【導(dǎo)讀】其他人表示，能源可以替代其他生產(chǎn)要素。通常情況下，這些研究主要集中在發(fā)。雖然這種技術(shù)是有用的實證分析，因為沒有機(jī)制的存在表明變量之間。但是，這限制了范圍的政策分析。需要確定，在發(fā)展的能源消費(fèi)和。收入增長之間的因果方向發(fā)展中國家是壓倒性的。濟(jì)增長可能帶來的影響。長以尼日利亞和譚坦桑尼亞為例。果顯示了能源和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的因果關(guān)系。由于相似的經(jīng)濟(jì)特征和。這已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致許多人質(zhì)疑傳統(tǒng)的新古典生產(chǎn)函數(shù)分析，其中土地，勞。動力和資本被確認(rèn)為生產(chǎn)的主要因素。格上調(diào)對全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的“供給沖擊”達(dá)成共識。他們能夠與美國的數(shù)。小，尤其是考慮到帳戶提供其他替代的可能性生產(chǎn)因素。隱式，已被認(rèn)為是完美。源價格的上漲將導(dǎo)致資本替代勞動。然而，從其他經(jīng)濟(jì)部門一方面對生物質(zhì)的競爭性需求，的金額從內(nèi)部人士透露的可能性。略必須進(jìn)行驗證。否則，當(dāng)前和未來的增長前景將受到能源短缺。

　　

【正文】 alues of E and Y than when excluded. Indeed, by this method, a simultaneous causal relationship can be seen to exist between energy consumption and economic activities, proxied by GDP and GNP. Given the predominance of cash crops and agricultural exports in total economic activities, this es as no surprise. However, a priori observation may suggest low energy use。 but the crucial role of fertilizers, processing, and transport in production activities highlight the importance of energy. Indeed, energy related transport and other difficulties have resulted in huge postharvest losses in these countries (Makhijiani and Poole, 1975). Thus, this finding serves to strengthen the relationship between energy and national ine in Tanzania. The implication is that energy shortages can seriously hinder economic growth and development. As indicated, the Fstatistic is not usually used as a measure of significance in the Granger test but we have used it to test whether the inclusion of 14 past values in the regression enhances the significance of the whole regression. The Ftests for all the regressions were significant at the 5% level of significance. The figures in parenthesis are DWstatistics which were used to test for the presence of autocorrelation and the values indicate the absence of first order autocorrelation. The need for an instantaneous causality test follows from the observations made by Granger that if a dislocated sequence occurs in the data (ie if Y causes E to occur with one period lag, instead a two period lag was observed) it could result in 39。spurious causality39。. This will pound the problems of identifying the direction of causality, especially, a unidirectional one. Pierce and Hughes (1977) argue that the Granger type test cannot handle the problems of contemporaneous innovations39。 on one or all the variables used. Such innovations are always present in the field of technology not least energy. For example, effective conservation measures, efficient energy end use appliances and changes in the laws affecting transport and urban planning will affect energy intensity relative to economic activities. Accordingly, Pierce and Hughes (1977) suggested that one way of accounting for 39。contemporaneous innovation39。 is to test for instantaneous causality. Using this method, we have tested whether the inclusion of a current value of Y with its past values will provide a better prediction of current values of E and similarly if we are testing for instantaneous causality between E and Y. From the results shown in Table 3, the causality between energy and GNP is not instantaneous, but that between GNP and energy, GDP and energy as well as energy and GDP are instantaneous. This is not surprising since a dislocated sequence in energy consumption was unavoidable in the aftermath of the oil price increases in the 1970s. This had an adverse effect on GNP since more than % of the country39。s export proceeds went to oil imports in 1987, to the detriment of other equally vital sectors of the economy (Davidson, 1992). The instantaneous causal direction be tween energy and GDP and vice versa indicates the sensitivity of economic activities to energy consumption, as full utilization of economic capacity became dependent on fuel availability. The Fstatistics, as we explained in the case of the Granger test, are not usually required here as a test of significance but rely on the standard errors of the 15 regressions. However, we used them to test the significance of current value of Y which we included in the equation. We can observe that they are significant at the 5% level. The Granger test results for Nigeria shown in Table 4, indicate that the causality 16 between GDP and energy is simultaneous but nonexistent in the direction of GNP and energy and vice versa in direction of energy and GNP. Given the impact ofoii exports on ine, it is not surprising to find that GNP does not Granger cause energy consumption and vice versa. However, the results for the instantaneous functional form shown in Table 5 reveal an instantaneous causal relationship between energy and not just GDP but also GNP. Thus, as explained earlier, some contemporaneous changes are discernible in the case of Nigeria which mayhave affected the relative size of its GNP and GDP. Following the oil price hike of 1973, these indicators experienced a huge boost, which may have dislocated their trend. This may have accounted for some of the econometric estimation problems experienced. The manner in which the money was squandered on the one hand, and on the other, the massive and unprecedented corruption of the period, meant that not all of the oil export proceeds were repatriated back to the country. Thus, the incidence of instantaneous causality associated with the use of the GNP variable is not surprising. Similar contemporaneous occurrence apply in the case of Tanzania as explained above, but suffice to reintorate that this resulted mainly from a bination of high oil prices and adverse economic trends. Results and implications Evidently, the above empirical analysis strongly uphold our theorizing that energy consumption is plementary to growth in national ine. A close scrutiny of Africa39。s energy structure casts huge doubts on its ability to achieve sustainable economic growth and development, given its energy problems. Despite its huge mercial energy reserve (hydroelectricity, crude oil, gas and coal), percapitaenergy consumption ranked among the lowest in the world. Conventional or biomass energy (mainly wood and charcoal) account for more than 70% of total energy consumption whereas in Asia and Latin America, this source accounts for only 35% and 25% respectively (Davidson, 1992). While rural energy demand is totally met from this source, only 10% of ur