Publications:


Among the ten countries with the highest carbon intensity, six are natural resource-rich countries. This suggests the existence of a carbon curse: resource-rich countries would tend to follow more carbon-intensive development paths than resource-poor countries. We investigate this assumption empirically using a panel data method covering 29 countries (OECD and BRIC) and seven sectors over the 1995-2009 period. First, at the macroeconomic level, we find that the relationship between national CO2 emissions per unit of GDP and abundance in natural resources is U-shaped. The carbon curse appears only after the turning point. Second, we measure the impact of resource abundance on sectoral emissions for two groups of countries based on their resource endowments. We show that a country rich in natural resources pollutes relatively more in resource-related sectors as well as all other sectors. Our results suggest that the debate on climate change mitigation should rather focus on a comparison of resource-rich countries versus resource-poor countries than the developed-country versus developing-country debate.


This paper provides new empirical evidence of the impact of shale gas revolution on manufacturing output and trade in the United States. The shale gas boom has resulted in pronounced and sustained regional differences in natural gas prices between the United States and the rest of the world. The results show that the decline in natural gas prices in the United States compared to natural gas prices in Europe led to an increase in industrial activity of nearly 3%. In addition, we provide empirical evidence of structural breaks in the relationships between natural gas prices and imports or exports. Finally, we conclude that while the shale gas revolution has helped some industries to expand, it has not had a strong impact on the manufacturing sector as a whole.



This article analyses the immediate consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial markets in some of the hardest-hit countries. We first show that stock-market index returns reacted strongly and negatively to the COVID-19 pandemic. We then assess the impact of the demand-side accompanying economic measures, such as in- come support to cover salaries and debt relief for households, in mitigating this effect. Countries that introduced more generous income-support policies were better able to counter the pandemic's short-term harmful effects on financial markets. We calculate the potential country-level financial losses due to COVID-19 over the five first months of 2020 to have been between -40% and -26%. Once the mitigating effects of economic policy are taken into account, the actual financial loss is estimated at between -5% and -7% for France, Germany and the UK. These financial losses are higher elsewhere, with some exceeding -30%, especially in countries without income-support policies.


Countries with abundant natural resources often possess greater wealth, yet the impact of these resources on economic growth remains unclear. This paper examines how natural resource abundance and its volatility impact economic growth. It questions whether natural resources themselves are a curse or if the negative growth effects are due to the volatility of natural resource revenues. The study also investigates how volatility of natural resources affects key economic growth channels, such as investment, human capital, and institutional quality. Using the standard panel model and panel smooth transition regression (PSTR), the paper analyzes data from 125 countries (1988-2020). Results show that natural resource abundance boosts economic growth, contradicting the resource-curse theory. However, the growth impact is non-linear and varies with natural resource volatility. Countries with high volatility face up to a 22 percentage point annual GDP growth loss compared to those with low volatility, suggesting that volatility and poor government responses drive the resource-curse paradox, not the abundance of resources per se.


This study delves into the complex interplay of climate change, natural disasters, energy consumption, and carbon emissions across 111 countries from 1990 to 2019. A structural shift in 2004 signifies altered global dynamics in CO2 emissions, closely linked to the escalation of meteorological and hydrological disasters driven by climate change. Globally, we illuminate the significant impact of climate-induced natural disasters, especially storms and extreme temperatures, on energy consumption and carbon emissions, albeit with variations. Regionally, we establish a notable positive association between extreme temperature-related disasters and both energy consumption and carbon emissions in Europe. Examining the aftermath of catastrophic events reveals an intensified influence of these disasters on carbon emissions and energy consumption in Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Developed economies experience significant impacts on carbon emissions and energy consumption from storms and extreme temperatures, while flood severity predominantly affects carbon emissions in developing countries. Additionally, we explore the potential of green patents in mitigating energy consumption and emissions triggered by disasters. While not conclusively proven, the statistically significant impact of green patents on energy conservation holds profound policy implications for advancing climate understanding, transforming energy landscapes, and addressing future sustainability concerns.

Working papers:


The "Carbon Curse" hypothesis suggests that fossil fuel-rich countries tend to increase their carbon emissions. Although the mechanisms that link fossil-fuel abundance and carbon emissions are well-known, there is still only little empirical evidence. Using causal inference for cross-country panel data spanning 1950-2018, we globally estimate the effect of giant oil and gas discoveries on carbon emissions. Our findings show that the effect is sizable and persistent. Countries that discovered large fossil-fuel fields emit roughly 30\% more pollution post-discovery than countries without these discoveries. This effect is stronger in developing countries, and is substantial from the date of the first giant discovery. By exploiting the randomness of the timing of discoveries, we provide the first plausibly-causal evidence in support of the "Carbon Curse".


Work in progress: