SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 15
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Article
Determinants of energy
efficiency and energy
consumption of Eastern
Europe post-communist
economies
Lina Sineviciene1
, Iryna Sotnyk2
and
Oleksandr Kubatko2
Abstract
Energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement are recognized as global pri-
orities in the context of the green economy and sustainable development. In this paper, deter-
minants of energy efficiency and energy consumption for the panel of 11 post-communist coun-
tries in the Eastern Europe during 1996–2013 are investigated. The stochastic frontier function
approach and comparative analysis were used to examine long-run dynamic relations. The
research results show that GDP growth is a key factor increasing both energy efficiency and
energy consumption. The research results on energy efficiency relations show that CO2 emis-
sions per capita, a fixed capital and the share of industry in the economy are other important
drives. In the context of per capita energy consumption growth, the factors of structural changes
determined by industry share in the national economy and innovation concerned with develop-
ment and implementation of high technologies are significant. The European Union accession and
participation in the European energy policy promote to energy efficiency improvements in the
post-communist countries while progress in governance and enterprise restructuring as mea-
sured by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is not important for energy
efficiency and per capita energy consumption in the post-communist countries. According to the
research results, energy efficiency policy in the sample countries should be aimed at providing
further economic growth enhancing a positive impact of other factors and implementing energy
efficiency projects.
1
Kaunas University of Technology, School of Economics and Business, Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Sumy State University, Department of Economics and Business-Administration, Sumy, Ukraine
Corresponding author:
Lina Sineviciene, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Email: lina.sineviciene@ktu.lt
Energy & Environment
0(0) 1–15
! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X17734386
journals.sagepub.com/home/eae
Keywords
Energy efficiency, energy consumption, economic growth, energy prices, post-communist
economies
Introduction
In the past four decades, energy efficiency issues have received increasing attention from
policymakers and researchers. Efficient use of energy affects interests of all countries due to
its significant impact on energy, economic, social and environmental national security.
Recently, energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement have been rec-
ognized as global priorities in the context of a green economy and sustainable development.
However, scientific and political debates concerning factors of energy efficiency changes are
still going on. While these factors form the base for identifying policy instruments set and
measuring its efficiency, the correct identification of determinants becomes significant for
territories and industries.
Many researchers investigate empirically the impact of different factors on energy con-
sumption and energy efficiency of national economies, as well as the relationship between
these indicators. Among the main factors of energy efficiency and energy consumption
development, researchers identify economic growth,1–10
energy prices,1,10–15
structural and
technological changes,12,15–23
institutional reforms,12,15,17–18,20
investments,18,24
population
dynamics,18,25
etc. Many studies indicate the interrelations between processes and factors of
energy efficiency, energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollution.
These research trends are identified based on empirical studies conducted in the case of
many countries and regions all over the world and in different periods.2–5,7,9,23,26–30
However, a contradiction of obtained scientific results complicates the formation of defin-
itive guidelines for the implementation of effective sustainable energy policy in certain areas
and countries.
Many investigations are devoted to determining factors that influence energy develop-
ment of emerging market economies and particularly post-communist countries of Central
and Eastern Europe.10–12,15
The results of empirical studies often contradict one another,
making it difficult to form grounded recommendations for governmental policy for energy
efficiency improvements.
This study aims to identify the main determinants of energy efficiency and energy con-
sumption processes for the panel of 11 post-communist countries in the Eastern Europe
during 1996–2013. The distinguishing feature of the study is that the authors have taken into
account both post-communist countries with significant results in energy efficiency
(Lithuania, Latvia, Romania) and with medium (Poland, Check Republic, Slovenia,
Slovak Republic) and low energy efficiency levels (Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Belarus).
The main contribution of this paper is the identification of common factors for chosen
post-communist countries, which helps to form universal recommendations for policy-
makers to provide energy efficiency policy, green economy development and energy con-
sumption decrease.
Also, unlike in previous papers, the authors chose the study period, which corresponds to
the beginning of economic stabilization in all selected countries after the Soviet Union
collapse and ends in the year preceding the beginning of a political conflict in the Crimea
2 Energy & Environment 0(0)
and actual change of Ukrainian territory. The chosen period gives the opportunity to get
comparable results of analysis based on the World Bank and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) data sets. The authors use stochastic frontier
function approach as the main research method, which allows them to identify the key
factors that determine the energy efficiency. The stochastic frontier approach proposed by
Aigner et al.31
is considered to be a classical model to test the economic efficiency.
According to Greene,32
within the use of deterministic frontier any error or imperfection
in the specification of the model or measurement of its component variables might translate
into increased inefficiency measures and on the contrary ‘. . .more appealing formulation
holds that any particular firm faces its own production frontier, and that frontier is randomly
placed by the whole collection of stochastic elements which might enter the model outside the
control of the firm’. The use of stochastic frontier for panel data is widely discussed, for
example, Behr33
underlines that panel data ‘considerably improve the situation for estimating
firm specific efficiency if some assumptions on the time path of inefficiencies are introduced’.
The main hypotheses tested within this paper are as follows:
• energy efficiency of the post-communist countries depends on economic achievements,
and better economic performance is associated with higher energy efficiency;
• on the contrary, to the majority of developing economies, increase in natural gas prices is
not an important factor for energy efficiency improvement in the post-communist coun-
tries due to the existence of long-term energy (gas) contracts for many post-communist
countries in the past;
• oil price is an important factor of energy efficiency improvement in the post-communist
countries;
• the wealthier the society becomes, the more amount of energy per capita it consumes due
to the rebound effect in technological improvements;
• institutional changes like the European Union accession and participation in the
European energy policy should promote to energy efficiency improvements in the post-
communist economies;
• institutional changes like progress in governance and enterprise restructuring, as mea-
sured by EBRD, should promote to energy efficiency improvements in the post-
communist economies.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the empirical
literature for factors that influence on energy efficiency and energy consumption of national
economies. Then the estimation methodology and data sources are specified. This is fol-
lowed by a section that discusses the empirical results of the estimations. The final section
contains conclusions and policy implications.
Literature review
Sustainable energy is based on principles of energy efficiency and green economy. The
relevance and practical importance of these issues is confirmed by numerous scientific
publications devoted to the study of direct and reverse impacts of energy consumption
and energy efficiency on economic growth, identifying energy-saving potential of territories
and factors affecting it, studying barriers to energy efficiency growth and investigating
energy efficiency and energy-consumption trends. Nevertheless, the identification of the
Sineviciene et al. 3
major determinants for energy efficiency increase and energy-consumption reduction can
help to improve governmental and regional policy in this field and significantly contribute to
reaching sustainable energy targets.
Energy efficiency determinants
Among the main factors that influence energy efficiency improvements, researchers identify
economic growth, energy prices and structural changes, introduction of innovative technol-
ogies, investments in fixed assets, institutional changes and environmental contamination
levels.8,10,12–15,17,18,20,24,34–36
Additional factors that are used to estimate energy efficiency
are energy input structure, substitution among energy, labour and capital, trade, govern-
ment regulation and others.10,20,35,37,38
A number of studies12–15,17
concluded that raising of traditional energy prices (such as
gas, oil, coal, electricity) and decreasing prices for renewables via economic instruments is
the main option for energy efficiency increase. This conclusion is based on the results of
empirical research provided for countries of Central and Eastern Europe including the
former Soviet Union,12,15
China,13,14
28 emerging market economies of Eastern Europe
and 5 Western European Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries,11
28 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia10
and others.
The growing threat of global warming causes increasing interplay of energy efficiency
processes and environmental pollution. Limitations of CO2 emissions for many countries,
which are fixed in international documents, is an important factor that stimulates the energy
efficient changes in national economies.24,36
According to Birol and Keppler,17
the introduction of new technologies increases the
productivity of each unit of energy. Nepal et al.15
confirmed this statement for emerging
market economies that are the members of the Council of Europe Development Bank and
the Commonwealth of Independent States countries and proved that reforms aimed at
market liberalization, financial sector and most infrastructure industries drove energy effi-
ciency improvements. Having studied 38 economies of the Union for Mediterranean coun-
tries, Esseghir and Khouni18
noted that energy efficiency increase can be achieved through
innovations and clean technologies investment. Zeng et al.23
found the same for China.
Economic growth is considered as a powerful driver for energy efficiency improvement
according to the empirical results presented by Zhang.10
Higher per capita GDP can influ-
ence on other factors of energy efficiency providing possibilities for investing into new
technologies and increasing capital stock.
Cornillie and Fankhauser12
concluded that progress in enterprise restructuring caused by
market-based reforms is an important driver for more efficient energy use in emerging
market economies. Azadeh et al.16
and Wu et al.22
used the value added as a proxy for
structural changes to access and optimize energy efficiency performance in energy-intensive
sectors. Fan and Xia19
found that industry structure and technology improvements have
major influences on energy efficiency processes as well as on energy consumption reduction.
Energy consumption drivers
Plenty of studies are devoted to the investigation of growth–energy consumption nexus.
Nevertheless, their results are far from consensus. As mentioned in the study Shahbaz et al.,7
a unidirectional causality from economic growth to energy consumption was found for
4 Energy & Environment 0(0)
many countries all over the world. Among them are Germany and Italy,27
Pakistan and
Indonesia3,6
Italy and Korea,9
France, Italy and Japan,4,5
Canada,2
Middle East coun-
tries,29
etc. The reverse causality is reported for Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland,5
G-7 countries,28
the US26
and China.7
Bidirectional causality between
energy consumption and economic growth was found for Liberia,30
Japan27
and the
Union for Mediterranean countries.18
Examining the relationship between Chinese aggregate production and consumption of
coal, oil and renewable energy for the period 1977–2013 and 1965–2011, Bloch et al.1
con-
cluded that the main drivers of energy consumption are economic growth and prices
changes, which have a reverse influence on energy consumption. Discovering interrelations
between economic growth and energy consumption for 38 countries during 1980–2010,
Esseghir and Khouni18
reported that for emerging market economies, the reduction in
energy consumption could be attributed to structural change towards less-intensive econo-
my due to decreasing heavy industry share. Based on 30 years empirical data, Geller et al.20
confirmed the influence of well-designed energy policy and structural changes on energy
consumption reduction for OECD countries. Apergis et al.25
investigated energy consump-
tion in OECD countries during the period of 1985–2011 and concluded that energy con-
sumption is rising due to a rising population. Esseghir and Khouni18
included GDP, labour
force and gross fixed capital formation as the main factors in the modified production
function to investigate energy use. Liu et al.21
explained the dynamics of energy consump-
tion for China and US economies in 1997–2007 by the influence of technological and indus-
trial structure changes.
Summarizing the literature review, the following determinants of energy consumption
can be identified: economic growth, energy prices, structural changes, increasing population,
technological innovations, institutional reforms as well as classical factors of labour and
capital. Among other reasons that cause energy consumption change, there are governmen-
tal energy policy and energy efficiency improvements, CO2 emissions, financial development,
international trade, etc.7,18,20,21,25,34,39
Nevertheless, there is still a lack of empirical studies
investigating determinants of energy efficiency dynamic processes and energy consumption
in the case of the post-communist countries.
Methodology and data
Using the World Bank and EBRD data,40,41
on economic trends and countries’ energy
development, the authors estimate the impact of various factors on the dynamics of
energy efficiency and energy consumption for 11 selected post-communist countries of the
Eastern Europe for the period 1996–2013.
When choosing a number of countries to study, the authors considered the following
facts. The selected post-communist countries (Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic,
Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine)
have common historical and strong economic roots. For a long time, the countries have had
a centrally planned economy that defined the specifics of their economic development with
historical emphasis on heavy industries and artificially low energy prices during the Soviet
era. Even after Soviet Union collapse, these countries have preserved the dependence on
energy resources especially on natural gas supplied from one of them – Russia. For a long
time in the past, that dependence defined practical absence of world oil and gas prices
Sineviciene et al. 5
influence on the post-communist countries due to the long-term energy contracts with
Russia at fixed prices.
Over the past 25 years, the post-communist countries have passed a different path. Some
of them have reached significant results in energy efficiency and economic growth of their
national systems while the others were less successful in this field. Problems of energy effi-
ciency development of the post-communist countries motivate the investigation of common
factors that influence energy efficiency and energy consumption in order to create the basis
for policy improvements at micro and macro level.
The period of the study (1996–2013) was chosen for the following reasons:
• statistics for a number of post-communist countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus,
Russian Federation and Ukraine) is available only since 1991. In that year, the Soviet
Union collapsed and the former Soviet republics began to operate as independent states.
However, after the Soviet Union collapse during next few years economies of the former
republics were in crisis because of breaking economic ties and painful state processes;
since 1996, a tendency to stabilize economic processes emerged. Therefore, from this
study, the authors excluded 1991–1995 years that do not reflect the steady trends of
economic activity;
• 2014 was marked for Ukraine by the loss of state control over the part of country’s
territory (the Crimea and a part of Donbas) that reflected in statistical indicators of
economic activity of the country and made it impossible to obtain comparable results
for this study. Therefore, 2014–2016 years were excluded from the calculations because
they did not provide comparability of indicators for all countries investigated.
Using the stochastic frontier function approach, the authors constructed and tested
econometric models, which reflect various factors influencing on energy efficiency level
(expressed by GDP per 1 kilogram of oil) and dynamics of per capita energy consumption
for the selected countries.
To determine the set of factors included in the econometric models, the authors took into
account the main determinants from research results, described in Literature review section.
On this basis, the indicators of GDP per capita, oil and gas prices, value added of the indus-
trial sector as a proxy for structural changes factor, technological export as a proxy for
innovations driver, CO2 emissions per capita and gross fixed capital formation as a proxy
for investment were included in the set of factors influencing on energy efficiency. The authors
do not consider population because this factor does not play a significant role for energy
efficiency processes as well as for energy consumption in the post-communist countries.
In the empirical analysis, gross fixed capital formation indicator is used. According to the
World Bank,40
the indicator includes investment in fixed assets (machinery, equipment, etc.)
as well as land improvements (fences, ditches, drains and so on); plant, machinery and
equipment purchases and the construction of roads, railways and the like, including schools,
offices, hospitals, private residential dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings. The
indicator of gross fixed capital formation should have a positive correlation with GDP
performance since all above-mentioned investments are included in GDP. In addition,
having such a broad data on gross fixed capital formation, it is difficult to state a theoretical
relation of the above-mentioned gross fixed capital formation and energy consumption per
capita. Thus, there is no theoretical support how the construction of roads, railways,
schools, offices, hospitals, etc. would influence the energy consumption per capita. For
6 Energy & Environment 0(0)
this reason, to construct factor model on energy consumption per capita, the authors used
the same parameters as for the previous energy efficiency model, excluding factor of the
gross fixed capital formation. The authors also excluded the factor of CO2 emissions per
capita from the last model because of direct correlations between this factor and the depen-
dent variable, since the more energy is produced or consumed the more CO2 emissions
volumes are generated. Excluding of above-mentioned factors from the considered models
is consistent with the results presented by other researchers.18,24,36,39
The authors included a dummy for countries, which are subject to the European energy
policy to both econometric models. This dummy would serve as institutional proxy to take
into consideration the heterogeneity of 11 post-communist countries of the Eastern Europe.
The European energy policy dummy is zero for all the non-European Union countries, and
unity for the ‘new’ European Union members starting the year of accession.
In order to test the effect of free market economy influence, the EBRD data on ‘gover-
nance and enterprise restructuring’ indicator is used. Progress in the EBRD approach is
measured against the standards of industrialized market economies. The measurement scale
for the indicators ranges from 1 to 4þ, where 1 represents little or no change from a rigid
centrally planned economy and 4þ represents the standards of industrialized market econ-
omy. Due to the fact that some of the variables included in panel regression can be trending,
the authors include time year dummies to address the issue.
Given the discussion above, the authors can construct a regression model to estimate the
influence of different factors on energy efficiency for a panel of 11 countries, based on the
World Bank and the EBRD data sets,40,41
as follows
EFt ¼ EðYt; Pt; GPt; IVAt; CO2t; TEt; FCi; GERt; EU EPt; ttÞ (1)
where
EFt is energy efficiency (GDP per 1 kilogram of oil);
Yt is GDP per capita (in constant prices);
Pt is the real price of energy in terms of oil prices;
GPt is the real price of energy in terms of gas prices;
IVAt is the value added of the industrial sector (in constant prices);
CO2t is CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons);
TEt is the amount of technological export;
FCt is gross fixed capital formation (in constant prices);
GERt is the institutional dummy (ranges against the standards of industrialized market
economies from 1 to 4þ);
EU_EPt is the institutional dummy (1 for countries subjected to European energy policy,
0 – otherwise);
tt is the annual dummy (1996–2013).
In order to estimate these relations empirically, the authors need to transform all vari-
ables into logarithms in order to work with elasticizers. Adopting the stochastic frontier
function for energy efficiency of a national economy, the resulting log-log functional form of
equation (1) can be estimated as follows
eft ¼ b0yt þ b1pt þ b2gpt þ b3it þ b4co2t þ b5tet þ b6fct þ b7gert þ b8eu ept þ b9tt þ ut
(2)
Sineviciene et al. 7
where
eft is the natural logarithm of energy efficiency (GDP/kg of oil, EFt);
yt is the natural logarithm of GDP per capita (Yt);
pt is the natural logarithm of the real price of energy in terms of oil prices (Pt);
gpt is the natural logarithm of the real price of energy in terms of gas prices (GPt);
it is the natural logarithm of the value added of the industrial sector (IVAt);
co2t is the natural logarithm of CO2 emissions per capita (CO2t);
tet is the natural logarithm of amount of technological export (TEt);
fct is the natural logarithm of gross fixed capital (FCt);
gert is the institutional dummy (GERt);
eu_ept is the institutional dummy (EU_EPt);
b0,. . ., b9 are regression coefficients of the model;
uit is an error term.
Another important issue to be discussed is per capita energy consumption in the post-
communist countries. The authors used the following regression to estimate the influence of
different factors on energy consumption per capita for a panel of 11 countries, based on the
World Bank and EBRD data.40,41
Et ¼ EðYt; Pt; GPt; IVAt; TEt; GERt; EU EPt; ttÞ (3)
where
Et is aggregate energy consumption per capita (kg of oil equivalent).
In order to estimate the above-mentioned relations empirically, the authors transform all
variables into logarithms and work with elasticizers. Adopting the stochastic frontier func-
tion for energy consumption of national economy, the resulting log-log functional form of
equation (3) can be estimated as follows
et ¼ b0yt þ b1pt þ b2gpt þ b3it þ b4tet þ b5gert þ b6eu ept þ b7tt þ ut (4)
where
et is the natural logarithm of aggregate energy consumption per capita (Et).
Research results and discussion
Modelling energy efficiency
According to the results presented in Table 1, it is seen that GDP per capita is one of the
most significant factors of energy efficiency increasing for the post-communist countries. An
increment of GDP per capita by 1% does increase energy efficiency by 0.53%, which means
that the richer the society, the higher level of efficiency it can reach. This result can be
explained by the fact that richer societies have higher rates of saving (investment) compared
to the consumption rate growth. It creates the accumulation of surplus funds in the econ-
omies that can be invested in energy-efficient projects. In addition, richer countries have a
different structure of the economy and can afford themselves to develop high-technological
industries, which are more energy efficient on average. Moreover, an increase in GDP per
8 Energy & Environment 0(0)
capita is also associated with the development of service sector that also creates GDP. These
conclusions are consistent with the results of other studies.8,10,12,15
The influence of gas and oil prices on energy efficiency dynamics is not significant accord-
ing to results of the research. This situation can be explained by the fact that some post-
communist countries during the studying period had long-term import contracts on gas
supply with fixed gas prices; therefore, the dynamics of world gas prices and related oil
prices did not have a significant impact on the countries’ economies.
The next significant factor influencing energy efficiency is CO2 emissions per capita.
Unlike GDP per capita, it is characterized by the reverse effect on GDP per 1 kg of oil.
Thus, an increment of CO2 emissions per capita by 1% does decrease energy efficiency by
0.58%, which means that the more CO2 emissions we produce through using more energy,
the lower level of efficiency we can reach. This result is logical because CO2 emissions is the
direct consequence of burning fossil fuels in growing scale, and, therefore, the increment of
CO2 emissions per capita means that we use energy less efficiently. This conclusion is con-
firmed by other studies.24,36,39
As of the industry value added level, it is also seen from the Table 1 that increment of
GDP share created in the industrial sphere leads to decrease in energy efficiency level of an
economy. The last statement is logical because industrial production always requires more
resources, including energy, than service sector. Therefore, the energy efficiency level of
industrial production on average is lower compared to the service sphere. Such a conclusion
is consistent with results of other studies.11,12,15
An increase in industry value added levels
for the post-communist countries by 1% decreases energy efficiency by 0.28%.
Table 1. The regression analysis of energy efficiency (GDP per 1 kg of oil) for the panel of 11 countries.
eft Coefficient SE z P > |z| 95% Confidence interval
yt .5280585 .0288032 18.33 0.000 .4716053, .5845117
pt .4005176 1.476453 0.27 0.786 3.294313, 2.493278
gpt .9443461 1.880199 0.50 0.615 2.740776, 4.629469
it .2752879 .0571556 4.82 0.000 .3873108, .1632651
co2t .5805169 .0412213 14.08 0.000 .6613093, .4997246
tet .0259844 .0240671 1.08 0.280 .0731551, .0211863
fct .3373337 .0615208 5.48 0.000 .2167552, .4579123
gert .0129805 .0278211 0.47 0.641 .0415477, .0675088
eu_ept .1118674 .0550645 2.03 0.042 .003943, .2197918
e1996 .0355612 .1828648 0.19 0.846 .3939696, .3228473
e1997 .0390779 .1461695 0.27 0.789 .3255647, .247409
Other time year dummies y1998–y2012
_cons 3.243717 2.306536 1.41 0.160 7.764445, 1.277011
sigma_u 0
sigma_e .07367607
rho 0 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Random-effects GLS regression; Group variable: id, R-sq: within ¼ 0.9597, between ¼ 0.8770, overall ¼ 0.9238; corr(u_i,
X) ¼ 0 (assumed); Number of obs ¼ 197, Number of groups ¼ 11, Obs per group: min ¼ 13, avg ¼ 17.9, max ¼ 19; Wald
chi squared (25) ¼ 2072.89; P  chi squared ¼ 0.0000.
Source: authors’ calculations based on the World Bank and the EBRD data, estimated with Stata 14.0.
Sineviciene et al. 9
The factor of gross fixed capital has a positive impact on energy efficiency. Its increase by
1% increases energy efficiency of the post-communist countries by 0.34%. Like GDP per
capita growth, gross fixed capital increment provides the necessary conditions for imple-
menting energy-efficient projects through improving the technical and material base of
energy-efficient changes. This correlation is confirmed by other papers.18,24
The results of the model state that the technological export factor is not significant for
energy efficiency processes and its changes do not cause visible improvements in energy
efficiency of the post-communist economies. The EBRD indicator ‘governance and enter-
prise restructuring’ appeared to be insignificant while the statistical significance of the
European Union energy policy dummy supports the idea that the European Union acces-
sion improves energy efficiency indicators.
All explanatory factors such as GDP per capita, industry value added, CO2 emissions per
capita, gross fixed capital formation and the European Union energy policy dummy are
appeared to be inelastic. The result obtained from modelling can be explained by the fact
that the majority of the considered post-communist countries have inherited a heavy indus-
trial complex since they were centrally planned economies. Thus, the heavy industry in many
of the post-communist countries received intensive development that was fixed in high levels
of industry value added.
The availability of cheap energy resources made low energy efficiency as a starting point
for all post-communist countries. Since 1991, the post-communist countries got an oppor-
tunity to develop their economy independently, and all of them have undergone serious
transformations. However, the degree of transition from planned economy to the market
system was not the same in different post-communist countries, as well as economic achieve-
ments were different. From Table 1, it is seen that institutional changes towards the
European Union membership influenced positively on energy efficiency growth in the
post-communist countries.
Table 2. The regression analysis of aggregate energy consumption per capita for the panel of 11 countries.
eft Coefficient SE z P  |z| 95% Confidence interval
yt .2116623 .0467703 4.53 0.000 .1199942, .3033304
pt .4101139 .6190412 0.66 0.508 .8031845, 1.623412
gpt .57373 .7884374 0.73 0.467 2.119039, .9715788
it .0789444 .0243137 3.25 0.001 .0312903, .1265984
tet .0306009 .0134936 2.27 0.023 .0570478, .004154
gert .0358261 .0302456 1.18 0.236 .0951063, .0234541
eu_ept .0278148 .0266562 1.04 0.297 .0244304, .0800601
e1996 .0026513 .0768415 0.03 0.972 .1479553, .153258
e1997 .0131509 .061315 0.21 0.830 .133326, .1070243
Other time year dummies y1998–y2012
_cons 4.355621 1.111651 3.92 0.000 2.176824, 6.534417
sigma_u .09075438
sigma_e .05341881
rho .74268818 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Random-effects GLS regression, Group variable: id, R-sq: within ¼ 0.5212, between ¼ 0.1828, overall ¼ 0.1850; corr(u_i,
X) ¼ 0 (assumed); Number of obs ¼ 197, Number of groups ¼ 11, Obs per group: min ¼ 13, avg ¼ 17.9, max ¼ 19; Wald
chi squared (23) ¼ 137.48; P  chi squared ¼ 0.0000.
Source: authors’ calculations based on the World Bank and EBRD data, estimated with Stata 14.0.
10 Energy  Environment 0(0)
Modelling energy consumption
Based on the results presented in Table 2, the authors conclude that GDP per capita is the
most significant factor of increasing per capita energy consumption in the post-communist
countries on average. An increase in GDP per capita by 1% does increase per capita energy
consumption by 0.21%. Therefore, the authors can affirm that richer the society becomes
the more energy it consumes. This result can be explained by the fact that richer people have
more opportunities to satisfy their needs, including larger apartments, longer travelling
distances, etc. All these issues promote to higher energy consumption rates. According to
Table 2, the impact of oil and gas prices on changes of energy consumption is not statisti-
cally significant.
As of the industry value added level, it is also seen from Table 2 that the larger share of
GDP is created in the industrial sphere, the more per capita energy consumption it requires.
The last results are very logical, since the industrial sector requires more resources than the
service sector. An increase in industry value added levels for the post-communist countries
by 1% increases energy consumption per capita by 0.08%.
A negative correlation was found for high technological export influence on energy con-
sumption. According to the obtained results, increase in high technological export by 1%
reduces energy consumption per capita by 0.03%. This can be explained by the fact that
economy’s reconstruction towards increasing the share of high technologies and service
sector leads to energy consumption reduction per capita.
Both institutional dummies (the EBRD indicator ‘governance and enterprise restructur-
ing’ and the European Union energy policy dummy) appeared to be insignificant. The last
means that mentioned institutional changes are not important factors to determine the per
capita energy consumption.
Also, like in the previous table, all explanatory factors such as per capita GDP, industry
value added and technological export appeared to be in accordance with theory and inelastic.
Conclusions
In this paper, the authors investigated the influence of different factors on energy efficiency
and energy consumption for the panel of 11 post-communist countries in the Eastern
Europe during 1996–2013. The stochastic frontier function approach, as well as comparative
analysis, was used to examine long-run dynamic relations. The major findings are as follows:
1. The research results on energy efficiency relations show that economic growth is the
essential factor for energy efficiency increase. The next important driver is CO2 emissions
per capita. The significant factor is a fixed capital, which provides a material and technical
base for energy efficient projects’ implementation as well as the structural factor, aimed at
restructuring the economy and reducing the share of industry in it. At the last place, there is
a factor of the European Union energy policy, which shows that the European Union
accession improves national energy efficiency indicators. This factors’ distribution is quite
logical because the implementation of structural and institutional changes in the economy
require significant investment that can be available only in conditions of economic recovery.
Therefore, GDP growth is the key to enhancing the positive impact of other factors and
implementing energy efficient projects.
Sineviciene et al. 11
The authors found that all factors excluding the structural factor (value added of the
industrial sector) and CO2 emissions per capita are factors of a positive influence. The
structural factor and CO2 emissions per capita are factors with a reverse effect, i.e. their
positive change causes negative changes in energy efficiency level.
2. For the post-communist countries, the authors proved that GDP growth is a key factor
increasing both energy efficiency and energy consumption. In the context of per capita energy
consumption growth, the next but less important factor are structural changes determined by
industry share in the national economy; the third one is a factor of innovation, development and
implementation of high technologies. Given the specifics of the post-communist countries, the
price factor (dynamics of world prices for basic energy resources) does not play a significant role
in changing energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency. Institutional transformations
(governance and enterprise restructuring and the European Union energy policy) appear to be
unimportant for energy consumption dynamics.
As for the first three factors, their impact on per capita energy consumption is seen quite
logical. Energy consumption increase depends on the income increase (which is measured by
per capita GDP), economy’s structure (the larger industry share compared to the share of
service sector indicates less energy efficiency and growing energy consumption) and inten-
sity of innovations’ implementation (technological exports’ reduction increases energy
consumption).
3. Given the research results, energy efficiency policy in the post-communist countries
should be aimed at providing further economic growth to enhance the positive impact of
other factors and implementing energy efficient projects. It is expedient to improve policies
in the energy sector followed the European Union patterns, which should include increasing
prices for non-renewable energy resources and decreasing consumer prices for renewable
energy and to introduce preferential taxation and additional funding for implementation of
green energy efficient technologies at public and private enterprises. The economic policy
should be directed to active reforming of the national economy towards the growth of
services sector’s share and introducing innovative energy efficient technologies in all spheres
of the national economy with special focus on technologies that reduce CO2 emissions.
Further research could examine the efficiency of identified policy instruments and correct
the tools’ set for certain post-communist countries with regard to the national specifics.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This research was prepared under the framework of the joint Ukrainian–
Lithuanian research project ‘Development of institutional and economic basis for sustainable devel-
opment and “green” economy at regional level’ (No. 0116U007179) and was funded by a grant (No.
TAP LU-4–2016) from the Research Council of Lithuania.
References
1. Bloch H, Rafiq S and Salim R. Economic growth with coal, oil and renewable energy consumption
in China: prospects for fuel substitution. Econ Model 2014; 44: 104–115.
12 Energy  Environment 0(0)
2. Haggar MH. Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel
cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective. Energ Econ 2012; 34: 358–364.
3. Hwang YH and Yoo SH. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: evidence
from Indonesia. Qual Quant 2014; 48: 63–73.
4. Lee C. The causality relationship between energy consumption and GDP in G-11 countries revis-
ited. Energ Pol 2006; 34: 1086–1093.
5. Lee C and Chien M. Dynamic modelling of energy consumption, capital stock, and real income in
G-7 countries. Energ Econ 2010; 32: 564–581.
6. Shahbaz M and Feridun M. Electricity consumption and economic growth empirical evidence
from Pakistan. Qual Quant 2012; 46: 1583–1599.
7. Shahbaz M, Khan S and Tahir MI. The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic
growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from multivariate framework
analysis. Energ Econ 2013; 40: 8–21.
8. Sineviciene L, Draksaite A, Melnyk L, et al. Research on the relationship between economic
growth and energy productivity in Lithuania and Ukraine. In: ISSGBM international conference
on information and business management (ISSGBM-IB 2016) (ed H Zhang), Hong Kong, 03–04
September 2016. Book Series: Lecture Notes in Management Science 2016 (Vol. 61), pp. 3–8.
9. Soytas U and Sari R. Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and
emerging markets. Energ Econ 2003; 25: 33–37.
10. Zhang F. The energy transition of the transition economies: an empirical analysis. Energ Econ
2013; 40: 679–686.
11. Carvalho A. Energy efficiency in transition economies: a stochastic frontier approach. CEERP
Working Paper no. 4, 2016, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
12. Cornillie J and Fankhauser S. The energy intensity of transition countries. Energ Econ 2004; 26:
283–295.
13. Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson GH, Liu H, et al. What is driving China’s decline in energy intensity.
Resource Energ Econ 2004; 26: 77–97.
14. Hang L and Tu M. The impacts of energy prices on energy intensity: evidence from China. Energ
Pol 2007; 35: 2978–2988.
15. Nepal R, Jamasb T and Tisdell CA. Market-related reforms and increased energy efficiency in
transition countries: empirical evidence. Appl Econ 2014; 46: 4125–4136.
16. Azadeh A, Amalnick MS, Ghaderi SF, et al. An integrated DEA PCA numerical taxonomy
approach for energy efficiency assessment and consumption optimization in energy intensive
manufacturing sectors. Energ Pol 2007; 35: 3792–3806.
17. Birol F and Keppler JH. Prices, technology development and the rebound effect. Energ Pol 2000;
28: 457–469.
18. Esseghir A and Khouni LH. Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development:
the case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy 2014; 71: 218–225.
19. Fan Y and Xia Y. Exploring energy consumption and demand in China. Energy 2012; 40: 23–30.
20. Geller H, Harrington P, Rosenfeld AH, et al. Polices for increasing energy efficiency: thirty years
of experience in OECD countries. Energ Pol 2006; 34: 556–573.
21. Liu H, Polenske KR, Guilhoto JJM, et al. Direct and indirect energy use in China and the United
States. Energy 2014; 71: 414–420.
22. Wu F, Fan LW, Zhou P, et al. Industrial energy efficiency with CO2 emissions in China: a non-
parametric analysis. Energ Pol 2012; 49: 164–172.
23. Zeng L, Xu M, Liang S, et al. Revisiting drivers of energy intensity in China during 1997–2007: a
structural decomposition analysis. Energ Pol 2014; 67: 640–647.
24. Makridou G, Andriosopoulos K, Doumpos M, et al. Measuring the efficiency of energy-intensive
industries across European countries. Energ Pol 2016; 88: 573–583.
25. Apergis N, Aye GC, Barros CP, et al. Energy efficiency of selected OECD countries: a slacks based
model with undesirable outputs. Energ Econ 2015; 51: 45–53.
Sineviciene et al. 13
26. Bowden N and Payne JE. The causal relationship between US energy consumption and real
output: a disaggregated analysis. J Pol Model. 2009; 31: 180–188.
27. Erol U and Yu ESH. On the causal relationship between energy and income for industrialized
countries. Energy Dev 1998; 13: 113–122.
28. Narayan PK and Smyth R. Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries, new evidence
from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energ Econ 2008; 30: 2331–2341.
29. Ozcan B. The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in
Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energ Pol 2013; 62: 1138–1147.
30. Wesseh PK and Zoumara B. Causal independence between energy consumption and economic
growth in Liberia: evidence from a non-parametric bootstrapped causality test. Energ Pol 2012; 50:
518–527.
31. Aigner D, Lovell K and Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production
function models. J Econom 1977; 6: 21–37.
32. Greene WH. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK and
Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 68–119.
33. Behr A. Panel data stochastic frontier analysis. In: Production and efficiency analysis with R.
Switzerland: Springer, 2015, pp. 203–222.
34. Ozturk I and Acaravci A. The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and
financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energ Econ 2013; 36: 262–267.
35. Yang L and Wang KL. Regional differences of environmental efficiency of China’s energy utili-
zation and environmental regulation cost based on provincial panel data and DEA method. Math
Comput Model 2013; 58: 1074–1083.
36. Zhou P, Ang PW and Han JY. Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index
analysis. Energ Econ 2010; 32: 194–201.
37. Honma S and Hu JL. Industry-level total-factor energy efficiency in developed countries. Energ
Pol 2011; 36: 821–833.
38. Shi GM, Bi J and Wang JN. Chinese regional industrial energy efficiency evaluation based on a
DEA model of fixing non-energy inputs. Energ Pol 2010; 38: 6172–6179.
39. Kasman A and Duman YS. CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and
urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Econ Model 2015;
44: 97–103.
40. The World Bank. World development indicators database, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/
reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators (2017, accessed 05 January 2017).
41. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Transition indicators, http://www.
ebrd.com/what-we-do/economic-research-and-data/data.html (2017, accessed 18 August 2017).
Lina Sineviciene has been working as a Lecturer at the Department of Finance, School of
Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. She got the
Doctoral degree in Social Sciences (Economics) from Kaunas University of Technology
in 2013. Lina Sineviciene has published more than 30 scientific papers, she is a laureate
of scholarships provided by the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (2017-2018). She is a leader
of 1 and a contributor of 3 scientific and research projects, including international ones. Her
research interests are: capital investment, fiscal policy, fiscal policy interaction with private
investment, sustainable development.
Iryna Sotnyk has been working as Professor and Deputy Head of Department of Economics
and Business-Administration at Sumy State University, Ukraine. In 2002 she got the scien-
tific degree of PhD in Economics. In 2010 she got the scientific degree of Doctor of Sciences
14 Energy  Environment 0(0)
(Economics). In 2004 she was awarded by academic rank of Associate Professor; in 2012 –
by academic rank of Professor of Department Economics and Business Administration.
Iryna Sotnyk is a laureate of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Prize (2004) and scholar-
ships of the Cabinet of Ministers (2011-2012) and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2012-
2013). Iryna Sotnyk has published more than 250 scientific and 35 educational papers. She is
a leader of 8 and a contributor of more than 25 scientific and research projects, including
international ones. The sphere of her scientific interests includes economics of energy and
resource saving, environmental economics, sustainable development.
Oleksandr Kubatko has been working as Associate Professor of Economics and Business-
Administration Department at Sumy State University, Ukraine. In 2010 he got the scientific
degree of PhD in Economics. In 2015 he was awarded by academic rank of Associate
Professor. Oleksandr Kubatko has published more than 50 scientific papers, including 5
papers in international peer-reviewed journals. He is a leader of 2 and a contributor of more
than 10 scientific and research projects, including international ones. The sphere of his
scientific interests includes environmental economics, sustainable development, and health
economics.
Sineviciene et al. 15

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies

WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019
WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019
WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019Energy for One World
 
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on Energy
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on EnergyASOG's 2020 Working Papers on Energy
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on EnergyASEPCELLsProject
 
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...Deepmala Pokhriyal
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemeSAT Publishing House
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemeSAT Journals
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemeSAT Journals
 
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United States
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United StatesEnergy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United States
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United StatesDavid Manukjan
 
Economics of Energy Policy Final Submission
Economics of Energy Policy Final SubmissionEconomics of Energy Policy Final Submission
Economics of Energy Policy Final SubmissionJames Milam
 
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transition
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transitionA perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transition
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transitionIngeteam Wind Energy
 
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy SourcesThe Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy SourcesChristo Ananth
 
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in Ukraine
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in UkraineGreen GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in Ukraine
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in UkraineMykola Shlapak
 
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of Forming
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of FormingEnergy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of Forming
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of FormingIJCMESJOURNAL
 
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.Energy for One World
 
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...Araz Taeihagh
 

Ähnlich wie Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies (20)

BP Energy Outlook 2023
BP Energy Outlook 2023BP Energy Outlook 2023
BP Energy Outlook 2023
 
WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019
WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019
WEF Report: Fostering effective energy transition 2019
 
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on Energy
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on EnergyASOG's 2020 Working Papers on Energy
ASOG's 2020 Working Papers on Energy
 
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...
Development Economics: IMPACT OF GROWTH ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CARBON EMI...
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
 
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power systemGlobal issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
Global issue based power generation expansion planning for a power system
 
Energy Efficiency
Energy EfficiencyEnergy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
 
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United States
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United StatesEnergy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United States
Energy Sources and the Production of Electricity in the United States
 
u1604
u1604u1604
u1604
 
Economics of Energy Policy Final Submission
Economics of Energy Policy Final SubmissionEconomics of Energy Policy Final Submission
Economics of Energy Policy Final Submission
 
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transition
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transitionA perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transition
A perspective on infrastructure and energy security in the transition
 
ni_p_17-01_
ni_p_17-01_ni_p_17-01_
ni_p_17-01_
 
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy SourcesThe Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources
The Economics of Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources
 
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in Ukraine
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in UkraineGreen GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in Ukraine
Green GDP as an indicator of environmental cost of economic growth in Ukraine
 
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of Forming
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of FormingEnergy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of Forming
Energy Services Market: Conceptual Framework and Mechanism of Forming
 
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.
CEeraWeek 2024, Daniel Yergins View on Road map for Energy Transition.
 
PUBLISHED PAPER1
PUBLISHED PAPER1PUBLISHED PAPER1
PUBLISHED PAPER1
 
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...
An in depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable e...
 
External Costs: Socio-Environmental Damages due to Electricity and Transport
External Costs: Socio-Environmental Damages due to Electricity and TransportExternal Costs: Socio-Environmental Damages due to Electricity and Transport
External Costs: Socio-Environmental Damages due to Electricity and Transport
 

Mehr von Department of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Business Administration, SumDU

Mehr von Department of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Business Administration, SumDU (20)

1.pdf
1.pdf1.pdf
1.pdf
 
Шимошенко Анастасія.pptx
Шимошенко Анастасія.pptxШимошенко Анастасія.pptx
Шимошенко Анастасія.pptx
 
усик марина.pdf
усик марина.pdfусик марина.pdf
усик марина.pdf
 
Трофимович Валерія.pdf
Трофимович Валерія.pdfТрофимович Валерія.pdf
Трофимович Валерія.pdf
 
Темченко Євгенія.pptx
Темченко Євгенія.pptxТемченко Євгенія.pptx
Темченко Євгенія.pptx
 
Таценко Олеся.pdf
Таценко Олеся.pdfТаценко Олеся.pdf
Таценко Олеся.pdf
 
Сурело В. презентація.pdf
Сурело В. презентація.pdfСурело В. презентація.pdf
Сурело В. презентація.pdf
 
Сокол Людмила.pdf
Сокол Людмила.pdfСокол Людмила.pdf
Сокол Людмила.pdf
 
Рудень Ліліана.pptx
Рудень Ліліана.pptxРудень Ліліана.pptx
Рудень Ліліана.pptx
 
Рубан Аліна.pptx
Рубан Аліна.pptxРубан Аліна.pptx
Рубан Аліна.pptx
 
Постоєнко Тетяна.pdf
Постоєнко Тетяна.pdfПостоєнко Тетяна.pdf
Постоєнко Тетяна.pdf
 
Паливода Єгор.pptx
Паливода Єгор.pptxПаливода Єгор.pptx
Паливода Єгор.pptx
 
Мамаєва Карина.pdf
Мамаєва Карина.pdfМамаєва Карина.pdf
Мамаєва Карина.pdf
 
Голик Аліна.pdf
Голик Аліна.pdfГолик Аліна.pdf
Голик Аліна.pdf
 
Віталіна Ніколаєва.pptx
Віталіна Ніколаєва.pptxВіталіна Ніколаєва.pptx
Віталіна Ніколаєва.pptx
 
Вєтрова А..pdf
Вєтрова А..pdfВєтрова А..pdf
Вєтрова А..pdf
 
Богомаз Карина.pptx
Богомаз Карина.pptxБогомаз Карина.pptx
Богомаз Карина.pptx
 
Андрухова Діана.pdf
Андрухова Діана.pdfАндрухова Діана.pdf
Андрухова Діана.pdf
 
Аналіз виробництва та реалізації продукції.pptx
Аналіз виробництва та реалізації продукції.pptxАналіз виробництва та реалізації продукції.pptx
Аналіз виробництва та реалізації продукції.pptx
 
History of statistics.pdf
History of statistics.pdfHistory of statistics.pdf
History of statistics.pdf
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdfMichael Silva
 
Hungarys economy made by Robert Miklos
Hungarys economy   made by Robert MiklosHungarys economy   made by Robert Miklos
Hungarys economy made by Robert Miklosbeduinpower135
 
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdf
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdfLundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdf
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdfAdnet Communications
 
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.KumarJayaraman3
 
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...Antonis Zairis
 
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for Tourism
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for TourismTaipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for Tourism
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for TourismBrian Lin
 
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024Guillaume Ⓥ Sarlat
 
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGecko
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGeckoRWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGecko
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGeckoCoinGecko
 
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal. .pptx
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal.    .pptx20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal.    .pptx
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal. .pptxFinTech Belgium
 
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]Commonwealth
 
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptx
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptxBuy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptx
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptxPrecize Formely Leadoff
 
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AIWhat Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI360factors
 
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707harshan90
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdfMichael Silva
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdfMichael Silva
 
Solution manual for Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...
Solution manual for  Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...Solution manual for  Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...
Solution manual for Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...mwangimwangi222
 
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.Arifa Saeed
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 19 2024.pdf
 
Hungarys economy made by Robert Miklos
Hungarys economy   made by Robert MiklosHungarys economy   made by Robert Miklos
Hungarys economy made by Robert Miklos
 
New Monthly Enterprises Survey. Issue 21. (01.2024) Ukrainian Business in War...
New Monthly Enterprises Survey. Issue 21. (01.2024) Ukrainian Business in War...New Monthly Enterprises Survey. Issue 21. (01.2024) Ukrainian Business in War...
New Monthly Enterprises Survey. Issue 21. (01.2024) Ukrainian Business in War...
 
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdf
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdfLundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdf
Lundin Gold March 2024 Corporate Presentation - PDAC v1.pdf
 
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS.II DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS.
 
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...
The unequal battle of inflation and the appropriate sustainable solution | Eu...
 
Monthly Economic Monitoring of Ukraine No.230, March 2024
Monthly Economic Monitoring of Ukraine No.230, March 2024Monthly Economic Monitoring of Ukraine No.230, March 2024
Monthly Economic Monitoring of Ukraine No.230, March 2024
 
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for Tourism
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for TourismTaipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for Tourism
Taipei, A Hidden Jewel in East Asia - PR Strategy for Tourism
 
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024
Sarlat Advisory - Corporate Brochure - 2024
 
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGecko
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGeckoRWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGecko
RWA Report 2024: Rise of Real-World Assets in Crypto | CoinGecko
 
Effects & Policies Of Bank Consolidation
Effects & Policies Of Bank ConsolidationEffects & Policies Of Bank Consolidation
Effects & Policies Of Bank Consolidation
 
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal. .pptx
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal.    .pptx20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal.    .pptx
20240315 _E-Invoicing Digiteal. .pptx
 
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]
Monthly Market Risk Update: March 2024 [SlideShare]
 
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptx
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptxBuy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptx
Buy and Sell Urban Tots unlisted shares.pptx
 
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AIWhat Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI
What Key Factors Should Risk Officers Consider When Using Generative AI
 
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707
Mphasis - Schwab Newsletter PDF - Sample 8707
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for 3/22/2024.pdf
 
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdfStock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdf
Stock Market Brief Deck for March 26.pdf
 
Solution manual for Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...
Solution manual for  Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...Solution manual for  Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...
Solution manual for Intermediate Accounting, 11th Edition by David Spiceland...
 
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.
MARKET FAILURE SITUATION IN THE ECONOMY.
 

Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies

  • 1. Article Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies Lina Sineviciene1 , Iryna Sotnyk2 and Oleksandr Kubatko2 Abstract Energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement are recognized as global pri- orities in the context of the green economy and sustainable development. In this paper, deter- minants of energy efficiency and energy consumption for the panel of 11 post-communist coun- tries in the Eastern Europe during 1996–2013 are investigated. The stochastic frontier function approach and comparative analysis were used to examine long-run dynamic relations. The research results show that GDP growth is a key factor increasing both energy efficiency and energy consumption. The research results on energy efficiency relations show that CO2 emis- sions per capita, a fixed capital and the share of industry in the economy are other important drives. In the context of per capita energy consumption growth, the factors of structural changes determined by industry share in the national economy and innovation concerned with develop- ment and implementation of high technologies are significant. The European Union accession and participation in the European energy policy promote to energy efficiency improvements in the post-communist countries while progress in governance and enterprise restructuring as mea- sured by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is not important for energy efficiency and per capita energy consumption in the post-communist countries. According to the research results, energy efficiency policy in the sample countries should be aimed at providing further economic growth enhancing a positive impact of other factors and implementing energy efficiency projects. 1 Kaunas University of Technology, School of Economics and Business, Kaunas, Lithuania 2 Sumy State University, Department of Economics and Business-Administration, Sumy, Ukraine Corresponding author: Lina Sineviciene, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania. Email: lina.sineviciene@ktu.lt Energy & Environment 0(0) 1–15 ! The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0958305X17734386 journals.sagepub.com/home/eae
  • 2. Keywords Energy efficiency, energy consumption, economic growth, energy prices, post-communist economies Introduction In the past four decades, energy efficiency issues have received increasing attention from policymakers and researchers. Efficient use of energy affects interests of all countries due to its significant impact on energy, economic, social and environmental national security. Recently, energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement have been rec- ognized as global priorities in the context of a green economy and sustainable development. However, scientific and political debates concerning factors of energy efficiency changes are still going on. While these factors form the base for identifying policy instruments set and measuring its efficiency, the correct identification of determinants becomes significant for territories and industries. Many researchers investigate empirically the impact of different factors on energy con- sumption and energy efficiency of national economies, as well as the relationship between these indicators. Among the main factors of energy efficiency and energy consumption development, researchers identify economic growth,1–10 energy prices,1,10–15 structural and technological changes,12,15–23 institutional reforms,12,15,17–18,20 investments,18,24 population dynamics,18,25 etc. Many studies indicate the interrelations between processes and factors of energy efficiency, energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollution. These research trends are identified based on empirical studies conducted in the case of many countries and regions all over the world and in different periods.2–5,7,9,23,26–30 However, a contradiction of obtained scientific results complicates the formation of defin- itive guidelines for the implementation of effective sustainable energy policy in certain areas and countries. Many investigations are devoted to determining factors that influence energy develop- ment of emerging market economies and particularly post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.10–12,15 The results of empirical studies often contradict one another, making it difficult to form grounded recommendations for governmental policy for energy efficiency improvements. This study aims to identify the main determinants of energy efficiency and energy con- sumption processes for the panel of 11 post-communist countries in the Eastern Europe during 1996–2013. The distinguishing feature of the study is that the authors have taken into account both post-communist countries with significant results in energy efficiency (Lithuania, Latvia, Romania) and with medium (Poland, Check Republic, Slovenia, Slovak Republic) and low energy efficiency levels (Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Belarus). The main contribution of this paper is the identification of common factors for chosen post-communist countries, which helps to form universal recommendations for policy- makers to provide energy efficiency policy, green economy development and energy con- sumption decrease. Also, unlike in previous papers, the authors chose the study period, which corresponds to the beginning of economic stabilization in all selected countries after the Soviet Union collapse and ends in the year preceding the beginning of a political conflict in the Crimea 2 Energy & Environment 0(0)
  • 3. and actual change of Ukrainian territory. The chosen period gives the opportunity to get comparable results of analysis based on the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) data sets. The authors use stochastic frontier function approach as the main research method, which allows them to identify the key factors that determine the energy efficiency. The stochastic frontier approach proposed by Aigner et al.31 is considered to be a classical model to test the economic efficiency. According to Greene,32 within the use of deterministic frontier any error or imperfection in the specification of the model or measurement of its component variables might translate into increased inefficiency measures and on the contrary ‘. . .more appealing formulation holds that any particular firm faces its own production frontier, and that frontier is randomly placed by the whole collection of stochastic elements which might enter the model outside the control of the firm’. The use of stochastic frontier for panel data is widely discussed, for example, Behr33 underlines that panel data ‘considerably improve the situation for estimating firm specific efficiency if some assumptions on the time path of inefficiencies are introduced’. The main hypotheses tested within this paper are as follows: • energy efficiency of the post-communist countries depends on economic achievements, and better economic performance is associated with higher energy efficiency; • on the contrary, to the majority of developing economies, increase in natural gas prices is not an important factor for energy efficiency improvement in the post-communist coun- tries due to the existence of long-term energy (gas) contracts for many post-communist countries in the past; • oil price is an important factor of energy efficiency improvement in the post-communist countries; • the wealthier the society becomes, the more amount of energy per capita it consumes due to the rebound effect in technological improvements; • institutional changes like the European Union accession and participation in the European energy policy should promote to energy efficiency improvements in the post- communist economies; • institutional changes like progress in governance and enterprise restructuring, as mea- sured by EBRD, should promote to energy efficiency improvements in the post- communist economies. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the empirical literature for factors that influence on energy efficiency and energy consumption of national economies. Then the estimation methodology and data sources are specified. This is fol- lowed by a section that discusses the empirical results of the estimations. The final section contains conclusions and policy implications. Literature review Sustainable energy is based on principles of energy efficiency and green economy. The relevance and practical importance of these issues is confirmed by numerous scientific publications devoted to the study of direct and reverse impacts of energy consumption and energy efficiency on economic growth, identifying energy-saving potential of territories and factors affecting it, studying barriers to energy efficiency growth and investigating energy efficiency and energy-consumption trends. Nevertheless, the identification of the Sineviciene et al. 3
  • 4. major determinants for energy efficiency increase and energy-consumption reduction can help to improve governmental and regional policy in this field and significantly contribute to reaching sustainable energy targets. Energy efficiency determinants Among the main factors that influence energy efficiency improvements, researchers identify economic growth, energy prices and structural changes, introduction of innovative technol- ogies, investments in fixed assets, institutional changes and environmental contamination levels.8,10,12–15,17,18,20,24,34–36 Additional factors that are used to estimate energy efficiency are energy input structure, substitution among energy, labour and capital, trade, govern- ment regulation and others.10,20,35,37,38 A number of studies12–15,17 concluded that raising of traditional energy prices (such as gas, oil, coal, electricity) and decreasing prices for renewables via economic instruments is the main option for energy efficiency increase. This conclusion is based on the results of empirical research provided for countries of Central and Eastern Europe including the former Soviet Union,12,15 China,13,14 28 emerging market economies of Eastern Europe and 5 Western European Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries,11 28 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia10 and others. The growing threat of global warming causes increasing interplay of energy efficiency processes and environmental pollution. Limitations of CO2 emissions for many countries, which are fixed in international documents, is an important factor that stimulates the energy efficient changes in national economies.24,36 According to Birol and Keppler,17 the introduction of new technologies increases the productivity of each unit of energy. Nepal et al.15 confirmed this statement for emerging market economies that are the members of the Council of Europe Development Bank and the Commonwealth of Independent States countries and proved that reforms aimed at market liberalization, financial sector and most infrastructure industries drove energy effi- ciency improvements. Having studied 38 economies of the Union for Mediterranean coun- tries, Esseghir and Khouni18 noted that energy efficiency increase can be achieved through innovations and clean technologies investment. Zeng et al.23 found the same for China. Economic growth is considered as a powerful driver for energy efficiency improvement according to the empirical results presented by Zhang.10 Higher per capita GDP can influ- ence on other factors of energy efficiency providing possibilities for investing into new technologies and increasing capital stock. Cornillie and Fankhauser12 concluded that progress in enterprise restructuring caused by market-based reforms is an important driver for more efficient energy use in emerging market economies. Azadeh et al.16 and Wu et al.22 used the value added as a proxy for structural changes to access and optimize energy efficiency performance in energy-intensive sectors. Fan and Xia19 found that industry structure and technology improvements have major influences on energy efficiency processes as well as on energy consumption reduction. Energy consumption drivers Plenty of studies are devoted to the investigation of growth–energy consumption nexus. Nevertheless, their results are far from consensus. As mentioned in the study Shahbaz et al.,7 a unidirectional causality from economic growth to energy consumption was found for 4 Energy & Environment 0(0)
  • 5. many countries all over the world. Among them are Germany and Italy,27 Pakistan and Indonesia3,6 Italy and Korea,9 France, Italy and Japan,4,5 Canada,2 Middle East coun- tries,29 etc. The reverse causality is reported for Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland,5 G-7 countries,28 the US26 and China.7 Bidirectional causality between energy consumption and economic growth was found for Liberia,30 Japan27 and the Union for Mediterranean countries.18 Examining the relationship between Chinese aggregate production and consumption of coal, oil and renewable energy for the period 1977–2013 and 1965–2011, Bloch et al.1 con- cluded that the main drivers of energy consumption are economic growth and prices changes, which have a reverse influence on energy consumption. Discovering interrelations between economic growth and energy consumption for 38 countries during 1980–2010, Esseghir and Khouni18 reported that for emerging market economies, the reduction in energy consumption could be attributed to structural change towards less-intensive econo- my due to decreasing heavy industry share. Based on 30 years empirical data, Geller et al.20 confirmed the influence of well-designed energy policy and structural changes on energy consumption reduction for OECD countries. Apergis et al.25 investigated energy consump- tion in OECD countries during the period of 1985–2011 and concluded that energy con- sumption is rising due to a rising population. Esseghir and Khouni18 included GDP, labour force and gross fixed capital formation as the main factors in the modified production function to investigate energy use. Liu et al.21 explained the dynamics of energy consump- tion for China and US economies in 1997–2007 by the influence of technological and indus- trial structure changes. Summarizing the literature review, the following determinants of energy consumption can be identified: economic growth, energy prices, structural changes, increasing population, technological innovations, institutional reforms as well as classical factors of labour and capital. Among other reasons that cause energy consumption change, there are governmen- tal energy policy and energy efficiency improvements, CO2 emissions, financial development, international trade, etc.7,18,20,21,25,34,39 Nevertheless, there is still a lack of empirical studies investigating determinants of energy efficiency dynamic processes and energy consumption in the case of the post-communist countries. Methodology and data Using the World Bank and EBRD data,40,41 on economic trends and countries’ energy development, the authors estimate the impact of various factors on the dynamics of energy efficiency and energy consumption for 11 selected post-communist countries of the Eastern Europe for the period 1996–2013. When choosing a number of countries to study, the authors considered the following facts. The selected post-communist countries (Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine) have common historical and strong economic roots. For a long time, the countries have had a centrally planned economy that defined the specifics of their economic development with historical emphasis on heavy industries and artificially low energy prices during the Soviet era. Even after Soviet Union collapse, these countries have preserved the dependence on energy resources especially on natural gas supplied from one of them – Russia. For a long time in the past, that dependence defined practical absence of world oil and gas prices Sineviciene et al. 5
  • 6. influence on the post-communist countries due to the long-term energy contracts with Russia at fixed prices. Over the past 25 years, the post-communist countries have passed a different path. Some of them have reached significant results in energy efficiency and economic growth of their national systems while the others were less successful in this field. Problems of energy effi- ciency development of the post-communist countries motivate the investigation of common factors that influence energy efficiency and energy consumption in order to create the basis for policy improvements at micro and macro level. The period of the study (1996–2013) was chosen for the following reasons: • statistics for a number of post-communist countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine) is available only since 1991. In that year, the Soviet Union collapsed and the former Soviet republics began to operate as independent states. However, after the Soviet Union collapse during next few years economies of the former republics were in crisis because of breaking economic ties and painful state processes; since 1996, a tendency to stabilize economic processes emerged. Therefore, from this study, the authors excluded 1991–1995 years that do not reflect the steady trends of economic activity; • 2014 was marked for Ukraine by the loss of state control over the part of country’s territory (the Crimea and a part of Donbas) that reflected in statistical indicators of economic activity of the country and made it impossible to obtain comparable results for this study. Therefore, 2014–2016 years were excluded from the calculations because they did not provide comparability of indicators for all countries investigated. Using the stochastic frontier function approach, the authors constructed and tested econometric models, which reflect various factors influencing on energy efficiency level (expressed by GDP per 1 kilogram of oil) and dynamics of per capita energy consumption for the selected countries. To determine the set of factors included in the econometric models, the authors took into account the main determinants from research results, described in Literature review section. On this basis, the indicators of GDP per capita, oil and gas prices, value added of the indus- trial sector as a proxy for structural changes factor, technological export as a proxy for innovations driver, CO2 emissions per capita and gross fixed capital formation as a proxy for investment were included in the set of factors influencing on energy efficiency. The authors do not consider population because this factor does not play a significant role for energy efficiency processes as well as for energy consumption in the post-communist countries. In the empirical analysis, gross fixed capital formation indicator is used. According to the World Bank,40 the indicator includes investment in fixed assets (machinery, equipment, etc.) as well as land improvements (fences, ditches, drains and so on); plant, machinery and equipment purchases and the construction of roads, railways and the like, including schools, offices, hospitals, private residential dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings. The indicator of gross fixed capital formation should have a positive correlation with GDP performance since all above-mentioned investments are included in GDP. In addition, having such a broad data on gross fixed capital formation, it is difficult to state a theoretical relation of the above-mentioned gross fixed capital formation and energy consumption per capita. Thus, there is no theoretical support how the construction of roads, railways, schools, offices, hospitals, etc. would influence the energy consumption per capita. For 6 Energy & Environment 0(0)
  • 7. this reason, to construct factor model on energy consumption per capita, the authors used the same parameters as for the previous energy efficiency model, excluding factor of the gross fixed capital formation. The authors also excluded the factor of CO2 emissions per capita from the last model because of direct correlations between this factor and the depen- dent variable, since the more energy is produced or consumed the more CO2 emissions volumes are generated. Excluding of above-mentioned factors from the considered models is consistent with the results presented by other researchers.18,24,36,39 The authors included a dummy for countries, which are subject to the European energy policy to both econometric models. This dummy would serve as institutional proxy to take into consideration the heterogeneity of 11 post-communist countries of the Eastern Europe. The European energy policy dummy is zero for all the non-European Union countries, and unity for the ‘new’ European Union members starting the year of accession. In order to test the effect of free market economy influence, the EBRD data on ‘gover- nance and enterprise restructuring’ indicator is used. Progress in the EBRD approach is measured against the standards of industrialized market economies. The measurement scale for the indicators ranges from 1 to 4þ, where 1 represents little or no change from a rigid centrally planned economy and 4þ represents the standards of industrialized market econ- omy. Due to the fact that some of the variables included in panel regression can be trending, the authors include time year dummies to address the issue. Given the discussion above, the authors can construct a regression model to estimate the influence of different factors on energy efficiency for a panel of 11 countries, based on the World Bank and the EBRD data sets,40,41 as follows EFt ¼ EðYt; Pt; GPt; IVAt; CO2t; TEt; FCi; GERt; EU EPt; ttÞ (1) where EFt is energy efficiency (GDP per 1 kilogram of oil); Yt is GDP per capita (in constant prices); Pt is the real price of energy in terms of oil prices; GPt is the real price of energy in terms of gas prices; IVAt is the value added of the industrial sector (in constant prices); CO2t is CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons); TEt is the amount of technological export; FCt is gross fixed capital formation (in constant prices); GERt is the institutional dummy (ranges against the standards of industrialized market economies from 1 to 4þ); EU_EPt is the institutional dummy (1 for countries subjected to European energy policy, 0 – otherwise); tt is the annual dummy (1996–2013). In order to estimate these relations empirically, the authors need to transform all vari- ables into logarithms in order to work with elasticizers. Adopting the stochastic frontier function for energy efficiency of a national economy, the resulting log-log functional form of equation (1) can be estimated as follows eft ¼ b0yt þ b1pt þ b2gpt þ b3it þ b4co2t þ b5tet þ b6fct þ b7gert þ b8eu ept þ b9tt þ ut (2) Sineviciene et al. 7
  • 8. where eft is the natural logarithm of energy efficiency (GDP/kg of oil, EFt); yt is the natural logarithm of GDP per capita (Yt); pt is the natural logarithm of the real price of energy in terms of oil prices (Pt); gpt is the natural logarithm of the real price of energy in terms of gas prices (GPt); it is the natural logarithm of the value added of the industrial sector (IVAt); co2t is the natural logarithm of CO2 emissions per capita (CO2t); tet is the natural logarithm of amount of technological export (TEt); fct is the natural logarithm of gross fixed capital (FCt); gert is the institutional dummy (GERt); eu_ept is the institutional dummy (EU_EPt); b0,. . ., b9 are regression coefficients of the model; uit is an error term. Another important issue to be discussed is per capita energy consumption in the post- communist countries. The authors used the following regression to estimate the influence of different factors on energy consumption per capita for a panel of 11 countries, based on the World Bank and EBRD data.40,41 Et ¼ EðYt; Pt; GPt; IVAt; TEt; GERt; EU EPt; ttÞ (3) where Et is aggregate energy consumption per capita (kg of oil equivalent). In order to estimate the above-mentioned relations empirically, the authors transform all variables into logarithms and work with elasticizers. Adopting the stochastic frontier func- tion for energy consumption of national economy, the resulting log-log functional form of equation (3) can be estimated as follows et ¼ b0yt þ b1pt þ b2gpt þ b3it þ b4tet þ b5gert þ b6eu ept þ b7tt þ ut (4) where et is the natural logarithm of aggregate energy consumption per capita (Et). Research results and discussion Modelling energy efficiency According to the results presented in Table 1, it is seen that GDP per capita is one of the most significant factors of energy efficiency increasing for the post-communist countries. An increment of GDP per capita by 1% does increase energy efficiency by 0.53%, which means that the richer the society, the higher level of efficiency it can reach. This result can be explained by the fact that richer societies have higher rates of saving (investment) compared to the consumption rate growth. It creates the accumulation of surplus funds in the econ- omies that can be invested in energy-efficient projects. In addition, richer countries have a different structure of the economy and can afford themselves to develop high-technological industries, which are more energy efficient on average. Moreover, an increase in GDP per 8 Energy & Environment 0(0)
  • 9. capita is also associated with the development of service sector that also creates GDP. These conclusions are consistent with the results of other studies.8,10,12,15 The influence of gas and oil prices on energy efficiency dynamics is not significant accord- ing to results of the research. This situation can be explained by the fact that some post- communist countries during the studying period had long-term import contracts on gas supply with fixed gas prices; therefore, the dynamics of world gas prices and related oil prices did not have a significant impact on the countries’ economies. The next significant factor influencing energy efficiency is CO2 emissions per capita. Unlike GDP per capita, it is characterized by the reverse effect on GDP per 1 kg of oil. Thus, an increment of CO2 emissions per capita by 1% does decrease energy efficiency by 0.58%, which means that the more CO2 emissions we produce through using more energy, the lower level of efficiency we can reach. This result is logical because CO2 emissions is the direct consequence of burning fossil fuels in growing scale, and, therefore, the increment of CO2 emissions per capita means that we use energy less efficiently. This conclusion is con- firmed by other studies.24,36,39 As of the industry value added level, it is also seen from the Table 1 that increment of GDP share created in the industrial sphere leads to decrease in energy efficiency level of an economy. The last statement is logical because industrial production always requires more resources, including energy, than service sector. Therefore, the energy efficiency level of industrial production on average is lower compared to the service sphere. Such a conclusion is consistent with results of other studies.11,12,15 An increase in industry value added levels for the post-communist countries by 1% decreases energy efficiency by 0.28%. Table 1. The regression analysis of energy efficiency (GDP per 1 kg of oil) for the panel of 11 countries. eft Coefficient SE z P > |z| 95% Confidence interval yt .5280585 .0288032 18.33 0.000 .4716053, .5845117 pt .4005176 1.476453 0.27 0.786 3.294313, 2.493278 gpt .9443461 1.880199 0.50 0.615 2.740776, 4.629469 it .2752879 .0571556 4.82 0.000 .3873108, .1632651 co2t .5805169 .0412213 14.08 0.000 .6613093, .4997246 tet .0259844 .0240671 1.08 0.280 .0731551, .0211863 fct .3373337 .0615208 5.48 0.000 .2167552, .4579123 gert .0129805 .0278211 0.47 0.641 .0415477, .0675088 eu_ept .1118674 .0550645 2.03 0.042 .003943, .2197918 e1996 .0355612 .1828648 0.19 0.846 .3939696, .3228473 e1997 .0390779 .1461695 0.27 0.789 .3255647, .247409 Other time year dummies y1998–y2012 _cons 3.243717 2.306536 1.41 0.160 7.764445, 1.277011 sigma_u 0 sigma_e .07367607 rho 0 (fraction of variance due to u_i) Random-effects GLS regression; Group variable: id, R-sq: within ¼ 0.9597, between ¼ 0.8770, overall ¼ 0.9238; corr(u_i, X) ¼ 0 (assumed); Number of obs ¼ 197, Number of groups ¼ 11, Obs per group: min ¼ 13, avg ¼ 17.9, max ¼ 19; Wald chi squared (25) ¼ 2072.89; P chi squared ¼ 0.0000. Source: authors’ calculations based on the World Bank and the EBRD data, estimated with Stata 14.0. Sineviciene et al. 9
  • 10. The factor of gross fixed capital has a positive impact on energy efficiency. Its increase by 1% increases energy efficiency of the post-communist countries by 0.34%. Like GDP per capita growth, gross fixed capital increment provides the necessary conditions for imple- menting energy-efficient projects through improving the technical and material base of energy-efficient changes. This correlation is confirmed by other papers.18,24 The results of the model state that the technological export factor is not significant for energy efficiency processes and its changes do not cause visible improvements in energy efficiency of the post-communist economies. The EBRD indicator ‘governance and enter- prise restructuring’ appeared to be insignificant while the statistical significance of the European Union energy policy dummy supports the idea that the European Union acces- sion improves energy efficiency indicators. All explanatory factors such as GDP per capita, industry value added, CO2 emissions per capita, gross fixed capital formation and the European Union energy policy dummy are appeared to be inelastic. The result obtained from modelling can be explained by the fact that the majority of the considered post-communist countries have inherited a heavy indus- trial complex since they were centrally planned economies. Thus, the heavy industry in many of the post-communist countries received intensive development that was fixed in high levels of industry value added. The availability of cheap energy resources made low energy efficiency as a starting point for all post-communist countries. Since 1991, the post-communist countries got an oppor- tunity to develop their economy independently, and all of them have undergone serious transformations. However, the degree of transition from planned economy to the market system was not the same in different post-communist countries, as well as economic achieve- ments were different. From Table 1, it is seen that institutional changes towards the European Union membership influenced positively on energy efficiency growth in the post-communist countries. Table 2. The regression analysis of aggregate energy consumption per capita for the panel of 11 countries. eft Coefficient SE z P |z| 95% Confidence interval yt .2116623 .0467703 4.53 0.000 .1199942, .3033304 pt .4101139 .6190412 0.66 0.508 .8031845, 1.623412 gpt .57373 .7884374 0.73 0.467 2.119039, .9715788 it .0789444 .0243137 3.25 0.001 .0312903, .1265984 tet .0306009 .0134936 2.27 0.023 .0570478, .004154 gert .0358261 .0302456 1.18 0.236 .0951063, .0234541 eu_ept .0278148 .0266562 1.04 0.297 .0244304, .0800601 e1996 .0026513 .0768415 0.03 0.972 .1479553, .153258 e1997 .0131509 .061315 0.21 0.830 .133326, .1070243 Other time year dummies y1998–y2012 _cons 4.355621 1.111651 3.92 0.000 2.176824, 6.534417 sigma_u .09075438 sigma_e .05341881 rho .74268818 (fraction of variance due to u_i) Random-effects GLS regression, Group variable: id, R-sq: within ¼ 0.5212, between ¼ 0.1828, overall ¼ 0.1850; corr(u_i, X) ¼ 0 (assumed); Number of obs ¼ 197, Number of groups ¼ 11, Obs per group: min ¼ 13, avg ¼ 17.9, max ¼ 19; Wald chi squared (23) ¼ 137.48; P chi squared ¼ 0.0000. Source: authors’ calculations based on the World Bank and EBRD data, estimated with Stata 14.0. 10 Energy Environment 0(0)
  • 11. Modelling energy consumption Based on the results presented in Table 2, the authors conclude that GDP per capita is the most significant factor of increasing per capita energy consumption in the post-communist countries on average. An increase in GDP per capita by 1% does increase per capita energy consumption by 0.21%. Therefore, the authors can affirm that richer the society becomes the more energy it consumes. This result can be explained by the fact that richer people have more opportunities to satisfy their needs, including larger apartments, longer travelling distances, etc. All these issues promote to higher energy consumption rates. According to Table 2, the impact of oil and gas prices on changes of energy consumption is not statisti- cally significant. As of the industry value added level, it is also seen from Table 2 that the larger share of GDP is created in the industrial sphere, the more per capita energy consumption it requires. The last results are very logical, since the industrial sector requires more resources than the service sector. An increase in industry value added levels for the post-communist countries by 1% increases energy consumption per capita by 0.08%. A negative correlation was found for high technological export influence on energy con- sumption. According to the obtained results, increase in high technological export by 1% reduces energy consumption per capita by 0.03%. This can be explained by the fact that economy’s reconstruction towards increasing the share of high technologies and service sector leads to energy consumption reduction per capita. Both institutional dummies (the EBRD indicator ‘governance and enterprise restructur- ing’ and the European Union energy policy dummy) appeared to be insignificant. The last means that mentioned institutional changes are not important factors to determine the per capita energy consumption. Also, like in the previous table, all explanatory factors such as per capita GDP, industry value added and technological export appeared to be in accordance with theory and inelastic. Conclusions In this paper, the authors investigated the influence of different factors on energy efficiency and energy consumption for the panel of 11 post-communist countries in the Eastern Europe during 1996–2013. The stochastic frontier function approach, as well as comparative analysis, was used to examine long-run dynamic relations. The major findings are as follows: 1. The research results on energy efficiency relations show that economic growth is the essential factor for energy efficiency increase. The next important driver is CO2 emissions per capita. The significant factor is a fixed capital, which provides a material and technical base for energy efficient projects’ implementation as well as the structural factor, aimed at restructuring the economy and reducing the share of industry in it. At the last place, there is a factor of the European Union energy policy, which shows that the European Union accession improves national energy efficiency indicators. This factors’ distribution is quite logical because the implementation of structural and institutional changes in the economy require significant investment that can be available only in conditions of economic recovery. Therefore, GDP growth is the key to enhancing the positive impact of other factors and implementing energy efficient projects. Sineviciene et al. 11
  • 12. The authors found that all factors excluding the structural factor (value added of the industrial sector) and CO2 emissions per capita are factors of a positive influence. The structural factor and CO2 emissions per capita are factors with a reverse effect, i.e. their positive change causes negative changes in energy efficiency level. 2. For the post-communist countries, the authors proved that GDP growth is a key factor increasing both energy efficiency and energy consumption. In the context of per capita energy consumption growth, the next but less important factor are structural changes determined by industry share in the national economy; the third one is a factor of innovation, development and implementation of high technologies. Given the specifics of the post-communist countries, the price factor (dynamics of world prices for basic energy resources) does not play a significant role in changing energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency. Institutional transformations (governance and enterprise restructuring and the European Union energy policy) appear to be unimportant for energy consumption dynamics. As for the first three factors, their impact on per capita energy consumption is seen quite logical. Energy consumption increase depends on the income increase (which is measured by per capita GDP), economy’s structure (the larger industry share compared to the share of service sector indicates less energy efficiency and growing energy consumption) and inten- sity of innovations’ implementation (technological exports’ reduction increases energy consumption). 3. Given the research results, energy efficiency policy in the post-communist countries should be aimed at providing further economic growth to enhance the positive impact of other factors and implementing energy efficient projects. It is expedient to improve policies in the energy sector followed the European Union patterns, which should include increasing prices for non-renewable energy resources and decreasing consumer prices for renewable energy and to introduce preferential taxation and additional funding for implementation of green energy efficient technologies at public and private enterprises. The economic policy should be directed to active reforming of the national economy towards the growth of services sector’s share and introducing innovative energy efficient technologies in all spheres of the national economy with special focus on technologies that reduce CO2 emissions. Further research could examine the efficiency of identified policy instruments and correct the tools’ set for certain post-communist countries with regard to the national specifics. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was prepared under the framework of the joint Ukrainian– Lithuanian research project ‘Development of institutional and economic basis for sustainable devel- opment and “green” economy at regional level’ (No. 0116U007179) and was funded by a grant (No. TAP LU-4–2016) from the Research Council of Lithuania. References 1. Bloch H, Rafiq S and Salim R. Economic growth with coal, oil and renewable energy consumption in China: prospects for fuel substitution. Econ Model 2014; 44: 104–115. 12 Energy Environment 0(0)
  • 13. 2. Haggar MH. Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective. Energ Econ 2012; 34: 358–364. 3. Hwang YH and Yoo SH. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: evidence from Indonesia. Qual Quant 2014; 48: 63–73. 4. Lee C. The causality relationship between energy consumption and GDP in G-11 countries revis- ited. Energ Pol 2006; 34: 1086–1093. 5. Lee C and Chien M. Dynamic modelling of energy consumption, capital stock, and real income in G-7 countries. Energ Econ 2010; 32: 564–581. 6. Shahbaz M and Feridun M. Electricity consumption and economic growth empirical evidence from Pakistan. Qual Quant 2012; 46: 1583–1599. 7. Shahbaz M, Khan S and Tahir MI. The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from multivariate framework analysis. Energ Econ 2013; 40: 8–21. 8. Sineviciene L, Draksaite A, Melnyk L, et al. Research on the relationship between economic growth and energy productivity in Lithuania and Ukraine. In: ISSGBM international conference on information and business management (ISSGBM-IB 2016) (ed H Zhang), Hong Kong, 03–04 September 2016. Book Series: Lecture Notes in Management Science 2016 (Vol. 61), pp. 3–8. 9. Soytas U and Sari R. Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets. Energ Econ 2003; 25: 33–37. 10. Zhang F. The energy transition of the transition economies: an empirical analysis. Energ Econ 2013; 40: 679–686. 11. Carvalho A. Energy efficiency in transition economies: a stochastic frontier approach. CEERP Working Paper no. 4, 2016, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. 12. Cornillie J and Fankhauser S. The energy intensity of transition countries. Energ Econ 2004; 26: 283–295. 13. Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson GH, Liu H, et al. What is driving China’s decline in energy intensity. Resource Energ Econ 2004; 26: 77–97. 14. Hang L and Tu M. The impacts of energy prices on energy intensity: evidence from China. Energ Pol 2007; 35: 2978–2988. 15. Nepal R, Jamasb T and Tisdell CA. Market-related reforms and increased energy efficiency in transition countries: empirical evidence. Appl Econ 2014; 46: 4125–4136. 16. Azadeh A, Amalnick MS, Ghaderi SF, et al. An integrated DEA PCA numerical taxonomy approach for energy efficiency assessment and consumption optimization in energy intensive manufacturing sectors. Energ Pol 2007; 35: 3792–3806. 17. Birol F and Keppler JH. Prices, technology development and the rebound effect. Energ Pol 2000; 28: 457–469. 18. Esseghir A and Khouni LH. Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development: the case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy 2014; 71: 218–225. 19. Fan Y and Xia Y. Exploring energy consumption and demand in China. Energy 2012; 40: 23–30. 20. Geller H, Harrington P, Rosenfeld AH, et al. Polices for increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries. Energ Pol 2006; 34: 556–573. 21. Liu H, Polenske KR, Guilhoto JJM, et al. Direct and indirect energy use in China and the United States. Energy 2014; 71: 414–420. 22. Wu F, Fan LW, Zhou P, et al. Industrial energy efficiency with CO2 emissions in China: a non- parametric analysis. Energ Pol 2012; 49: 164–172. 23. Zeng L, Xu M, Liang S, et al. Revisiting drivers of energy intensity in China during 1997–2007: a structural decomposition analysis. Energ Pol 2014; 67: 640–647. 24. Makridou G, Andriosopoulos K, Doumpos M, et al. Measuring the efficiency of energy-intensive industries across European countries. Energ Pol 2016; 88: 573–583. 25. Apergis N, Aye GC, Barros CP, et al. Energy efficiency of selected OECD countries: a slacks based model with undesirable outputs. Energ Econ 2015; 51: 45–53. Sineviciene et al. 13
  • 14. 26. Bowden N and Payne JE. The causal relationship between US energy consumption and real output: a disaggregated analysis. J Pol Model. 2009; 31: 180–188. 27. Erol U and Yu ESH. On the causal relationship between energy and income for industrialized countries. Energy Dev 1998; 13: 113–122. 28. Narayan PK and Smyth R. Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries, new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energ Econ 2008; 30: 2331–2341. 29. Ozcan B. The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energ Pol 2013; 62: 1138–1147. 30. Wesseh PK and Zoumara B. Causal independence between energy consumption and economic growth in Liberia: evidence from a non-parametric bootstrapped causality test. Energ Pol 2012; 50: 518–527. 31. Aigner D, Lovell K and Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J Econom 1977; 6: 21–37. 32. Greene WH. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK and Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 68–119. 33. Behr A. Panel data stochastic frontier analysis. In: Production and efficiency analysis with R. Switzerland: Springer, 2015, pp. 203–222. 34. Ozturk I and Acaravci A. The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energ Econ 2013; 36: 262–267. 35. Yang L and Wang KL. Regional differences of environmental efficiency of China’s energy utili- zation and environmental regulation cost based on provincial panel data and DEA method. Math Comput Model 2013; 58: 1074–1083. 36. Zhou P, Ang PW and Han JY. Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index analysis. Energ Econ 2010; 32: 194–201. 37. Honma S and Hu JL. Industry-level total-factor energy efficiency in developed countries. Energ Pol 2011; 36: 821–833. 38. Shi GM, Bi J and Wang JN. Chinese regional industrial energy efficiency evaluation based on a DEA model of fixing non-energy inputs. Energ Pol 2010; 38: 6172–6179. 39. Kasman A and Duman YS. CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Econ Model 2015; 44: 97–103. 40. The World Bank. World development indicators database, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/ reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators (2017, accessed 05 January 2017). 41. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Transition indicators, http://www. ebrd.com/what-we-do/economic-research-and-data/data.html (2017, accessed 18 August 2017). Lina Sineviciene has been working as a Lecturer at the Department of Finance, School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. She got the Doctoral degree in Social Sciences (Economics) from Kaunas University of Technology in 2013. Lina Sineviciene has published more than 30 scientific papers, she is a laureate of scholarships provided by the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (2017-2018). She is a leader of 1 and a contributor of 3 scientific and research projects, including international ones. Her research interests are: capital investment, fiscal policy, fiscal policy interaction with private investment, sustainable development. Iryna Sotnyk has been working as Professor and Deputy Head of Department of Economics and Business-Administration at Sumy State University, Ukraine. In 2002 she got the scien- tific degree of PhD in Economics. In 2010 she got the scientific degree of Doctor of Sciences 14 Energy Environment 0(0)
  • 15. (Economics). In 2004 she was awarded by academic rank of Associate Professor; in 2012 – by academic rank of Professor of Department Economics and Business Administration. Iryna Sotnyk is a laureate of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Prize (2004) and scholar- ships of the Cabinet of Ministers (2011-2012) and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2012- 2013). Iryna Sotnyk has published more than 250 scientific and 35 educational papers. She is a leader of 8 and a contributor of more than 25 scientific and research projects, including international ones. The sphere of her scientific interests includes economics of energy and resource saving, environmental economics, sustainable development. Oleksandr Kubatko has been working as Associate Professor of Economics and Business- Administration Department at Sumy State University, Ukraine. In 2010 he got the scientific degree of PhD in Economics. In 2015 he was awarded by academic rank of Associate Professor. Oleksandr Kubatko has published more than 50 scientific papers, including 5 papers in international peer-reviewed journals. He is a leader of 2 and a contributor of more than 10 scientific and research projects, including international ones. The sphere of his scientific interests includes environmental economics, sustainable development, and health economics. Sineviciene et al. 15