Macroeconomic and Uncertainty Shocks’ Effects on Energy Prices

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Minas Panagiotidis	--	3356	2023-03-24 16:48:50	\|
2	Reference format revised.	Lindsay Dong	Meta information modification	3356	2023-03-27 02:56:00	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/en16031491

Due to the interconnected nature of the modern world, GDP, monetary and fiscal policy variables, corruption, and uncertainty are critical to energy policy decisions. Energy consumption, GDP growth, and energy prices have a causal link in both directions.

energy prices GDP monetary variables uncertainty

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown measures that were implemented to limit the virus’s spread caused a supply-side economic shock. Its initial occurrence precipitated a precipitous and quick decrease in energy costs. Before the global economy could even begin to recover, the conflict in Ukraine caused another significant shock. Moreover, the conflict also resulted in a quick increase in all energy prices due to EU sanctions against Russia and Russia’s response of restricting natural gas supplies to EU members. These two independent events had a similarly rapid and intense energy price response.

According to a substantial part of the international literature, one of the most important factors influencing energy costs is the rhythm of economic growth. However, according to economic theory, rising consumption (equal to rising demand) will result in higher prices, at least in the short term. Numerous empirical studies presented by Omri ^[1] show that GDP growth is directly related to energy consumption growth.

On the other hand, a country’s economic growth level is determined by its monetary and fiscal policy outcomes. Specifically, the macroeconomic equilibrium is determined by the aggregate demand (AD) and the aggregate supply (AS) equilibrium. Under this Keynesian economic perspective, monetary policy, which is conducted through changes in interest rates, is responsible for influencing major macroeconomic indicators (such as the foreign exchange rate, asset value, and unemployment rate) with its ultimate target to influence GDP and the inflation rate ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. Furthermore, fiscal policy, which the government implements through taxes and spending, has the potential to influence both GDP and inflation. Given everything discussed about the relationship between energy and economic growth, as well as the effects of economic policies, it is abundantly clear that monetary and fiscal policies can indirectly impact energy prices. However, further factors that influence policies’ outcomes and equilibria should be taken into account.

A key factor that interacts (usually negatively) with fiscal and monetary policies is corruption ^[6]^[7]^[8].

Economic uncertainty is a significant factor causing the growth and volatility of energy costs. The factors at play in the energy sector are diverse and intricate. As a result, in order to completely understand energy prices, the concept of supply and demand needs to be updated. The price dynamics have become even more complex due to the energy market’s growing unpredictability. As a result, uncertainty has emerged as a key element influencing price changes and macroeconomic variables.

Uncertainty has increased since globalization and technology have altered our way of life. Political turmoil, inequality, and the increasing significance of government intervention in the economy are the primary causes of the current rise in uncertainty ^[9]^[10].

2. Energy–Growth Nexus

The factors influencing energy pricing and demand are directly related to GDP expansion. Specifically, under the microeconomic equilibrium, consumption is affected by supply and demand, in which shocks and elasticities cause different results. Then, the macroeconomic equilibrium is also affected by aggregate supply and demand (AD and AS, respectively). Each shift in monetary and fiscal policy causes changes in AD and, therefore, in prices and GDP. However, in the energy market, the link can be stated more simply as a triangle of interactions, with energy prices interacting directly with GDP and energy consumption. In contrast, energy consumption interacts directly with GDP growth. Whether these causal linkages are unidirectional or bidirectional is still being investigated. Numerous studies have been undertaken; however, conclusions about the relationship between energy cost and energy consumption remain debatable.

The literatures can lead to a variety of conclusions. First, the vast bulk of the presented literature uses dynamic econometric models spanning 20 to 58 years. Second, the relationship between energy costs, energy use, and economic growth is murky, and the same holds for the effects as a whole. The primary conclusion is that the results rely on the researched countries’ geographical regions, economic growth level, and, more recently, oil trade status (exporting or importing countries). The vast majority of studies on the developing world reveal a bidirectional causal relationship between energy prices and economic growth, as well as energy consumption and economic growth. Nevertheless, energy prices have a negative effect on energy consumption. Concerning developed countries, most published studies assert that energy consumption is a component that drives economic expansion, while the direction of causality is ambiguous. Ferdaus et al. ^[11] added another factor when investigating these causes and consequences: they showed a country’s oil trading status substantially impacts the overall outcomes. In conclusion, the energy–growth nexus depends on the analysed country or region, as well as the level of development and oil commerce. Regarding the nexus investigation in a dataset encompassing countries of varying status, such an econometric finding has yet to be discovered.

