEX)\)	2, 2, 1, 1, 2	2000	10.052*	0.2217	[1]: 0.0770	[2]: 0.4295	[2]: 1.7076
\(F_{\ln F} (lnF/lnY,\ln EC,lnK,lnEX)\)	2, 2, 2, 1, 2	1978	6.248**	1.6474	[1]: 0.3144	[2]: 5.6190	[1]: 2.1829
\(F_{\ln K} (lnK/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,lnEX)\)	2, 2, 2, 2, 1	1981	5.379***	0.8848	[1]: 0.3045	[2]: 0.2216	[2]: 0.9832
\(F_{\ln EX} (lnEX/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,lnK)\)	2, 1, 2, 1, 2	1987	3.551	3.4767	[1]: 0.5088	[1]: 0.2716	[1]: 0.0044
\(F_{\ln Y} (lnY/\ln EC,lnF,lnK,lnIM)\)	2, 1, 2, 1, 2,	1985	6.450**	0.6380	[1]: 0.3788	[1]: 0.6389	[1]: 3.1782
\(F_{\ln EC} (\ln EC/lnY,lnF,lnK,lnIM)\)	2, 2, 1, 1, 2	2000	5.358***	0.5558	[1]: 1.7061	[1]: 0.2985	[1]: 1.4522
\(F_{\ln F} (lnF/lnY,\ln EC,lnK,lnIM)\)	2, 1, 2, 2, 2	1978	12.145*	1.5836	[1]: 0.0720	[1]: 3.6646	[4]: 1.5827
\(F_{\ln K} (lnK/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,lnIM)\)	2, 2, 2, 2, 1	1981	5.962**	4.6148	[4]: 0.5922	[3]: 0.0044	[2]: 1.1102
\(F_{\ln IM} (lnIM/lnY,\ln EC,lnF,lnK)\)	2, 1, 2, 1, 2,	1988	0.591	0.8152	[1]: 0.3114	[1]: 0.9130	[1]: 0.1043
Significant levels	Critical values
Significant levels	Lower bounds I(0)	Upper bounds I(1)
1 Percent level	6.053	7.458
5 Percent level	4.450	5.560
10 Percent level	3.740	4.780

1%, 5%, and 10% significant p-values are, respectively, indicated by *, **, and ***. The optimal lag length is determined using the AIC. While the [] refers to the order of diagnostic tests. # denotes the critical values following Narayan (2005)

Back to article page