This paper investigates whether energy consumption, population density, and exports are the main factors causing environmental damage in China. Using annual data from 1971–2018, unit root tests are applied for the stationarity analyses, and Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds tests are used for the long-run relationships between the variables. A Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) Granger approach is employed to examine the causal relationships amongst the variables. Our findings show that the selected variables are cointegrated, and that energy consumption and economic growth are identified as the main reasons for CO₂ emissions in both the short-run and long-run. In contrast, exports reduce CO₂ emissions in the long-run. Short-run unidirectional Granger causality is found from economic growth to energy consumption, CO₂ emissions and exports, and from CO₂ emissions to energy consumption and exports. Moreover, long-run causal links exist between CO₂ emissions and exports. Five policy recommendations are made following the obtained results.

This study aims to investigate whether energy consumption, human capital and financial development played an important role in economic growth using a panel dataset of six ASEAN countries over the period 1995–2017. Various econometric techniques—the cross-sectional dependence, panel unit root, panel cointegration, long-run panel estimates, and panel Granger causality tests—are applied. The results of panel data analyses show that all the selected variables positively contribute to the economic growth of the countries. However, all the six ASEAN countries still rely primarily on physical capital and labour for their economic growth. The findings of country-wise tests indicate that there exists a positive relationship between economic growth and financial development in Cambodia, while human capital positively contributes to the economic growth of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The causality test exhibits unidirectional causality from energy consumption to economic growth and from economic growth to financial development in both the short and long run. The findings suggest that inclusive development strategies that provide the opportunity for all sectors to grow will result in the desirable three e’s of sustainable economic development: equitable, effective and efficient.

Background: Over four million people in Australia have some form of disability, of whom 2.1 million are of working age. This paper estimates the costs of disability in Australia using the standard-of-living approach. This approach defines the cost of disability as additional income required for people with a disability to achieve a similar living standard to those without a disability. We analyse data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey using a hybrid panel data model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the costs of disability in Australia using a high quality, large, nationally-representative longitudinal data set. Methods: This study estimates the costs of disability in Australia by using the Standard of Living (SoL) and a dynamic model approach. It examines the dynamics of disability and income by using lagged disability and income status. The study also controls for unobserved individual heterogeneity and endogeneity of income. The longitudinal specification in this study allows us to separate short- and long-run costs of disability using a hybrid panel data regression approach. Results: Our results show that people with a disability need to increase their adult-equivalent disposable income by 50% (in the short-run) to achieve the same standard of living as those without a disability. This figure varies considerably according to the severity of the disability, ranging from 19% for people without work-related limitations to 102% for people with severe limitations. Further, the average cost of disability in the long-run is higher and it is 63% of the adult-equivalent disposable income. Conclusions: Firstly, our results show that with the same level of income, the living standard is lower in households with people with a disability compared to households without members with a disability. This indicates a strong relationship between poverty and disability. However, current poverty measures do not take into account disability, therefore, they fail to consider substantial differences in poverty rates between people with and without a disability. Secondly, the estimated costs reflected in this study do consider foregone income due to disability. Therefore, policymakers should seriously consider adopting disability-adjusted poverty and inequality measurements. Thirdly, increasing the income (e.g. through government payments) or providing subsidised services for people with a disability may increase their financial satisfaction, leading to an improved living standard. The results of this study can serve as a baseline for the evaluation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

Summary: This paper proposes a new empirical model for examining the relationship between obesity and school performance using the simultaneous equation modelling approach. The lagged effects of both learning and health outcomes were included to capture both the dynamic and inter-relational aspects of the relationship between obesity and school performance. The empirical application of this study used comprehensive data from the first five waves of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), which commenced in 2004 (wave 1) and was repeated every two years until 2018. The study sample included 10,000 children, equally divided between two cohorts (infants and children) across Australia. The empirical results show that past learning and obesity status are strongly associated with most indicators of school outcomes, including reading, writing, spelling, grammar and numeracy national tests, and scores from the internationally standardized Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Matrix Reasoning Test. The main findings of this study are robust due to the choice of obesity indicator and estimation methods.

Purpose: Basic income (BI) is predicted to be the major economic intervention in response to raising income inequality and accelerating technological progress. Financing is often the first question that arises when discussing a BI. A thorough answer to this question will determine the sustainability of any BI program. However, BI experiments implemented worldwide have not answered this question. This paper explores two options for a BI program in Australia: (1) BI and (2) top-up basic income (TBI).Design/methodology/approach: The authors employ “back-of-the-envelope” calculations with the latest publicly available data on income distribution, the poverty line and the share of income tax in the government revenue to estimate the costs of implementing BI in Australia.Findings: Even without any change in the current tax regulations, the TBI option, which requires a contribution of 2–3% disposable income from net contributors, will guarantee that no Australian family lives under the current national poverty line. The BI for all options is not financially feasible under the current tax and transfer regulations because it requires an additional tax rate of at least 42% of disposable income from net contributors.Practical implications: The results of this study can serve as inputs for the design and implementation of BI options in Australia and similar countries.Originality/value: This is the first paper that examines the macroeconomic effects of BI options in Australia.