3. The Role of Fiscal Policy in Energy Prices

The international literature still needs to provide evidence of distinct fiscal policy effects on energy prices. On the contrary, a connection has been found between policies that boost energy use, increase household security against rapid price growth, and facilitate the transition to environmentally friendly energy consumption. In terms of taxation, it is common sense that prices are immediately affected by any changes in the tax rate applied. However, the elasticity of demand determines the overall effect.

Regarding energy consumption, scholars argue that since renewable energy is not yet the primary source of consumption ^[12]^[13], increasing consumption contributes to increased carbon emissions and environmental deterioration ^[13]. Schloars consider that energy consumption is positively correlated with higher incomes. As fiscal policies are a primary determinant of income growth, the connection between fiscal policies and economic growth will impact energy usage. According to Balcilar et al. ^[14], reducing fiscal deficits will likely enhance the capital accumulation rate, resulting in a faster economic growth rate. In this case, fiscal policies are anticipated to indirectly influence energy demand due to increased economic activity. Dongyan ^[15] contended that fiscal and tax policies encourage energy efficiency. According to Fischer and Fox ^[16], the level of taxation is directly related to the level of energy consumption and energy prices and, consequently, the level of carbon emissions; therefore, taxation plays a significant role not only in economic but also in environmental concerns. Fischer and Fox ^[16] also noted that the climate policies of economies must be carefully matched with governments’ aggregate fiscal policies. Bletsas et al. ^[17] concluded that economic expansion is a significant contributor to environmental degradation, while fiscal policies in the form of government spending contribute to reducing carbon emissions.

An increase in taxes has an immediate impact on the price of energy, while government spending is correlated with energy use. However, there is no general rule of thumb regarding the effects of government expenditure on energy prices. A plausible reason is that the impact of consumption on energy costs is ambiguous. Nevertheless, as was previously mentioned, this could be a matter of applying country-specific characteristics in an empirical study. Regarding the econometric methodologies used in the aforementioned literature, these can be categorised mainly as static and dynamic, incorporating OLS and ARDL methods.

While fiscal policies, namely taxation and government expenditure, aim at economic growth, they also influence energy use and energy prices. The two fiscal policy instruments create a certain macroeconomic environment and, eventually, at least a short-term market equilibrium. However, it is difficult to predict whether a government would impose restrictive or expansive regulations. To be more specific, it is normal for governments to raise taxes in times of economic crisis to reduce spending or finance state funds, despite the fact that, this policy would result in higher energy prices. Unknown to economic agents, this budgetary involvement raises macroeconomic uncertainty. In addition, it has become commonplace over the past year for governments to financially support citizens and SMEs in order to offset the astronomically high energy costs caused by the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. This type of intervention is called a subsidy scheme, and in the case of energy markets, there are several different patterns they can follow. The most common subsidies are the fuel subsidy (direct funding of producers and/or refineries), the electricity subsidy (direct funding of electricity producers and/or suppliers), and the direct funding of consumers. The rise in energy prices and this type of fiscal strategy are other sources of unpredictability.

4. The Role of Monetary Policy in Energy Prices

In addition to their oversight of the banking system, central banks have the authority to conduct monetary policies. Through the effect of interest rates and money supply, they rebalance the economy of their native nation. They influence the macroeconomic environment in this manner. Nevertheless, monetary policy operations are frequently marked by uncertainty. A typical practice of central banks is forward-looking, indicating their potential future movements in advance. However, many banks have begun to forsake this practice. In addition, numerous studies demonstrate that money volatility and capital markets, as well as the energy market, increase before and during the announcement of a monetary policy decision ^[18]^[19]. In conclusion, the implementation of monetary policies generates expectations in the markets, including energy markets, but the policies are characterized by unpredictability and uncertainty.

As for monetary policy, the link between central bank activities and energy prices is becoming more evident. Lower interest rates increase the demand for credit and the aggregate demand, which includes the demand for energy, such as oil and its derivatives, on energy prices. Keynes demonstrated the effect of a decline in interest rates on aggregate demand. When the interest rate is less than the marginal productivity of capital, expansionary monetary policies will increase investment demand. The multiplier effect of increased investment contributes to an increase in total demand. In the same way that aggregate demand increases commodity demand and exerts pressure on commodity prices, energy products and services experience the same effects.

Another critical factor to consider is the impact of unanticipated central bank activities on the energy markets. According to Rosa ^[20], both decreasing interest rates and announcing an asset purchase program are effective approaches for fostering economic growth. Oil and other types of energy expenses have decreased as a result of the implementation of quantitative easing or generally of interest rate decreases. This indicates that lowering the policy rate will raise the price of oil and other energy sources. Basistha and Kurov ^[21] explored this issue over a wide range of time periods, from intraday to monthly findings. The interest rate futures were used to quantify the effects of monetary policy shocks. These prices reflect recent monetary policy actions, news, and expectations. It was discovered that these shocks were instantly transmitted to the energy futures market. However, after a few days, the first effect appears to have had little enduring effect.

According to the research, monetary policy activities directly impact energy prices. Specifically, five distinct routes convey monetary policy actions and shocks to energy prices. An increase in the policy interest rate leads to a decrease in energy prices, whereas a reduction in the policy rate leads to a rise in energy prices. The interest rate policy determines all outcomes. Although studies have yet to be conducted to demonstrate the impact of monetary policy decisions on renewable energy’s cost so far, this gap is critical for two reasons. Creating infrastructure for renewable energy sources necessitates a significant initial investment. Suppose a reduction in policy interest rates is mirrored by a decrease in money market interest rates (i.e., there is a functional and effective interest rate channel of monetary policy). In that case, the cost of financial investment will fall. Second, in terms of renewable energy, the literature frequently refers to electricity. It is difficult to maintain an inventory channel due to a lack of storage space and the high cost of storing electricity.

5. Corruption

The macroeconomic environment is a crucial factor in a country’s competitiveness and encompasses a number of measures, such as inflation, the government budget balance, GDP, and the country’s credit rating. In addition, the production, import, and distribution of energy are crucial components of a nation’s macroeconomic data. Taking into account that corruption is complex and multifaceted with deep roots in the system of public institutions, its negative impacts are felt in varying degrees across the entire macroeconomic environment ^[22]. Corruption deflects government action when it is necessary and facilitates the over-involvement of public institutions in the economy. An increase in the level of corruption will translate into a deterioration of macroeconomic indicators, leading to an economic slowdown, an increase in commodity prices, a reduction in the economy’s productivity, a reduction in public revenues, and government inefficiency in distributing resources for public services. Energy policy is crucial from an environmental and geopolitical standpoint. At the same time, when corruption is high, it is a strong factor of uncertainty that alters energy policies and competition but also prevents substantial investments in a specific sector. Recent research reveals that government corruption plays a significant role in determining economic growth, investment, and environmental policies ^[6]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26].

Due to the time-sensitive nature of energy supplies and the possibility of huge economic rents from power generation, transformation, and usage, the energy sector is a major target for corruption. In addition to the fundamental role of public institutions overseeing nearly all sectors of the energy sector, it is also essential that significant capital investments should be undertaken ^[27]^[28]. Corruption can take many different forms, dependent on the following: the characteristics of the energy source’s supply chain; its importance to the regional and national economy; the sociopolitical and institutional context in which extraction, transformation, and use take place; the number of people involved in decision-making; and the cultural setting in which decisions are made.

In addition to having negative consequences on the environment, public health, workplace safety, and energy pricing, corruption has been linked by many researchers to a less dependable energy supply ^[29]^[30]. Additionally, some researchers assert that corruption makes the issue of resource misallocation worse ^[31]^[32]^[33]. Rent-seeking by government regulatory authorities will lead to the failure of price and regulatory policies, the abuse of social resources, and a decline in government effectiveness ^[34]^[35]. These results showed that efforts by countries to improve various facets of governance did not always translate into a reduction in CO₂ emissions.

6. Uncertainty

A complex and diverse set of forces drives the energy industry. Consequently, more than the concept of supply and demand is needed to completely account for energy prices. The price dynamics have become even more convoluted due to the energy market’s growing unpredictability ^[36]. As a result, uncertainty has emerged as a critical element influencing both price volatility and market risk. Many studies have been devoted to figuring out the best ways to measure the effects of uncertainty ^[9]^[37]^[38]^[39]. Uncertainty seems to have both a short-term and a long-term component in every economy. Barrero et al. ^[40] demonstrate that investment is far more sensitive to long-term uncertainty than short-term uncertainty, although employment is equally sensitive to both types of uncertainty. In addition, they discover that uncertainty regarding oil is mainly linked to the short term, but policy uncertainty is linked to the long term. So, both short-term and long-term measures of uncertainty should be used to find out how these kinds of uncertainty affect energy markets ^[41].

It has been examined and is still being researched how uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty, affects energy product prices. A thorough study has been conducted particularly on the impact of uncertainty on oil and, more recently, natural gas prices. However, a study that systematically analyses these works and derives meta-conclusions based on the various classifications of the findings reached has yet to be conducted. The current study aims to fill this research gap. According to several research studies, uncertainty causes significant changes in energy prices and remarkably increasing trends ^[38]^[42]^[43]^[44]. Ozcan and Ozturk ^[45] discovered that worsening security conditions contribute to a rise in energy prices in their study of 17 rising nations from 1990 to 2016. Destek and Aslan ^[46] reached similar conclusions when they noticed an increase in energy prices during times of uncertainty.

Furthermore, economic policy uncertainty has the potential to stifle African energy development through price shocks and oil shortages. This is critical in many African countries, which rely heavily on imports, particularly for energy; the direct effects of economic policy uncertainties on African energy generation have been shown to lead to price rises ^[47]. Finally, price volatility was noted by da Silva et al. ^[48] as a significant factor influencing energy usage. Regular oil shocks put economies in danger, especially in SSA countries that depend heavily on imports. Due to the dependence of these nations’ energy use and pricing on global market phenomena, there is a problem of low energy security.

Guo and Kliesen ^[49] discovered that standard macroeconomic variables do not predict realised oil price volatility, implying that crude oil supply and demand changes are likely to be stochastic disturbances. The scholars distinguish research that examines uncertainty concerning the oil price or supply/demand ^[50]^[51]^[52] from that which examines macroeconomic uncertainty ^[44]^[45]^[47]. The reason is that the latter is dynamic due to diffusion between the oil market and uncertainty external to the oil market, namely economic policy-related uncertainty (EPU). As will be demonstrated below, the EPU includes many of the macroeconomic and geopolitical shocks that occur. Numerous studies have shown that the price elasticity of both oil supply and oil demand has decreased significantly ^[50]^[51]^[53], whereas others have shown that shocks in all aspects of the economy and politics have increased elasticities.

In a related study, Gao et al. ^[54] examined the differing levels of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) in the Chinese oil, gold, and stock markets. They discovered that the EPU has moderate growth and volatility spillover effects on the oil market. The oil market has the most significant return spillover effect on EPU, whereas the gold market has the least. EPU is the net growth spillover transmitter to the gold market and the net growth spillover receiver from the oil market. Even if the recent financial crisis had a significant effect on the net spillovers of EPU on the three markets, its impact on oil prices is negligible. Ringim et al. ^[55]’s study of the correlations between crude oil price, natural gas price, and Russian economic policy uncertainty (EPU) over the period of 1994–2019 found that, despite Russia’s importance to both the natural gas and crude oil markets, the EPU corresponds closer to the gas price than the oil price. Additionally, an increase in the natural gas supply has a more significant impact on the cost of natural gas than a decrease in the supply. The short-term inelastic nature of natural gas demand provides a credible explanation for why the positive supply shock has a higher impact than the negative shock. On the other hand, an increase in supply results in a surplus, which lowers prices and boosts demand. Demanders for natural gas purchase more and store more for later use.

In the past, conflicts and political turmoil have been closely correlated with oil prices ^[56]. The Arab–Israeli war in 1973 resulted in an OPEC oil embargo, which sharply increased the price of oil. Wars and political unrest that disrupt oil supplies have considerable explanatory power for changes in oil prices ^[57]. Wars and political tension in nations that export oil, such as those in the Persian Gulf, cause uncertainty in the oil supply, which is reflected in the development of oil prices both during active wartime and in the years that follow ^[50].

The impacts of extreme events on the risk of rising energy prices have been the subject of some systematic research studies. Zhang et al. ^[58] looked into how extreme events affect the price of crude oil. They demonstrated that extreme occurrences are the main factors influencing medium-term variations in the price of crude oil and that the shocks of extreme events are more frequent and severe than those in the past during periods of high oil prices. Using data from the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq War in 2003, Zhang et al. ^[59] connected severe events in crude oil markets using an EMD-based event analysis approach. They concluded that those events often significantly impacted crude oil price volatility.

References

Omri, A. An international literature survey on energy-economic growth nexus: Evidence from country-specific studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 951–959.
Bernanke, B.; Mishkin, F. Central bank behavior and the strategy of monetary policy: Observations from six industrialized countries. NBER Macroecon. Annu. 1992, 1, 183–228.
Arestis, P.; Sawyer, M. Can monetary policy affect the real economy? Univ. Libr. Munich Ger. 2002.
Ireland, P.N. The Monetary Transmission Mechanism. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics; Bloom, L., Durlauf, S., Eds.; Palgrave-MacMillan: Hampshire, UK, 2008; pp. 721–725.
Yıldırım-Karaman, S. Uncertainty shocks, central bank characteristics and business cycles. Econ. Syst. 2017, 41, 379–388.
Mauro, P. Corruption and Growth. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 681–712.
Al-Marhubi, F.A. Corruption and Inflation. Econ. Lett. 2000, 66, 199–202.
Alesina, A.; Campante, F.R.; Tabellini, G. Why is fiscal policy often procyclical? J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2008, 6, 1006–1036.
Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J. Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Q. J. Econ. 2016, 131, 1593–1636.
Al-Thaqeb, S.A.; Algharabali, B.G. Economic policy uncertainty: A literature review. J. Econ. Asymmetries 2019, 20, e00133.
Ferdaus, J.; Appiah, B.K.; Majumder, S.C.; Martial, A.A. A Panel Dynamic Analysis on Energy Consumption, Energy Prices and Economic Growth in Next 11 Countries. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 87.
Kapusuzoğlu, A. Causality Relationships between Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Growth: Results from a Multi-Country Study. Int. J. Econ. Perspect. 2014, 8, 5–15.
Anatasia, V. The Causal Relationship between GDP, Exports, Energy Consumption, and CO2 in Thailand and Malaysia. Int. J. Econ. Perspect. 2015, 9, 37–48.
Balcilar, M.; Çiftçioğlu, S.; Güngör, H. The effects of financial development on Investment in Turkey. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2016, 61, 1650002.
Dongyan, L. Fiscal and tax policy support for energy efficiency retrofit for existing residential buildings in China’s northern heating region. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2113–2118.
Fischer, C.; Fox, A.K. Climate policy and fiscal constraints: Do tax interactions outweigh carbon leakage? Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 218–227.
Bletsas, K.; Oikonomou, G.; Panagiotidis, M.; Spyromitros, E. Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Role of Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, and Institutional Quality. Energies 2022, 15, 4733.
Glick, R.; Leduc, S. Central bank announcements of asset purchases and the impact on global financial and commodity markets. J. Int. Money Financ. 2012, 31, 2078–2101.
Soriano, P.; Torró, H. The response of Brent crude oil to the European central bank monetary policy. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 46, 102353.
Rosa, C. The high-frequency response of energy prices to US monetary policy: Understanding the empirical evidence. Energy Econ. 2014, 45, 295–303.
Basistha, A.; Kurov, A. The impact of monetary policy surprises on energy prices. J. Futur. Mark. 2015, 35, 87–103.
Ulman, S.R.; Bujancă, G.V. The corruption influence on the macroeconomic environment. Empirical analysis on countries development stages. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 16, 427–437.
Fredriksson, P.G.; Svensson, J. Political instability, corruption and policy formation: The case of environmental policy. J. Public Econ. 2003, 87, 1383–1405.
Sekrafi, H.; Sghaier, A. Examining the relationship between corruption, economic growth, environmental degradation, and energy consumption: A panel analysis in MENA region. J. Know. Econ. 2018, 9, 963–979.
Boamah, F.; Williams, D.A.; Afful, J. Justifiable energy injustices? Exploring institutionalised corruption and electricity sector “problem-solving” in Ghana and Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 73, 101914.
Wei, S.J. How Taxing is Corruption on International Investors? Rev. Econ. Stat. 2000, 82, 1–11.
Ruth, M. Corruption and the Energy Sector; Management Systems International: Arlington, VA, USA, 2002.
Rimšaitė, L. Corruption risk mitigation in energy sector: Issues and challenges. Energy Policy 2019, 125, 260–266.
Treisman, D. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. J. Public Econ. 2000, 76, 399–457.
Lu, J.; Ren, L.; Qiao, J.; Yao, S.; Strielkowski, W.; Streimikis, J. Corporate social responsibility and corruption: Implications for the sustainable energy sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4128.
