INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

The Effects of Technological Innovation on Sustainable

Development in Morocco: Does the Transition to Social Innovation

Matter?

¹EL AIDI Abir, ¹MOUSSANE Aboutayeb, ²TARBALOUTI Essaid

¹Phd student in Economics, Department of Economics, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh,

Morocco.

²Professor and researcher, Department of Economics, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh,

Morocco.

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.805064

Received: 01 May 2024; Accepted: 09 May 2024; Published: 05 June 2024

ABSTRACT

Technological innovation currently is one of the crucial factors influencing economic growth and contributing

to development. However, our primary aim by presenting this paper is not solely the economic progress

ensured by innovation, but rather to study the impact of technological innovation on the three pillars of

sustainable development (economic, social and environmental). This means that we will examine the

repercussions at an economic, social, and environmental level. To do so, we have worked with a time series

covering the period from 1990 to 2021 in Morocco, estimated by the ARDL model to figure out short-term

and long-term results. Our findings were as follows: concerning the relationship between technological

innovation and the economic pillar, it is seen to be positive in the short term and tends to become slightly

negative in the long term. Regarding the relationship between technological innovation and the environmental

pillar, a positive impact is clear, meaning that an increase in technological innovation levels reduces

environmental damage. However, in the long term, this trend may reverse as it tends to become less positive

or even negative.

Finally, the relationship between technological innovation and the social pillar is characterized as non-

significant.

Keywords: Technological innovation, Economic growth, Environmental improvement, Human development,

Social innovation.

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is a key driver of economic growth, and advances in science and technology are frequent.

Economic growth has generally improved living conditions, but climate change, erosion of fertile soils,

overfishing, eutrophication, and pollution of aquatic environments threaten the survival of billions of people

worldwide as well as the well-being of future generations. It is therefore crucial to adopt more sustainable

development models, which increase incomes while ensuring widespread access to essential needs such as

drinking water and electricity, while minimizing environmental impacts.

Social innovation should not be seen as an end in itself, but rather as a means of improving quality and

Page 901

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

productivity. As Damon (2009) points out, "social policies are implicated in the innovation process." He

identified several social protection innovations implemented in different countries to adapt social protection

systems to new economic realities and improve the management of new social risks and becoming

increasingly important and an integral part of national policy agendas to meet contemporary's social

challenges.

However, technological innovation plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable growth. Researchers,

particularly in economic fields, have focused on the intricate relationships between technological innovation

and sustainable development. The Brundtland Report (1987) was the first to discuss the links between

technological innovation and sustainability. Nonetheless, measuring these relationships poses a challenge,

as sustainable development encompasses various subfields. From an economic standpoint, classical

economists including Solow (1956) and contemporary figures such as Romer (1995) argue that technological

advancements drive economic growth by enhancing production efficiency and spurring innovation. From a

social perspective, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) maintains that technological

innovation is crucial for human development. Studies like Romer's (1995) contend that technological

innovation promotes human and economic development, consequently improving the well-being of society.

The environmental aspect is a complex issue. While many authors argue for the importance of technological

innovation in addressing environmental problems. Empirical studies, such as Fal et al (2006) research,

demonstrate that the relationship between technology and the environment is highly dependent on a country's

level of development. The potential impact of technological innovation on the environment can vary from

positive to negative, depending on the context. Consequently, although technological innovation can

contribute to environmental progress, its actual impact will depend on a variety of factors, including the level

of development and the policies in place.

The key question will therefore be presented as follows: does a middle-income country such as Morocco

have the necessary conditions to enable technological innovation to promote the country's sustainable

development and respond adequately to economic, social and environmental problems?

To answer this question, our article makes a significant contribution to the debate. Firstly, it takes a fresh

look at the interaction between technological innovation and sustainable development. Secondly, it focuses

primarily on the case of a developing country, specifically Morocco. Thirdly, we use a time series to examine

both short- and long-term impacts. Our main objective is to analyze the impact of technological innovation

on each of the three pillars of sustainable development. To do so, we use the Autoregressive Distributed Lag

(ARDL) model proposed by Pesaran et al (2001) which is based on a cointegrated stationary series model.

We chose this model because of its advantage, namely its ability to analyze both the short and long term,

which is in line with the objectives of our study. The time frame we have selected for this analysis covers

the period between 1990 and 2021.

This paper is structured as follows: In Section II, we begin by summarizing existing research on the essential

role of technological innovation in the three dimensions of sustainable development. Then, in the same

section, we review the empirical literature, with particular emphasis on similar studies already carried out.

In addition, we introduce the econometric model used and the variables examined. In Section III, we proceed

to analyze the time series of each variable, explaining in a detailed manner the methodology of our estimation

model and identifying the data sources employed. Section IV presents the results from our econometric

analysis, followed by an in-depth discussion of the results and their interpretations, highlighting the potential

contributions of social innovations as a sustainable solution for each of the pillars of sustainable

development. Finally, in section V, we draw a conclusion based on the observations and findings set out

above.

Page 902

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Literature Review

In the economic pillar of sustainable development, technological innovation is the key to stimulate long-term

economic growth. Technological advances make it possible to increase production efficiency, create new

sectors of activity and improve business competitiveness. These innovations boost productivity and create

wealth, generating economic opportunities for individuals and societies. This leads us to invoke the

fundamental proposition of growth theory that, to maintain a positive growth rate in per capita product over

the long term, there must be continuous advances in technological knowledge in the form of new goods, new

markets or new processes. This proposition can be demonstrated using the neoclassical growth model

developed by Solow (1956), which shows that without technological progress, diminishing returns would

eventually put an end to economic growth. The central idea is that capital accumulation can stimulate

economic growth in the short term, but to achieve a long-term growth, the process depends primarily on

technological innovation.

In this context, Mankiw, Phelps & Romer (1995) have lent their support to this approach by including human

and physical capital in the capital view, but it should be noted that the model, as conceived, fails to explain

the persistent differences between the growth rates of different countries, as it considers as exogenous the rate

of technological progress that uniquely determines each country's growth rate.

The initial challenge is to base a theory of sustainable growth on exogenous technology, but this depends on

economic decisions as much as on capital accumulation. Several attempts to endogenize technology were

made before the recent emergence of endogenous growth models. However, all these efforts came up against

the problem of managing increasing returns in a dynamic general balance framework.

In this respect, Arrow (1962) postulated that growth was an involuntary consequence of the experience of

producing new capital goods, which led to a phenomenon known as learning-by-doing. However, Arrow's

(1962) model was not fully exploited, as it was based on a fixed capital/labor ratio and a fixed (vintage-

specific) labor requirement. This meant that, in the long term, output growth was limited by labor growth and

was therefore independent of saving behavior, as in the Swan model (2023).

From another point of view, this does not rule out the fact that endogenous growth has a sustainable approach.

This theory, whose origins can be traced back to Romer (1986), sees growth as a cumulative phenomenon. At

the root of this cumulative phenomenon are economic agents, who accumulate various forms of capital,

including experience and know-how, education and professional training, public infrastructure, etc.

According to this theory, growth creates wealth, which in turn generates more income to finance investment

in human capital. This translates into training that provides a more skilled workforce capable of innovation.

In line with this, Schumpeter (2000) re-emphasizes the importance of innovation, pointing out that the

cyclical nature of the economy is not due to social transformations, demographic changes or currency

fluctuations. It originates in innovation. Schumpeter (2000) defines innovation as "new objects of

consumption, new methods of production and transportation, new markets, new types of industrial

organization". To simplify this definition further, we can say that: innovation is the economic application of

an invention, for example, the discovery of pressure enabled its force to be used in steam engines. However,

the relationship between innovation and societal transformation is not unidirectional. In this respect, we can

debate Schumpeter's idea in the framework of an analysis due to the rebound effect, which can be defined in

a wide sense as "the increase in consumption linked to the reduction of limits to the use of a technology,

these limits being monetary, temporal, social, physical, linked to effort, danger, organization...". (F Schneider

2001)

Page 903

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Yet this can lead to a higher consumption, including the direct accounting of the increase in demand for the

same type of good due to the reduction in costs associated with increased efficiency. The effects of

technological innovations are not only limited to the direct effects as Schumpeter described them, but also

include the rebound or income effect: savings may enable a consumer to purchase other types of goods,

leading to a further increase in the use of materials and energy. It thus includes modifications to the general

equilibrium and transformational effects when the effects on social organization are taken into consideration.

The challenge we face at this point is not efficiency, but the growth economy, where ever more money, time

and space are devoted to increasing consumption. Instead of continuing to innovate for growth. To ensure

an ecological and social well-being we require a "frugal innovation", where our brainpower is used to

produce better and less, rather than better and always more.

In the environmental dimension, the work of Nordhaus (2019) is worth noting. According to him, the

concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the main environmental concern, and he has

extensively studied the economics of climate change. He argues that climate change is the ultimate challenge

for economics, as it has profound implications for markets, public policy and people's daily lives.

In the same connection, the author Daly (2014) promotes an understanding of economic development that

goes beyond simple growth in Gross Domestic Product. He emphasizes the need to take into account the

planet's ecological limits and social implications. This perspective encourages economists and policymakers

to broaden their vision of progress by integrating environmental and social dimensions into their

development policies, such as putting forward concepts such as pricing the depletion of natural resources,

environmental taxation and reforming the financial system to encourage more sustainable practices.

Technological innovation plays a significant role in advancing sustainable development's social pillar. It

allows for greater access to education, healthcare, and information, therefore improving people's quality of

life. Social networks, and other communication platforms stemming from technological innovation, enable

collaboration, knowledge sharing... Innovation can be a key factor in addressing multifaceted societal

challenges, such as providing access to potable water, affordable healthcare, and reducing poverty. This is

in complete line with the contribution of Sen & Corbridge (2002), in where the authors explain that

development is not simply reduced to economic growth or the accumulation of material goods, but must be

understood as the expansion of people's choices and opportunities. They advocate that measuring

development not only be based on income, but also on the ability of individuals to pursue their goals and

live with dignity.

The sharing economy would not be able to exist without the initial financial capacity of those behind it (for

example, public funding for coworking or the acquisition of a car-sharing fleet). The impact of sustainable

development on technological innovation and vice versa can be explained through a bidirectional

relationship. Sustainable development and technological innovation are closely linked, and one can influence

the other in several ways Environmental externalities were defined by Boudeville et al. (1973) as a

consequence of an agent's decisions that affects other agents in ways other than the market.

The entrepreneur maximizes his profit under the constraint of production costs, which translates, in a

competitive situation, into choosing the quality produced so as to equalize the marginal cost with the selling

price. According to this approach, environmental pressures are seen on the one hand as "constraints" likely

to threaten the sustainability of organizations. In fact, the various sources of environmental pressure will

force polluting companies to respect the environment; if they fail to react, they will consequently lose their

image and hence their legitimacy. However, the introduction of an environmental policy will push companies

to integrate the environmental dimension into their economic activity by carrying out depollution actions.

A large number of economic researchers (Schmidheiny et al. (1992), Landry (1990), Sala (1992) and Robins

Page 904

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

(1992)) have taken an interest in promoting the implementation of environmental strategies centered on the

principles of sustainable development.

Their work has shown that this development is generally understood as the result of three requirements. The

first is economic viability, which some interpret as sustained and sustainable economic growth. The second

is environmental viability, which is expressed in terms of protecting the environment and the balances on

which the maintenance of the biosphere depends, as well as maintaining resource-producing ecosystems for

human activities and establishing a healthy environment for inhabitants. The third and final requirement is

social equity, both within and between generations.

This approach is often referred to as win-win-win (Zaccaï (2004)), since environmental regulation is

beneficial firstly for the environment, since it leads to a reduction in pollution levels. Secondly, it is socially

beneficial, guaranteeing a cleaner, safer, healthier environment and a better quality of life for present and

future generations. Thirdly, it promotes economic activity by encouraging producers to adopt cleaner

production methods, thus opening up opportunities for clean investment, wealth and job creation, and the

promotion of environmental markets.

Sustainable development can stimulate technological innovation by creating economic incentives,

influencing market demand, and encouraging compliance with environmental standards. In turn,

technological innovation can contribute to sustainable development by providing more efficient,

environmentally-friendly solutions. This creates a synergistic relationship between sustainable development

and technological innovation.

To better illustrate the bi-directional relationship between sustainable development and innovation, the

following diagram summarizes the process, which then forms an impact circuit

Figure 1: Explanation of the relationship between sustainable development and technological innovation

Source: Created by the Author

Whether economic, environmental or social. Innovations represent the most relevant solution to the

problems, yet the solutions generated by innovation can present externalities that are either positive or

negative. Which leads to new needs and new requirements, sometimes even exogenous, due to changes in

society, thus to deal with the new problems and requirements we're going to have to use innovations once

again. This means that the impacts between innovation and sustainable development are characterized as

bidirectional, forming a circuit of continuous evolution.

Empirical Literature Review on Sustainable Development and Technological Innovation

Infrastructure, Industrial Growth, and Technological Innovation

Based on a study conducted by Fan, Ismail, and Reza (2018) on Bangladesh's infrastructure, technological

Page 905

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

innovation, and industrial growth from 1974 to 2016, critical challenges were identified. Despite modest

rankings in technological readiness and innovation, these advancements did not yield the expected impact

on industrial growth. Bangladesh lags not only globally but also within South Asia, ranking 111th out of 137

countries in terms of infrastructure. The study proposes that adopting green technologies in environmentally

damaging sectors could enhance environmental quality, though challenges and costs hinder this in a

developing country. The study is also showing a positive correlation between infrastructure and industrial

growth. Technological innovation, however, negatively affects industrial growth in the long run. In the short

term, both infrastructure and technological innovation positively impact industrial growth. Granger's VECM

causality test reveals bidirectional causality between industrial growth and infrastructure, as well as between

infrastructure and technological innovation. Unidirectional causality from industrial growth to technological

innovation is also found. These findings, consistent with the ARDL approach. The authors advocate the need

for a policy of technological innovation and infrastructure that promotes overall economic growth.

Economic growth, human capital, and technological innovation

The link between economic growth, human capital, and technological innovation is central to numerous

recent studies. For instance, Traoré et al. (2021), in a recent study conducted in Mali, examined the impact

of human capital and technology on economic growth over the period 1986-2020 using the Auto Regressive

Distributed Lag (ARDL) model.

The study explores the links between economic growth, human capital and technological innovation using

the ARDL model. The results show that education spending, health spending and Gross Enrolment Ratio

(GER) have a positive effect on economic growth in both the short and long term, underlining the importance

of human capital in the country's economic development. On the other hand, research and development

(R&D) expenditure and investment show significant negative effects on economic growth. These findings

highlight the need to mobilize considerable resources in favor of R&D to stimulate innovation and,

consequently, foster increased economic growth in Mali. The authors thus suggest policy implications,

stressing that the Malian government should direct its efforts towards strengthening R&D to support the

country's economic growth.

Industrial activities, technological innovation and environmental problems

Given the worsening environmental conditions due to various factors, especially human activities,

particularly industrial, many researchers are investigating the dynamic relationship between technological

innovation and CO2 emissions. To illustrate, York, Rosa, and Dietz (2003) they conducted a study to

investigate the determinants impacting CO2 emissions in various nations from 1975 to 2000. The results of

the analysis show the complexity of the relationships between industrial activities, technological innovation

and environmental problems, based on the STIRPAT model. Population emerges as a major factor

influencing CO2 emissions and energy footprint, with significant elasticity, indicating that demographic

changes are proportionally linked to variations in these impacts. Urbanization, as an indicator of

modernization, is associated with a monotonic increase in both impact measures studied, suggesting that

modernization processes can contribute to increasing environmental pressures. Furthermore, the structure of

the economy, measured by the share of the industrial sector, shows a positive association with environmental

impacts, underlining the crucial role of industrial activities in generating these impacts. The results diverge

when it comes to wealth, indicating that there is no conclusive evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve

for total CO2 emissions or energy footprint.

In Morocco, the results generally support the existence of an inverted-U relationship between economic

growth and carbon emissions, as well as a linear relationship between CO2 and energy consumption. The

existence of a long-term Kuznets curve is the result of various environmental policies. However, the impact

of energy remains relatively high due to dependence on fossil fuels (Aboutayeb et al., 2022).

Page 906

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

In the light of our analysis of the theoretical and empirical literature concerning our research topic, our study

aims to establish a link between technological innovation and the three pillars of sustainable development in

a middle-income country, in this case Morocco. To this end, we formulate the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Technological innovation has a positive and favorable impact on the three pillars of sustainable

development.

Hypothesis 2: Technological innovation does not have the same impact on the different pillars of sustainable

development.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Data

As mentioned above, the aim of this article is to examine the ability of technological innovation to

simultaneously affect economic growth, human development and environmental quality in the case of

Morocco over the period 1990-2021:

Technological innovation (TI): Several measures can be used to define technological innovation, such as

R&D expenditure, the global innovation index, the total number of patents, the global innovation index, the

total number of patent applications, the number of scientific articles published per 1,000 inhabitants of a

country. Gill (2013) and Crespo & Crespo (2016). The total number of patents is therefore our measure of

technological innovation.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): the total value of final goods and services produced on a country's territory

over a given period. Many authors have used GDP as a measure of economic growth, including Barro (1991)

and Acemoglu (2005). GDP represents our estimation variable for the economic component.

CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions, which are the release of this gas into the atmosphere, can originate from

natural sources or be anthropogenic (related to human activities). This variable's importance as an

environmental measure is recognized by Stern (2007), Nordhaus (2019), and numerous other influential

authors interested in environmental issues. CO2 emissions serve as our variable for measuring environmental

impact.

The human development index (HDI): is a composite statistical index used to assess a country's level of

human development. The HDI is measured using three main criteria: gross domestic product (GDP) per

capita, life expectancy, and education level. This index, developed through the contributions of Anand &

Sen (1994), has become a reference for measuring human development in global economies, as demonstrated

in the works of Grammy & Assane (1997) and Sachs (2010), among many economists. The HDI serves as

our measurement variable to determine social impact.

Table 1 offers a detailed presentation of the description and sources of each variable integrated in our study.

This enables us to examine the relationship between technological innovation and sustainable development

in a middle-income country such as Morocco, in order to provide an appropriate response to economic,

social, and environmental problems.

Table 1: Description and source of variables

Abbreviation

CO2

Description

Source

CO2 emissions in metric tons

The World Development Indicators,

date:05/04/2023

Page 907

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

GDP

TI

Gross domestic product

The World Development Indicators,

date:05/04/2023

The World Development Indicators,

date:05/04/2023

Total

number

of

patent

applications from residents and

non-residents (Moroccan)

HDI

Human development index

The

United

Nations

Development

Program, date:05/04/2023

Source: Issued by the Author

Time series analysis is intended to understand how the four variables - CO2 emissions, GDP per capita growth,

human development index and total number of patent applications - have evolved over time. The aim is to

identify the trends, cycles and key events that have influenced these developments.

From a visual point of view, it appears that there has been an overall growth in CO2 emissions over the period

studied, despite periodic fluctuations. Economic events such as the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 had a

significant impact on this trend.

As for the time series of annual changes in GDP per capita growth in Morocco, it helps us to understand how

this growth has evolved over time, and to identify the trends, cycles and key events that have influenced it.

Analysis of this series reveals both increases and decreases in this indicator over the period examined, with a

notable impact from the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. In addition, Morocco's human development index shows

significant linear growth between 1990 and 2021, largely thanks to the efforts made by public authorities in

this area. Finally, the total number of patent applications (both resident and non-resident) in Morocco

demonstrates significant quadratic growth over the period 1990 to 2021.

Figure 2: Time series of CO2, GDP, HDI and TI

Source: Author's calculations

We used a set of descriptive statistics tools to calculate values that are well known to experts, to get an idea

of the distribution over time.

Take the example of the CO2 emission series. The average annual CO2 emission in Morocco over the period

1990-2021 is 1.41 tons per capita. This means that, on average, 1.41 in tons were emitted per capita each

year over this period. With a minimum emission value of 0.87 tons per capita and a maximum value of 1.96

tons per capita. The Skewness index, Kurtosis and Jarque-Bera test were used to test the normality of the

series.

Page 908

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Table 2 : Descriptive statistics

CO2

GDP

HDI

TI

Mean

970.0625

1.412399

1.445762

1.968907

0.875022

2.715220

2.660032

17.46920

0.568813

0.570000

0.683000

0.447000

785.0000

2730.000

104.0000

770.7624

Median

Maximum

Minimum

Std. Dev.

-

8.172741

0.324948

-.031820

1.631327

2.503087

0.286063

45.19676

3.273337

32

4.836025

.385183

4.845348

5.331698

0.069540

86.88703

725.0012

32

0.077623

-.012818

1.700261

2.253306

0.324116

18.20200

0.186783

32

1.305928

3.547667

9.495647

0.008671

31042.00

18416316

32

Skewness

Kurtosis

Jarque-Bera

Probability

Sum

Sum Sq. Dev.

Observations

Source: Author's calculations

The Pearson correlation coefficient between the series in question can take values between -1 and 1. A value

closer to -1 and 1 shows a linear link between the two series examined. And a value close to 0 shows no link.

From the results obtained in the correlation matrix of our model, it is clear that there are significant links

between several pairs of variables. We observe a significant correlation between the Human Development

Index (HDI) and CO2 emissions, between CO2 emissions and the total number of patents, and between the

total number of patents and the Human Development Index. These results suggest the existence of potential

relationships between these data series.

Table 3: Pearson correlation test

CO2

GDP

0.0810186 0.988980 0.844050

0.098715 -.050169

HDI

TI

1

CO2

GDP

0.081018 1

Page 909

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

0.988980 0.098715

0.844050 - .050169

1

0.855329

HDI

TI

0.855329 1

Source: Author's calculations

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

In order to better define our study, and based on our findings from the empirical literature and the nature of

our series, which is a time series, we feel that the ARDL model is best suited to providing more in-depth

answers to our problem:

Auto Regressive Distributed Lag/ARDL models are dynamic models. They have the particularity of taking

account of temporal dynamics (adjustment lag, anticipations, etc.) in the explanation of a variable (in time

series), thus improving forecasts and the effectiveness of policies (decisions, actions implemented, etc. ),

unlike the simple (non-dynamic) model whose instantaneous explanation (immediate effect or not spread

over time) only restores part of the variation in the variable to be explained.

The ARDL estimation method we use consists of two essential stages. The first phase consists of an initial

test to demonstrate the existence of a long-term relationship between the variables included in our model.

We then proceed to estimate the short- and long-term parameters in a subsequent phase. However, various

factors, including the degree of stationarity of the variables, influence this procedure. In order to analyze

time series data with different levels of integration (I (1) and I (0)), Pesaran et al. (2001) recommended the

use of the ARDL model to assess cointegration as an alternative to the Engle-Granger model.

For further time series analysis, it is imperative to check the stationarity of the variables, which determines

whether they are I (0) or I (1) and ensures that none of them are integrated at second order, I (2). In our study,

we will check the stationarity of the variables using the Dickey-Fuller augmented unit root test (ADF) with

a threshold of 5%. This approach will then enable us to select the appropriate values for the maximum delays

using the SIC information criterion. Finally, diagnostic tests will be conducted to confirm the suitability of

our model. These validation tests will assess the reliability and robustness of our results, including the Jarque-

Bera test for error normality, the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test for error homogeneity, the Lagrange Multiplier

(LM) test and Ramsey's RESET test for correct model specification.

In fact, on the basis of the theoretical growth model and the available data, we used an ARDL model to

analyze the relationship between per capita economic growth (dependent variable) and three explanatory

variables: technological innovation (TI variable), CO2 emissions (CO2 variable) and the human

development index (HDI variable) over a period extending from 1990 to 2021. The objective was to

determine the impact of technological innovation on each pillar of economic development, taking into

account the other pillars of development. To do this, we specified three distinct models: model (1), model

(2) and model (3), as follows:

Model 1: GDP = f (TI, CO2, HDI)

Model 2: CO2 = f (TI, GDP, HDI)

Model 3: HDI = f (TI, CO2, GDP)

(1)

(2)

(3)

To estimate the three equations of models 1, 2 and 3, we then formulate the following ARDL model to identify

the directions of the short- and long-term causal relationships between technological innovation (TI), gross

Page 910

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

domestic product per capita (GDP), carbon emissions per capita (CO2), and human development (HDI) and

the conditional error correction version of the ARDL model for the three equations is represented as follows:

Model 1:

푝

∆퐺퐷푃_푡= 훽₀+ ∑ 훽₁∆퐺퐷푃_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₂∆푇퐼_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₃∆퐶푂2_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₄∆퐻퐷퐼_푡−1+ 훼₁퐺퐷푃_푡−1

푞

( )

+ 훼₂푇퐼_푡−1+ 훼₃퐶02_푡−1+ 훼₄퐻퐷퐼_푡−1+ 휇_푡4

Model 2:

푝

∆퐶푂2_푡= 훽₀+ ∑ 훽₁∆퐶02_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₂∆푇퐼_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₃∆퐺퐷푃_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₄∆퐻퐷퐼_푡−1+ 훼₁퐺퐶푂2_푡−1

푞

( )

+ 훼₂푇퐼_푡−1+ 훼₃퐺퐷푃_푡−1+ 훼₄퐻퐷퐼_푡−1+ 휇_푡5

Model 3:

푝

∆퐻퐷퐼_푡= 훽₀+ ∑ 훽₁∆퐻퐷퐼_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₂∆푇퐼_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₃∆퐶푂2_푡−1+ ∑ 훽₄∆퐺퐷푃_푡−1+ 훼₁퐻퐷퐼_푡−1

푞

( )

+ 훼₂푇퐼_푡−1+ 훼₃퐶02_푡−1+ 훼₄퐺퐷푃_푡−1+ 휇_푡6

Where Δ stands for the first difference operator applied to the respective variable. The term μ corresponds

to the disturbance term, assumed to be uncorrelated and with zero mean. The coefficient β0 represents the

deterministic drift parameter. The coefficients β1, β2, β3, β4 and β5 respectively represent the elasticities of

each pillar with respect to technological innovation and the other determinants. Importantly, β1, β2, β3, β4

and β5 are all non-zero, indicating the existence of cointegration. This cointegration is established using a

non-standard F-test, originally developed by Pesaran et al. (2001) and adapted by Narayan (2005) for small

samples.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Estimating the unit root test is a necessary step before analyzing time series cointegration. In line with the

recommendations of Enders, & Granger (1998), we used the standard ADF (Augmented Dickey-Fuller) test

developed by Dickey and Fuller in 1979 to assess the stationarity of variables (Dickey & Fuller 1979).

In this study, we performed the unit root test to determine the order of integration of variables using two

alternative specifications. First, we tested model 2, then model 3 (see Table 1). The results of the unit root

test, presented in Table 1, indicate that all variables are stationary, either at the first difference level, or at

the level.

Specifically, the test reveals that three of the variables are non-stationary at I (0), with the exception of GDP

per capita growth, which is stationary at I (0). By contrast, when we examine the first I (1) differences, all

three variables become stationary. These results indicate that, with or without constant and trend, some

variables are stationary at level I (0), while others become stationary at level I (1). Table 4 details the results

of the ADF unit root tests, at a significance level of 5%.

Page 911

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Table 4: ADF unit root test results

ADF unit root test results at 5% threshold

First

Variables Model

In level

difference

t-statistic

P-

value

t-statistic

P-value

0.0000

Order of integration

I (0)

-

0.0000 -7.646215

GDP

CO2

Trend

and

Constant

7.810433

Constant

7.898887

0.0000 7.686132

0.2880 -5.878782

0.0000

0.0002

I (0)

I (1)

-

Trend

and

2.587432

Constant

-

0.6684 -5.876120

0.6073 -3.755294

0.0000

0.0337

I (1)

1.184245

-

HDI

Trend

and

1.941706

Constant

-

0.7518 -3.704986

0.8838 -4.517108

0.0092

0.0059

I (1)

0.967313

-

TI

Trend

and

1.240848

Constant

0.9918 -4.259888

0.0023

I (1)

0.769766

Source: Author's calculations

Model 1: Impact of technological innovation on the economic pillar

The results of our optimal model, evaluated according to the SIC criterion, indicate that the ARDL model

with the optimal lags (1, 0, 2, 2) is the most appropriate. These figures represent the number of lags for each

variable: 1 for GDP, 0 for HDI, 2 for CO2 and 2 for TI (technological innovation). For our analysis, we

focused on the TI variable and its lags (see Table 5).

We estimated three parameters linked to the TI variable to assess the impact of technological innovation on

the economic development pillar (TI variable, first lag and second lag). The parameter for the TI variable is

estimated at 0.007, with a significance of 0.0884 (below 10%). The first and second lags have estimated

parameters of 0.00703 and -0.0087 respectively, with respective significances of 0.0216 and 0.0507. These

results highlight the significant impact of technological innovation on the economic development pillar.

Page 912

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Table 5: ARDL (1) model estimation with optimal delays (1, 0, 2 ,2)

Variable

GDP (-1)

CO2

Coefficient

-0.622420

20.85508

-50.48792

52.97737

-18.12380

-0.007027

0.007035

-0.008793

-9.137039

Standard deviation

0.158840

t-Statistic

-3.918534

1.335636

-2.764402

3.033514

-0.207738

-1.786693

1.274051

-2.072248

-0.414481

P-value

0.0008

0.1960

0.0116

0.0063

0.8374

0.0884

0.0216

0.0507

0.6827

15.61434

CO2 (-1)

CO2 (-2)

HDI

18.26360

17.46403

87.24361

TI

0.003933

TI (-1)

TI (-2)

C

0.005522

0.004243

22.04456

Source: Author's calculations

As regards the impact of technological innovation on the economic development pillar, the results show both

short-term and long-term effects. In the short term, the coefficients of the first and second lags are significant

at the 5% level. The first lag has a positive coefficient, while the second lag has a negative coefficient,

suggesting an immediate positive effect of technological innovation on economic development followed by

a delayed negative effect.

However, in the long term, the impact of technological innovation on the economic development pillar is

very weak and negative (see Table 6). The coefficient of 0.007 means that a one-unit increase in

technological innovation (TI) leads on average to a 0.007-unit increase in the economic pillar (GDP), all else

being equal. This suggests a significant positive impact of technological innovation on economic

development.

The first lag of the TI variable indicates a significant positive effect with a one-period lag, meaning that the

impact of technological innovation on economic development occurs slightly with a time lag, but remains

positive. In contrast, the second lag of the TI variable has a significant negative coefficient, indicating a

negative effect with a two-period lag. However, it is important to note that this negative effect is less

significant than the immediate positive effect (coefficient of the TI variable) and the positive effect with a

one-period lag (coefficient of the first lag).

Table 6: Long-term and short-term ARDL (1) coefficients

Coefficient

Long-term coefficients

Standard deviation

t-Statistic

P-value

Variable

14.38870

-11.17084

12.99018

53.87962

1.107660

-0.207330

0.2805

0.8377

CO2

HDI

Page 913

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

-0.005414

-5.631735

0.001237

13.50873

-4.377016

-0.416896

0.0003

0.6810

TI

C

Short-term coefficients

20.85508

11.07818

10.88701

1.882536

-4.866109

0.0737

0.0001

D (CO2)

-52.97737

D (CO2(-1))

-0.007027

0.008793

-1.622420

0.003237

0.003151

0.139597

-2.170942

2.790913

-11.62218

0.0415

0.0110

0.0000

D (TI)

D (TI (-1))

CointEq(-1)*

Source: Author's calculations

The diagnostic tests of the model are presented in the following results. They include the F-bound test to

check the long-term impact of all the variables included in the model on the dependent variable, the Jarque-

Bera test to assess the normality of the errors, and the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test to examine the

homogeneity of the errors.

The error histogram almost follows a normal distribution, a result confirmed by the Jarque-Bera test. The

errors show no significant autocorrelation for delays, as indicated by their fit within the confidence interval.

Moreover, the heteroskedasticity test is satisfactory at a threshold of 5%.

However, the test for the existence of integration relationships between variables is rejected, as the F-bound

test statistic exceeds the confidence interval at a threshold of 5% (F=22.69, well above the upper bound of

3.67).

Finally, Ramsey's RESET specification test indicates that the estimated model is free of serial correlations,

inadequate functional form specifications, non-normal errors and heteroscedasticity at a threshold of 5%. All

these diagnostic checks are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Model 1 diagnostic tests

Test

Null hypothesis

T-statistic

0.8135

P-value

0.6658

Conclusion

Jarque-

Bera

Residues

normally

distributed

are

Non-rejection of Ho because the

P-value is insignificant, so the

model residuals are normally

distributed.

Breusch- The absence of

Godfrey autocorrelation

1.983

0.1650

Non-rejection of Ho because the

P-value

is

non-significant,

Page 914

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

(LM

test)

suggesting that the residuals are

uncorrelated.

Breusch-

Pagan-

Godfrey

Homoscedasticity 1.1385

0.3792

0.3520

Non-rejection of Ho because the

P-value is non-significant, which

means

the

absence

of

heteroscedasticity.

Ramsey

Reset

The

model

is

0.9530

Non-rejection of Ho because P-

value is insignificant, suggesting

correct model specification

correctly

specified

Source: Author's calculations

Model 2: Impact of technological innovation on the environmental pillar

The results of the model estimation indicate that the optimal model, according to the SIC criterion, is the

ARDL model with optimal lags of (1, 3, 3, 4). More precisely, the number 1 corresponds to the number of

lags of the variable CO2, the number 3 to that of the variable GDP, the number 4 to the variable HDI, and

finally, the number 4 represents the lag of the variable TI of technological innovation.

The parameter associated with the TI variable is 0.001 with a significance of 0.0333, which is less than 0.05,

demonstrating the significance of the impact of technological innovation on the environmental development

pillar. It should be noted that the parameters associated with the lags (first, second, third and fourth) vary,

with significances above 0.05 for the second and third lags, while below 0.05 for the first and fourth lags

(see Table 8). These results reveal that technological innovation has a significant impact on the

environmental development pillar, albeit with a lag of more than three years.

Table 8: Estimation of ARDL model (2) with optimal delays (1, 3, 3 ,4)

Variable

CO2 (-1)

GDP

Coefficient

0.643489

0.000343

0.000941

-0.006673

-0.008025

12.02577

-13.19106

-9.289674

13.06383

0.000143

Standard deviation

0.191001

t-Statistic

3.369026

0.130352

0.273272

-1.760586

-2.380430

2.608795

-2.010110

-1.234521

2.356306

2.380788

P-value

0.0050

0.8983

0.7889

0.1018

0.0333

0.0216

0.0656

0.2389

0.0348

0.0333

0.002634

0.003443

GDP (-1)

GDP (-2)

GDP (-3)

HDI

0.003790

0.003371

4.609702

6.562357

HDI (-1)

HDI (-2)

HDI (-3)

TI

7.524919

5.544200

6.02E-05

Page 915

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

-0.000237

0.000102

1.90E-05

-0.000187

-0.768052

8.07E-05

5.98E-05

7.18E-05

6.38E-05

0.358474

-2.936964

1.702004

0.264902

-2.933088

-2.142559

TI (-1)

TI (-2)

TI (-3)

TI (-4)

C

0.0116

0.1125

0.7952

0.0116

0.0517

Source: Author's calculations

To assess the impact of technological innovation on the environmental development pillar, both in the short

and long term, the results reveal the following observations:

In the short term, the coefficients associated with the TI variable are all positive and statistically significant

at the 5% level, except for the t-1 lag (see Table 9). This suggests a very weak positive effect of technological

innovation on the environmental development pillar. Nevertheless, the long-term impact of technological

innovation on the environmental pillar is not statistically significant, as evidenced by the negative coefficient

of -0.0004 with a significance of 0.1996, thus exceeding the traditional 0.05 threshold. This non-significance

indicates a certain uncertainty as to the long-term impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions.

As for the coefficients of the lags of the TI variable, they reveal that the effects of technological innovation

are exceedingly small and propagate over time. The coefficients associated with all three lags are positive,

suggesting a positive relationship between technological innovation and CO2 emissions at these different

lags. However, the significance of these effects varies, indicating that these relationships are not uniformly

significant at all lags.

Table 9: Long- and short-term ARDL (2) coefficients

Variable

Coefficient Standard deviation

t-Statistic

P-value

Long-term coefficients

GDP

HDI

TI

-0.037627

7.317763

-0.000449

-2.154355

0.031269

2.435184

0.000332

0.926742

-1.203350

3.005015

-1.351309

-2.324654

0.2503

0.0101

0.1996

0.0369

C

Short-term coefficients

D(GDP)

0.000343

0.014699

0.001753

0.002998

0.195814

4.902991

0.8478

0.0003

D (GDP (-

1))

D (GDP (-

2))

0.008025

0.002155

3.724063

0.0026

Page 916

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

D (HDI)

12.02577

-3.774157

3.358055

3.387103

3.581171

-1.114273

0.0034

0.2853

D (HDI (-

1))

-13.06383

3.923161

-3.329925

0.0054

D (HDI (-

2))

D (TI)

5.02E-05

4.39E-05

3.90E-05

5.03E-05

0.098774

2.856663

1.508167

4.306476

3.721463

-3.609366

0.000143

6.62E-05

0.000168

0.000187

-0.356511

0.0135

0.1554

0.0009

0.0026

0.0032

D (TI (-1))

D (TI (-2))

D (TI (-3))

CointEq (-

1)*

Source: Author's calculations

In summary, the results indicate a potential relationship between technological innovation and CO2

emissions, suggesting that technological innovation could help reduce emissions, and this result is confirmed

by the study of Hatzigeorgiou, Polatidis, & Haralambopoulos (2011) which shows that the efficient use of

innovative technologies reduces energy intensity which in turn leads to lower carbon emissions during the

production process and vice versa,

As Jaffe, Newell, Stavins (2003) point out, technological innovations bring two main externalities: the first

is positive and the second is negative. State policies are therefore called upon to take advantage of the positive

externalities and promote them further, promising an adapted framework to stimulate these benefits, while

on the other hand being able to absorb the negative impacts that can accompany such innovations, namely

environmental degradation.

The results of the model's diagnostic tests are presented below. They include the F-bound test, which checks

that all variables included in the model have a long-term impact on the dependent variable, the Jarque-Bera

test to assess error normality, the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test to test error homogeneity, and Ramsey's

RESET specification test.

The error histogram shows a distribution that approximately follows a normal distribution, and this

observation is corroborated by the Jarque-Bera test. Furthermore, the results show that the error

autocorrelation for the different delays lies within the confidence interval, suggesting the absence of error

autocorrelation. The homoscedasticity test is also accepted at the 5% threshold, indicating error

homogeneity.

On the other hand, the test to determine the existence of integration relationships between variables is

rejected, as the F-bound test statistic lies outside the confidence interval at the 5% threshold (F=5.21, well

exceeding the upper bound of 3.67 at the 5% threshold). Finally, Ramsey's RESET specification test attests

that the estimated model is free of serial correlations, inappropriate functional form specifications, errors not

conforming to a normal distribution and heteroscedasticity at the 5% threshold.

All the results of the diagnostic tests are presented in Table 10 for easier reading.

Page 917

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Table 10: Model 2 diagnostic tests

Test

Null hypothesis

T-statistic

P-value

Conclusion

The residues are

normally

0.8417

0.6564

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-

value is non-significant, so the

Jarque-Bera

distributed

model

residuals

are

normally

distributed.

The absence of

autocorrelation

0.0400

0.9609

0.1885

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-

value is non-significant, suggesting

that the residuals are uncorrelated.

Breusch-

Godfrey (LM

test)

Homoscedasticity 1.6454

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-

value is non-significant, which

Breusch-

Pagan-

means

the

absence

of

Godfrey

heteroscedasticity.

0.1815

0.8589

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-

value is non-significant, which

suggests the correct specification of

the model

Ramsey Reset

The

correctly

specified

model

is

Source: Author's calculations

Model 3: Impact of technological innovation on the social pillar

The results of the model estimation reveal that the optimal model, according to the SIC criterion, is the

ARDL model with optimal lags of (1, 0, 0, 1). Here, "1" represents the number of lags for the HDI variable,

"0" for the GDP variable, "0" for the HDI variable, and "1" for the lag of the TI variable of technological

innovation (see Table 11).

The parameter associated with the TI variable has an extremely value of 0.0007, with a significance of

0.0015, which is less than 0.05. It is therefore essential to note that the impact of technological innovation

on the social development pillar is statistically significant at the 5% level.

Table 11: ARDL (3) model estimation with optimal lags (1, 0, 0.1)

Coefficient

1.021544

0.000261

0.014885

-0.013589

-3.70E-06

-0.003877

Standard

deviation

0.042600

t-Statistic

23.98004

3.241409

1.775690

-1.502304

-3.565487

-0.356507

P-value

0.0000

0.0034

0.0880

0.1455

0.0015

0.7245

Variable

HDI (-1)

GDP

8.06E-05

0.008383

0.009046

1.04E-06

0.010874

CO2

CO2 (-1)

TI

C

Source: Author's calculations

Page 918

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

To assess the impact of technological innovation on the social development pillar, both in the short and long

term, the results indicate that the coefficient associated with the TI variable is extremely low, reaching only

0.0007. This suggests that technological innovation has a very limited effect on social development, as

measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). This suggests that technological innovation has a very

limited effect on social development, as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). What's more,

the significance of this coefficient is 0.91, well above the traditional 0.05 threshold. In other words, the result

has no statistical significance, meaning that there is insufficient evidence to assert that technological

innovation has an impact on social development as modeled here.

The coefficient on the first lag of the TI variable is also very low, with a negative value of -0.01312, but fails

to reach statistical significance at the 5% level. This suggests that the analysis reveals no significant effect

of technological innovation with a one-period lag on social development, as measured by the HDI.

The coefficients remain both small and insignificant, suggesting that there may be other factors or variables

not included in the model that exert a stronger influence on social development. It is also plausible that the

impact of technological innovation on social development is indirect, requiring further analysis that takes

considers other variables and their interactions.

According to the results of our ARDL model, it seems that technological innovation (variable TI) does not

have a significant impact on the social pillar measured by the Human Development Index (HDI).

Table 12: Long-term and short-term ARDL (3) coefficients

Variable

Coefficient

Standard

deviation

t- Statistic

P-

value

Long-term coefficients

-0.012127

0.024814

0.559431

-

0.6293

0.9153

GDP

CO2

0.488724

-0.060134

-

0.107491

0.000172

0.179935

0.000324

0.179762

0.529845

1.000961

0.6009

0.3264

TI

C

Short-term coefficients

0.014885

0.021544

0.006644

0.001156

2.240470

18.64084

0.0342

0.0000

D (CO2)

CointEq(-

1)*

Source: Author's calculations

Page 919

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

The model's diagnostic tests are described in the following results. They include the F-bound test to assess

the long-term impact of all variables included in the model on the dependent variable, the Jarque-Bera test to

assess the normality of the errors, and the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test to examine the homogeneity of the

errors. The error histogram approaches the normal distribution, a result confirmed by the Jarque-Bera test.

Moreover, the autocorrelation of errors for lags respects the confidence interval, suggesting the absence of

autocorrelation. In addition, the homoscedasticity test is satisfied at the 5% threshold. However, the test for

the existence of integration relationships between model variables is rejected, as the F-bound test statistic far

exceeds the confidence interval at the 5% level (F = 81.07, well above the upper bound of 3.67).

Ramsey's RESET specification test demonstrates that the estimated model does not suffer from serial

correlations, functional form misspecification, non-normal errors or heteroscedasticity at the 5% threshold.

All diagnostic checks on the model are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Model diagnostic tests (3)

Test

Null hypothesis

T-

P-

Conclusion

statistic

value

1.2370

0.5387

The residues are

normally

distributed

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-value is

non-significant, so the model residuals are

normally distributed.

Jarque-

Bera

0.1975

0.8589

The absence of

autocorrelation

Non-rejection of Ho because the P-value is

Breusch-

Godfrey

(LM

non-significant,

suggesting

that

the

residuals are uncorrelated.

test)

Homoscedasticity 1.1145

0.3780 Non-rejection of Ho because the P-value is

non-significant, which means the absence

of heteroscedasticity.

Breusch-

Pagan-

Godfrey

0.1626

0.8721 Non-rejection of Ho because the P-value is

non-significant, which suggests the correct

specification of the model

Ramsey

Reset

The

correctly

specified

model

is

Source: Author's calculations

Discussion of Results and Future Prospects in the Field of Social Innovation

In this discussion section we will take a closer look at the findings of our study on the impact of technological

innovation on sustainable development. Our goal is to investigate how technological advancements can aid

in achieving sustainability objectives while acknowledging potential obstacles and implications for future

policies. We will examine the result of this intricate relationships between technological advancement and

the sustainable development pillars of the environment, economy and society as summarized in the diagram

above, while also elucidating the various dimensions of innovation. Ultimately, this discourse endeavors to

reveal potential avenues for maximizing technological innovation to foster sustainable and equitable

development.

The relationship between technological innovation and the economic pillar

Regarding the relationship between the economic sphere and technological innovation, we have

Page 920

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

demonstrated that there is an immediate positive effect, followed by another positive effect with a one-period

lag, and finally, there could be a negative effect with a two-period lag, although it is less pronounced than

the positive effects. Technological innovation contributes positively to economic development, although

there may be lags and fluctuations in this effect over time.

In the short term, it is reasonable to anticipate a positive influence of technological innovation on the

economic sector. Advancements can result in increased productivity, decreased production expenses, and

augmented economic expansion. Businesses that implement innovative technologies can improve their

competitiveness and inaugurate novel markets, subsequently encouraging economic activity. These

conclusions are bolstered by various economic scholars, such as Solow (1956), Romer (1995), Schumpeter

(2000), among others. However, over the long term, innovation has a slightly negative impact on the

economic pillar, which can be explained by factors such as creative destruction. New technologies can make

existing industries and jobs obsolete, resulting in economic disruption and inequality. Additionally, as

technological innovation advances, marginal returns may decrease, making the additional economic benefits

of innovation less significant after a certain period. Yet the relationship between technological innovation

and growth may not always be positive, as Tyler Cowen (2011) discusses in his book "The Great Stagnation".

Modern societies may face economic stagnation due to the absence of groundbreaking innovations unlike

those of the past, and recent innovations may have a limited impact on overall productivity.

To clarify the second part of this impact, a first aspect that may explain the diminishing impact of

technological innovation on long-term growth is the principle evoked by Schumpeter: creative destruction,

i.e. a new good may not add to old goods, but rather replace them. The innovator, who is the winner, puts

his competitors in the losing position by eliminating them from the market. As Aghion and Howitt (1992)

show, there is a negative externality that can be damaging to well-being and employment. A second aspect

of the Schumpeterian vision is neglected: the exhaustion of the innovator's rent. The dynamics of innovation

presented by Schumpeter and taken up by industrial economics are as follows.

Initially, the innovator invests to obtain a new product. This investment in research represents a fixed cost,

the scale of which is, a priori, independent of sales volume. This new product temporarily monopolizes the

market. There are various reasons for this: the product may be protected by a patent, or it may take some

time to imitate it. His monopoly position allows the innovator to set a price above marginal cost. I1 thus

obtains a rent. This will enable him to amortize his fixed research costs. There can be no research without

imperfect competition. However, in Schumpeter's vision, this monopoly position can only be temporary,

even if the lifespan of the good is long. In practice, the legal duration of patents is limited, and the possibility

of circumventing them is never completely closed.

Moreover, if these effects of creative destruction are not accompanied by a successful transition to new

sectors, this could contribute to negative long-term results. Since the benefits may initially accrue to certain

companies and individuals, creating economic inequalities, if these inequalities persist or worsen, this may

have negative implications for social stability and economic growth.

Long-Term Dynamics of Technological Innovation and Environmental Impact

Our study demonstrates that technological innovation has a positive short-term impact on the environmental

pillar. This supports the notion that innovations can promote sustainable practices. For instance, the

implementation of clean technologies can curtail greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants. Innovation can

enhance energy conservation and environmental efficacy, as Schiederig, Tietze & Herstatt (2012) have

argued. On the other hand, Schor, J. B. (2013) as well as Gowdy, J. M. (2007) showed that this impact can

be reversed in view of the overconsumption that can cause the depreciation of natural resources.

Page 921

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Entrepreneurial actions should be focused on green innovations to contribute towards environmental

improvement and consider current ecological circumstances in CSR strategies of firms globally, including

Morocco. However, to achieve such an objective, we believe that the contribution of all economic actors is

needed at the same time, investments in technological innovation and research and development are not

enough, the parties benefiting from these innovations must in turn show some adaptation and initiative within

this framework, sustainability will therefore be the result of the combined efforts of all economic actors.

However, in the long term, the positive impact of technological innovation on the environment is no longer

noticeable and appears to be having a negative effect. To explain this outcome, we suggest the following

potential reasons: Within the framework of the Moroccan economy, it was previously heavily reliant on the

agricultural sector. Subsequently, it diversified and began investing in the secondary and tertiary sectors.

Our analysis of graphs on the official World Bank website indicates a correlation between the rise of CO2

emissions and the expansion of the service sector. This can be explained by: As the Moroccan state shifts its

focus from agriculture toward other sectors, CO2 emissions increase. This negative externality arises from

the correlation between service utilization and transportation usage, ultimately leading to environmental

damage. Additionally, renewable energy consumption in Morocco further exacerbates the issue, as observed

through the graphs presented by the World Bank. The low consumption of renewable energies in Morocco

explains the non-sustainability of their positive environmental impact.

The relationship between technological innovation and the social pillar

The insignificant relationship between technological innovation and the social pillar in our study can be

attributed to the complexity of social interactions. The impact of innovation on social well-being depends on

various factors, such as government policies, access to education and healthcare, and the equitable

distribution of innovation benefits.

According to Omri's (2020) study on technological innovation's effects on HDI, per capita CO2 emissions

have a negative impact on human development in all country panels. Specifically, a 1% increase in carbon

emissions results in a decrease of around 0.33%, 0.2%, and 0.23% in low, middle, and high-income countries,

respectively. This finding aligns with the analysis by Constant and Raffin (2016), which examines the

relationship between environmental quality and life expectancy, revealing that environmental conditions can

significantly impact people's longevity.

Economic support for this result comes from Brynjolfsson & McAfee's (2014) contribution, in which they

discuss the major transformations that digital technology is bringing to the economy and society. The authors

discuss both the opportunities and challenges presented by this technological revolution. They caution

against the widening economic and social inequalities that may arise from automation and technological

innovation.

According to our study, technological innovation only has a positive impact on economic growth and the

environmental pillar, and this is limited to the short term, whereas our initial objective is sustainability. For

this reason, we propose the following perspectives and paths that could achieve a harmonious and positive

balance between the three pillars of sustainable development, always based on the use of technological

innovations, but what kind of innovation? The comparison of social innovation with technological innovation

highlights another important characteristic of social innovation: its continuity. Unlike radical technological

innovation, which occurs in clusters and makes a break with the past, social innovation represents a

continuous, incremental innovation, linked to its territory and working to improve what already exists. "The

new development model characterizing today's society and economy is therefore based on continuous

innovation. This hypothesis is reinforced by the need for innovation at the present time; innovation is seen

as a remedy for the systemic economic, social, environmental and cultural crisis facing Western societies"

(Bouchard 2011).

Page 922

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

Figure 3: Diagram of empirical results

Where: (+: means positive impact; -: means negative impact and X means non-significant impact)

Source: created by the Author

Social innovations have become a powerful engine for achieving sustainable development by harmoniously

integrating economic, social and environmental dimensions. They embody an innovative way of tackling

social problems while generating significant economic and environmental value. For example, the adoption

of clean energies, such as solar and wind power, is both a social and environmental innovation, as it meets

basic electricity needs, improving people's quality of life by ensuring more reliable access to energy,

particularly in regions where the access to electricity is limited.

Moving on from technological innovation to social innovation is a more relevant solution in the context of

sustainability. Technological innovation certainly precedes by far the term social innovation, which is

emerging as a new-entrant in the world's economies. And yet, thinking about money, laws, marriage, the

modern state, education or health systems, these are all examples of social innovations that have played a

decisive role in the evolution of modern societies. Meaning that social innovation and technological

innovation are similar in many respects. Both by nature and necessity; even if there are important similarities

between technological and social innovation. Firstly, all innovation involves a non-linear process that calls

on the commitment of several players in a problem-solving approach, a corollary of the existence of external

pressure. Secondly, the process leads to the definition of an approach, the design of a new or alternative

product or service. And finally, in order to turn the new solution into an innovation, it must be diffused and,

above all, be adopted by users or promoters.

This practice also promotes inclusion by creating economic opportunities through job creation in the

installation and maintenance of energy infrastructures, or through the development of local entrepreneurship

in the renewable energy sector. In turn, the renewable energy sector can encourage the development of local

entrepreneurship. As such, encouraging the adoption of environmentally-friendly farming methods can help

conserve natural resources, while boosting food security and improving farmers' incomes. The economic

benefits are obvious: more sustainable agriculture is often more profitable in the long term, while offering

protection against market fluctuations. Moroccan companies can therefore direct their technological

innovations to this category of practices. For example, the use of drones and satellites for agricultural

monitoring Stehr (2015) enables more efficient management of water and fertilizers, reducing waste. Drones

equipped with infrared cameras and satellites can monitor crop condition and water requirements in real

time. By analyzing thermal images and reflectance data, farmers can identify areas where plants need water

and those where irrigation is not required. This enables more targeted use of irrigation water, avoiding

wastage of precious water. Additionally, they can quickly spot crop health problems, such as disease or pests,

by flying over fields at regular intervals. So, by reducing the overuse of water and fertilizers, this

Page 923

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

technological approach lowers the environmental impact of agriculture. Less water is drawn from local

sources, which can help preserve water quality and aquatic ecosystems. In addition, reduced fertilizer uses

limits nutrient pollution of groundwater and watercourses, which is good for the environment. On the

economic front, increased efficiency in agriculture due to drone and satellite monitoring can lead to savings

for farmers, contributing to the economic pillar of sustainable development.

Social innovations demonstrate their ability to address economic, social and environmental issues in a global

way, creating synergies that support sustainable development.

As an example, ride-sharing applications broaden access to mobility by enabling passengers to share rides

with drivers heading in the same direction, offering an affordable transport option to a bigger number of

people. Car-sharing applications help to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, which can alleviate traffic

congestion, improve air quality and cut journey times, all of which have a positive impact on the quality of

life of city residents. This helps to optimize the use of resources, notably fuel and road infrastructure.

Passengers benefit from reduced transport costs thanks to shared fuel costs, which can free up resources for

other needs. Drivers can also recover some of their vehicle-related expenses.

We assume that the adoption of these forms of innovation contributes directly to the achievement of

sustainable development objectives, as they address the three fundamental pillars of sustainable

development: economic, environmental and social. Social innovation aims to solve social problems while

promoting inclusion, equity and improved quality of life in communities. Through cooperatives, social

enterprises and collaborative projects, it strengthens the social fabric by creating economic opportunities for

marginalized groups, improving access to basic services such as education and health, and promoting values

of solidarity and community cohesion. These advances strengthen the social pillar of sustainable

development by reducing poverty, inequality and social exclusion.

What is particularly powerful is the synergy between these two forms of innovation. Collective social

innovation projects can incorporate green practices and technologies, creating significant added value by

combining social and environmental dimensions, these projects reinforce the three pillars of sustainable

development in an integrated way. What's more, they contribute to more resilient economies by creating

local jobs, boosting food security through sustainable agricultural practices, and improving quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The study we conducted on the impact of technological innovation on the three pillars of sustainable

development - economic, social, and environmental - revealed significant findings worth close examination.

Our objective was to understand how technological innovation, as an engine for economic growth, could

shape the future of sustainable development in Morocco. Our findings highlight several important trends.

First, regarding the relationship between technological innovation and the economic sector, our results

indicate a positive impact in the short term. This suggests that technological innovation can stimulate

economic growth in a relatively brief timeframe. However, it is noteworthy that this relationship tends to

become slightly negative in the long term. This reversal could be attributed to factors such as market

saturation or adverse effects of innovation.

In terms of the environmental pillar, our study shows a positive impact of technological innovation. An

increase in technological innovation levels appears to reduce short-term environmental damages. However,

it is important to note that this trend may reverse in the long term, indicating a need for more in-depth

sustainability measures to sustain these environmental benefits.

Regarding the social pillar, our findings suggest a non-significant relationship between technological

Page 924

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

innovation and social development. This implies that the impact of technological innovation on the social

aspects of sustainable development is complex and may depend on various factors.

Overall, our study demonstrates that technological innovation has a crucial role to play in sustainable

development in Morocco. However, it is important to recognize that the effects of technological innovation

are nuanced and depend on the specific pillar of sustainable development being examined, as well as the

time period under consideration. To maximize the benefits of technological innovation, long-term

sustainability policies and strategies must be carefully developed to mitigate potentially negative effects and

ensure balanced and inclusive development. Our initial hypotheses, including the assumption that

technological innovation would have a positive impact on the three pillars of sustainable development, have

been confirmed to some extent.

However, a thorough analysis is required to fully comprehend the intricacies and long-term implications. In

this regard, we have enriched this study with the introduction of social innovation as a new perspective that

leads to the realization of sustainable development, as it has a positive impact on the three pillars of

sustainable economic, social and environmental development.

Our study paves the way for future research aimed at gaining a better understanding of the underlying

mechanisms of technological innovation and developing more targeted policies for sustainable and balanced

development.

REFERENCES

1. Aboutayeb, M., Mohamed, E., Essaid, T., & Abderrazak, O. (2022). Impact of income and energy

consumption on CO2 emissions in Morocco: A test of the environmental Kuznets curve. African

Scientific Journal, 3(15), 301-301.

2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run

growth. Handbook of economic growth, 1, 385-472.

3. Aghion, P., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2013). Revisiting the Relationship between. Advances in

economics and econometrics, 1, 451.

4. Aghion, P., Howitt, P., Brant-Collett, M., & García-Peñalosa, C. (1998). Endogenous growth theory.

MIT press.

5. Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1994). Human Development Index: Methodology and Measurement.

6. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The review of economic

studies, 29(3), 155-173.

7. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The quarterly journal of

economics,106(2), 407-443.

8. Boudeville, J. R. (1973). Economic analysis of atmospheric pollution: The example of Alsace.

Regionaland Urban Economics, 3(1), 103-125.

9. Bouhali, F. (2021). Le développement durable : Régulation environnementale et productivité :

Visionsclassique et Portérienne. Revue d’Etudes en Management et Finance d’Organisation, 6(1).

10. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a

time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.

11. Constant, K., & Raffin, N. (2016). Environnement, croissance et inégalités: le rôle particulier du canal

de la santé. Revue française d’économie, 31(3), 9-29.

12. Coppin, O. (2002). Le milieu innovateur: une approche par le système. Innovations, (2), 29-50.

13. Corbridge, S. (2002). Development as freedom: the spaces of Amartya Sen. Progress in Development

Studies, 2(3), 183-217.

14. Crespo, N. F., & Crespo, C. F. (2016). Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of

ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5265-5271.

15. E. (2014). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.

Page 925

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

16. Damon, J. (2009). Catalogue des innovations, 100 fiches pour apprendre, surprendre et, le cas échéant,

se déprendre, issu de la recherche sur « Les politiques sociales au défi de l’innovation ». Futuribles

International, septembre.

17. Dandurand, L. (2005). Réflexion autour du concept d’innovation sociale, approche historique et

comparative. Revue française d’administration publique, (3), 377-382.

18. Daumas, L. (2020). L’effet-rebond condamne-t-il la transition à l’échec? Regards croisés sur

l’économie, 26(1), 189-197.

19. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series

with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 74(366a), 427-431.

20. Enders, W., & Granger, C. W. J. (1998). Unit-root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example

using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 16(3), 304-311.

21. Fan, H., Ismail, H. M., & Reza, S. M. (2018). Technological innovation, infrastructure and industrial

growth in Bangladesh: empirical evidence from ardl and granger causality approach. Asian Economic

and Financial Review, 8(7), 964-985.

22. Fan, Y., Liu, L. C., Wu, G., & Wei, Y. M. (2006). Analyzing impact factors of CO2 emissions using

the STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 377-395.

23. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Gowdy, J. M. (2007). Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecological

economics, 60(3), 509-516.

24. Gendron, C., & Revéret, J. P. (2000). Le développement durable. Économies et sociétés, 37(91), 111-

124.

25. Gill, P. S. (2013). Technological innovation and its effect on public health in the United States. Journal

of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 31-40.

26. Godard, O. (1994). Le développement durable: paysage intellectuel. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 2(4),

309-322.

27. Grammy, A. P., & Assane, D. (1997). New evidence on the effect of human capital on economic

growth. Applied economics letters, 4(2), 121-124.

28. Guellec, D., & Ralle, P. (1993). Innovation, propriété intellectuelle, croissance. Revue économique,

319-334.

29. Hatzigeorgiou, E., Polatidis, H., & Haralambopoulos, D. (2011). CO2 emissions, GDP and energy

intensity: a multivariate cointegration and causality analysis for Greece, 1977–2007. Applied

Energy, 88(4), 1377-1385.

30. Henderson, D. R. (2011). Tyler Cowen’s Unpersuasive Case. Regulation, 34(2), 51-54.

31. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2003). Technological change and the environment.

In Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 461-516). Elsevier.

32. Kuma, J. K. (2018). Modélisation ARDL, Test de cointégration aux bornes et Approche de Toda-

Yamamoto: éléments de théorie et pratiques sur logiciels.

33. Le, R. S. (2022). DÉVELOPPEMENT HUMAIN.

34. Levin, R. C. (1986). A new look at the patent system. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 199-

202.

35. Mankiw, N. G., Phelps, E. S., & Romer, P. M. (1995). The growth of nations. Brookings papers on

economic activity, 1995(1), 275-326.

36. Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1989). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the

growth of technologically innovative firms. Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 554.

37. Morad, N. A. D. I., & ELABJANI, A. (2019). L’ENTREPRENEURIAT VERT : QUELQUES

REFLEXIONS POUR UNE EXTENSION DU CONCEPT. Revue Economie,

Société, 1(19).

Gestion

et

38. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests.

Applied economics, 37(17), 1979-1990.

39. Nordhaus, W. (2019). Climate change: The ultimate challenge for economics. American Economic

Review, 109(6), 1991-2014.

Page 926

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VIII Issue V May 2024

40. Omri, A. (2020). Technological innovati on and sustainable development: does the stage of

development matter?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 83, 106398.

41. Perreau, S., Pauchard, J. C., & Hafiani, E. M. (2021). Développement durable: définition, concept et

construction historique. Le Praticien en Anesthésie Réanimation, 25(4), 175-180.

42. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level

relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.

43. Prades, J. (2015). Du concept d’«innovation sociale». Revue internationale de l'économie sociale,

(338), 103-112.

44. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of political economy, 94(5),

1002-1037.

45. Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic perspectives, 8(1), 3-

22.

46. Sachs, J. D., & McCord, G. C. (2010). extreme poverty. Journal of Economics, US.

47. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation

management–an exploratory literature review. R&d Management, 42(2), 180-192.

48. Schneider, F., Hinterberger, F., Mesicek, R., & Luks, F. (2001). Eco-info-society : strategies for an

ecological information society. Sustainability in the Information Society.

49. Schor, J. B. (2013). La véritable richesse. Une économie du temps retrouvé. Éditions Charles Léopold-

Meyer, Genève.

50. Schumpeter, J.A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in

Entrepreneurship.

51. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The quarterly journal of

economics, 70(1), 65-94.

52. Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. cambridge University press.

53. Swan, P. L. (2023). Peter L. Swan: The Theory of Economic Growth. In Trevor Winchester Swan,

Volume II: Contributions to Economic Theory and Policy (pp. 11-27). Cham: Springer International

Publishing.

54. TRAORÉ, S. S. L., MAΪGA, A., & TRAORÉ, A. B. (2021). Capital humain, technologie et croissance

économique: cas du Mali. Revue Française d'Economie et de Gestion, 2(12).

55. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking

the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological economics, 46(3), 351-365.

56. Yu, Y., & Du, Y. (2019). Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend

prediction on ‘New Normal’economy in China. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 10(1), 152-161.

Page 927

www.rsisinternational.org