Liu, Q.; Lu, R.; Ma, X. Corruption, financial resources and exports. Rev. Int. Econ. 2015, 23, 1023–1043.
Pailler, S. Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 88, 345–365.
Yao, X.; Yasmeen, R.; Hussain, J.; Shah, W.U.H. The repercussions of financial development and corruption on energy efficiency and ecological footprint: Evidence from BRICS and next 11 countries. Energy 2021, 223, 120063.
Halkos, G.E.; Tzeremes, N.G. Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: A nonparametric analysis for the G-20. Energy Econ. 2013, 40, 110–118.
Rose-Ackerman, S.; Palifka, B.J. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
Zhang, D. Oil shocks and stock markets revisited: Measuring connectedness from a global perspective. Energy Econ. 2017, 62, 323–333.
Jurado, K.; Ludvigson, S.C.; Ng, S. Measuring uncertainty. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015, 105, 1177–1216.
Pástor, Ľ.; Veronesi, P. Political uncertainty and risk premia. J. Financ. Econ. 2013, 110, 520–545.
Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J.; Kost, K.; Sammon, M.; Viratyosin, T. The unprecedented stock market reaction to COVID-19. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 2020, 10, 742–758.
Barrero, J.M.; Bloom, N.; Wright, I. Short and Long Run Uncertainty (No. w23676); National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
Ji, Q.; Liu, B.Y.; Nehler, H.; Uddin, G.S. Uncertainties and extreme risk spillover in the energy markets: A time-varying copula-based CoVaR approach. Energy Econ. 2018, 76, 115–126.
Pástor, L.; Veronesi, P. Uncertainty about government policy and stock prices. J. Financ. 2012, 67, 1219–1264.
Efimova, O.; Serletis, A. Energy markets volatility modelling using GARCH. Energy Econ. 2014, 43, 264–273.
Degiannakis, S.; Filis, G. Forecasting oil price realized volatility using information channels from other asset classes. J. Int. Money Financ. 2017, 76, 28–49.
Ozcan, B.; Ozturk, I. Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in emerging countries: A bootstrap panel causality test. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 30–37.
Destek, M.A.; Aslan, A. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in emerging economies: Evidence from bootstrap panel causality. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 757–763.
Adedoyin, F.F.; Ozturk, I.; Agboola, M.O.; Agboola, P.O.; Bekun, F.V. The implications of renewable and non-renewable energy generating in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of economic policy uncertainties. Energy Policy 2021, 150, 112115.
da Silva, P.P.; Cerqueira, P.A.; Ogbe, W. Determinants of renewable energy growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from panel ARDL. Energy 2018, 156, 45–54.
Guo, H.; Kliesen, K.L. Oil price volatility and US macroeconomic activity. Rev.-Fed. Reserve Bank St. Louis 2005, 87, 669.
Kilian, L. Not all oil price shocks are alike: Disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. Am. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99, 1053–1069.
Baumeister, C.; Peersman, G. Time-varying effects of oil supply shocks on the US economy. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 2013, 5, 1–28.
Pindyck, R.S. Volatility in natural gas and oil markets. J. Energy Dev. 2004, 30, 1–19.
Regnier, E. Oil and energy price volatility. Energy Econ. 2007, 29, 405–427.
Gao, R.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, B. The spillover effects of economic policy uncertainty on the oil, gold, and stock markets: Evidence from China. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 26, 2134–2141.
Ringim, S.H.; Alhassan, A.; Güngör, H.; Bekun, F.V. Economic Policy Uncertainty and Energy Prices: Empirical Evidence from Multivariate DCC-GARCH Models. Energies 2022, 15, 3712.
Yergin, D. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power; Simon Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
Kilian, L. Oil Price Volatility: Origins and Effects (No. ERSD-2010-02); WTO Staff Working Paper No. ERSD-2010-02; WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
Zhang, Y.J.; Fan, Y.; Tsai, H.T.; Wei, Y.M. Spillover effect of US dollar exchange rate on oil prices. J. Policy Model. 2008, 30, 973–991.
Zhang, X.; Yu, L.; Wang, S.; Lai, K.K. Estimating the impact of extreme events on crude oil price: An EMD-based event analysis method. Energy Econ. 2009, 31, 768–778.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Environmental Studies

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Ioannis Dokas

Georgios Oikonomou

Minas Panagiotidis

Eleftherios Spyromitros

View Times: 464

Update Date: 27 Mar 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm