Please wait a minute...
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

Postal Subscription Code 80-972

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Front. Energy    2014, Vol. 8 Issue (1) : 31-40    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-014-0296-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Electricity demand, GDP and employment: evidence from Italy
Cosimo MAGAZZINO()
Department of Political Sciences, Roma Tre University, via G. Chiabrera 199, 00145 Rome, Italy
 Download: PDF(201 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper applies time series methodologies to examine the causal relationship among electricity demand, real per capita GDP and total labor force for Italy from 1970 to 2009. After a brief introduction, a survey of the economic literature on this issue is reported, before discussing the data and introducing the econometric techniques used. The results of estimation indicate that one cointegrating relationship exists among these variables. This equilibrium relation implies that, in the long-run, GDP and labor force are correlated negatively, as well as GDP and electricity. Moreover, there is a bi-directional Granger causality flow between real per capita GDP and electricity demand; while labor force does not Granger-cause neither real per capita GDP nor electricity demand. This implies that electricity demand and economic growth are jointly determined at the same time for the Italian case. The forecast error variance decomposition shows that forecast errors in real per capita GDP are mainly caused by the uncertainty in GDP itself, while forecast errors in labor force are mainly resulted from the labor force itself, although aggregate income and electricity are important, too.

Keywords energy policies      electricity demand      GDP      labor force      stationarity      structural breaks      cointegration      causality      Italy     
Corresponding Author(s): Cosimo MAGAZZINO   
Issue Date: 05 March 2014
 Cite this article:   
Cosimo MAGAZZINO. Electricity demand, GDP and employment: evidence from Italy[J]. Front. Energy, 2014, 8(1): 31-40.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-014-0296-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2014/V8/I1/31
Country Cost(US $)/(kW·h) 1?Year change/% 2011 Rank
Italy 20.23 18.4 1
Germany 15.15 –5.8 2
Portugal 13.63 12.1 7
Spain 13.52 1.4 4
UK 12.45 –12.3 3
Belgium 11.92 –9.7 5
Australia 11.68 27.8 13
The Netherlands 11.28 –6.9 8
Austria 11.05 –12.6 6
Poland 9.30 0.3 12
South Africa 9.13 23.1 16
USA 8.89 –6.2 11
France 8.76 5.1 14
Finland 8.64 –17.7 9
Sweden 7.95 –22.6 10
Canada 7.58 1.4 15
Tab.1  2012 electricity price comparison
Author(s) Country Time period Causality
Abosedra et al. [21] Lebanon 1995 − 2005 ED→Y
Acaravci and Ozturk [19] Turkey 1968 − 2005 ED→Y
Aktaş and Yilmaz [47] Turkey 1970 − 2004 Y↔ED
Altinay and Karagol [34] Turkey 1950 − 2000 ED→Y
Aqeel and Butt [31] Pakistan 1955 − 1996 ED→Y
Chandran et al. [40] Malaysia 1971 − 2003 ED→Y
Chen et al. [13] 10 Asian countries and areas 1971 − 2001 China, Indonesia, Korea, China’s Taiwan, Thailand: Neutrality
India, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore: Y→ED
China’s Hong Kong: ED→Y
Cifter and Ozun [46] Turkey 1968 − 2002 Y↔ED
Ghosh [22] India 1950 − 1997 Y→ED
Ghosh [23] India 1970 − 2005 Y→ED
Halicioglu [35] Turkey 1968 − 2005 ED→Y
Ho and Siu [36] China’s Hong Kong 1966 − 2002 ED→Y
Jamil and Ahmad [29] Pakistan 1960 − 2008 Y→ED
Jumbe [43] Malawi 1970 − 1999 Y↔ED
Kraft and Kraft [3] USA 1947 − 1974 Y→ED
Lean and Smyth [30] Malaysia 1970 − 2008 Y→ED
Lean and Smyth [50] Malaysia 1971 − 2006 Y↔ED
Lorde et al. [51] Barbados 1960 − 2004 Y↔ED
Morimoto and Hope [44] Sri Lanka 1960 − 1998 Y↔ED
Mozumder and Marathe [27] Bangladesh 1971 − 1999 Y→ED
Murray and Nan [15] 15 countries 1970 − 1990 India, Philippines, Zambia: Neutrality
Colombia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico: Y→ED
Canada, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Singapore, Turkey: E→Y
Malaysia, South Korea: Y↔ED
Narayan and Singh [37] Fiji 1971 − 2002 ED→Y
Narayan and Smyth [24] Australia 1966 − 2009 Y→ED
Odhiambo [49] South Africa 1971 − 2006 Y↔ED
Ouédraogo [52] Burkina Faso 1968 − 2003 Y↔ED
Ozturk and Acaravci [14] 4 Transition countries 1980 − 2006 Albania, Bulgaria, Romania: Neutrality
Hungary: Y↔ED
Sarker and Alam [41] Bangladesh 1973 − 2006 ED→Y
Shiu and Lam [32] China 1971 − 2000 ED→Y
Squalli [28] OPEC members 1980 − 2003 Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya: Y→ED
Indonesia, Nigeria, UAE, Venezuela: ED→Y
Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia: Y↔ED
Squalli and Wilson [16] GCC countries 1980 − 2003 UAE: Neutrality
Kuwait, Oman: Y→ED
Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia: Y↔ED
Tang [48] Malaysia 1972 − 2003 Y↔ED
Tang and Shahbaz [53] Portugal 1971 − 2009 Y↔ED
Wolde-Rufael [33] Shanghai, China 1952 − 1999 ED→Y
Wolde-Rufael [17] 17 African countries 1971 − 2001 Algeria, Kenya, Rep. Congo, South Africa, Sudan: Neutrality
Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Zambia, Zimbabwe: Y→ED
Benin, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Morocco, Tunisia: ED→Y
Yang [42] Taiwan 1954 − 1997 Y↔ED
Yoo [45] South Korea 1970 − 2002 Y↔ED
Yoo [25] 4 South-East Asian countries 1971 − 2002 Indonesia, Thailand: Y→ED
Malaysia, Singapore: Y↔ED
Yoo and Kim [26] Indonesia 1971 − 2002 Y→ED
Yoo and Kwak [20] 7 South American countries 1975 − 2006 Peru: Neutrality
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador: ED→Y
Venezuela: Y↔ED
Yuan et al. [38] China 1978 − 2004 ED→Y
Zachariadis and Pashouortidou [18] Cyprus 1960 − 2004 Neutrality
Tab.2  A comparison of studies about causality analysis between electricity demand and GDP
Variable Explanation
PCGDPGK Per capita GDP in 1990 US $, converted at Geary-Khamis PPPs thousand million LIT
ED Electricity demand (GW·h)
TLF Total labor force (1000 unit)
Tab.3  List of variables
Fig.1  Real per capita GDP, electricity demand and total labor force in Italy (1970 − 2009, log-scale)
Variable Mean Median Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis Range
PCGDPGK 9.6188 9.6891 0.2255 –0.4702 1.9620 0.7286
ED 5.3903 5.4463 0.3224 –0.3223 1.9756 1.0836
TLF 10.0688 10.0870 0.0829 –0.4253 2.2782 0.2847
Tab.4  Exploratory data analysis
Variable Coefficient of variation Inter-quartile range Variance 10 Trim Pseudo standard deviation Standard error of mean
PCGDPGK 0.0234 0.3553 0.0508 9.635 0.2634 0.0356
ED 0.0598 0.5035 0.1039 5.407 0.3732 0.0510
TLF 0.0082 0.0989 0.0069 10.070 0.0733 0.0131
Tab.5  Descriptive statistics
Fig.2  Per capita GDP at constant prices, electricity demand and total labor force (Italy, 1970 − 2009)
Variable Stationarity tests
Deterministic component ADF ERS PP KPSS
PCGDPGK intercept, trend NS: –3.018 NS: –0.081 NS: –2.935 NS: 2.010
ED intercept, trend LS: –3.526 NS: –0.463 LS: –3.526 NS: 1.090
TLF intercept, trend NS: –2.372 NS: –1.801 NS: –1.658 NS: 0.309
ΔPCGDPGK intercept, trend DS: –4.897 DS: –3.751 DS: –4.897 DS: 0.066
ΔED intercept, trend DS: –4.523 DS: –3.284 DS: –4.523 DS: 0.082
ΔTLF intercept DS: –4.056 DS: –3.195 DS: –4.056 DS: 0.203
Tab.6  Results of stationarity tests
Variable TB k t-stat 1% critical value 5% critical value
PCGDPGK 1992 1 –1.805 –5.57 –5.08
ED 2003 1 –2.456 –5.57 –5.08
TLF 1993 1 –4.318 –5.57 –5.08
ΔPCGDPGK 0 –5.337 –5.57 –5.08
ΔED 0 –5.355 –5.57 –5.08
ΔTLF 0 –5.215 –5.57 –5.08
Tab.7  Results of unit root tests with structural breaks
Variable SB k t-stat 5% critical value
PCGDPGK 1981,1991 0 –3.000 –5.490
ED 1984, 1987 0 –3.156 –5.490
TLF 1981, 2001 1 –3.794 –5.490
ΔPCGDPGK 0 –5.130 –3.560
ΔED 0 –5.161 –3.560
ΔTLF 0 –5.514 –5.490
Tab.8  Results of additive outlier unit root tests
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
Trace statistic 8.8966 Maximum-eigenvalue statistic 6.3374 SBIC − 17.4058
5% Critical value 19.96 5% Critical value 15.67 HQIC − 17.8222
Log-Likelihood 357.9916 Log-Likelihood 357.9916 AIC − 18.0522
Tab.9  Results of co-integration tests among real per capita GDP growth, electricity demand and total labor force (Johansen and Juselius procedure, Rank= 1)
Equation Excluded Χ 2-statistic df Prob.
CGDPGK TLF 0.7950 1 0.373
PCGDPGK ED 5.1710 1 0.023
PCGDPGK All 5.6793 2 0.058
ED PCGDPGK 6.8784 1 0.009
ED TLF 1.0246 1 0.311
ED All 9.2763 2 0.010
TLF PCGDPGK 0.0007 1 0.978
TLF ED 0.3304 1 0.565
TLF All 0.7221 2 0.697
Tab.10  Results of short-run causality tests
Step GDP ED TLF
GDP ED TLF GDP ED TLF GDP ED TLF
1 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7111 0.2887 0.0002 0.1070 0.0300 0.8630
3 0.9783 0.0051 0.0166 0.6913 0.2732 0.0355 0.1551 0.0208 0.8241
5 0.9323 0.0201 0.0476 0.6415 0.2473 0.1112 0.1918 0.0302 0.7780
10 0.7830 0.0604 0.1566 0.4947 0.1808 0.3245 0.2788 0.0808 0.6404
15 0.6503 0.0906 0.2591 0.3856 0.1348 0.4796 0.3823 0.1021 0.5156
20 0.5514 0.1108 0.3378 0.3147 0.1061 0.5792 0.4214 0.1199 0.4587
Tab.11  Results of forecast error variance decomposition
1 A Iwayemi. Energy sector development in Africa. 1998
2 A Ciarreta, A Zarraga. Economic growth-electricity consumption causality in 12 European countries: a dynamic panel data approach. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(7): 3790–3796
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.058
3 J Kraft, A Kraft. On the relationship between energy and GNP. Journal of the Energy Division, 1978, 3(2): 401–403
4 I Ozturk. A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 340–349
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.024
5 A G Guttormsen. Causality between energy consumption and economic growth. 2004
6 D C Bohm. Electricity consumption and economic growth in the European Union: a causality study using panel unit root and cointegration analysis. In: 5th International Conference on European Electricity Market, Lisboa, Portugal, 2008, 1–6
7 P K Narayan, R Smyth, A Prasad. Electricity consumption in G7 countries: a panel cointegration analysis of residential demand elasticities. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(9): 4485–4494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.018
8 P K Narayan, A Prasad. Electricity consumption-real GDP causality nexus: Evidence from a bootstrapped causality test for 30 OECD countries. Energy Policy, 2008, 36(2): 910–918
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.017
9 C Magazzino. On the relationship between disaggregated energy production and GDP in Italy. Energy & Environment, 2012, 23(8): 1191–1208
https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.8.1191
10 D Franco. Indagine conoscitiva sulle caratteristiche e sullo sviluppo del sistema industriale, delle imprese pubbliche e del settore energetico. 2012-09-26
11 European Commission. Quarterly report on european electricity markets (First quarter, 2013). 2013
12 NUS Consulting Group. 2011–2012 International Electricity & Natural Gas Report & Price Survey. 2012-06
13 S T Chen, H I Kuo, C C Chen. The relationship between GDP and electricity consumption in 10 Asian countries. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(4): 2611–2621
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.001
14 I Ozturk, A Acaravci. The causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania: Evidence from ARDL bound testing approach. Applied Energy, 2010, 87(6): 1938–1943
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.010
15 D A Murry, G D Nan. A definition of the gross domestic product-electrification interrelationship. The Journal of Energy and Development, 1996, 19(2): 275–283
16 J Squalli, K Wilson. A bounds analysis of electricity consumption and economic growth in the GCC. Zayed University EPRU Working Papers, 2006, Paper No. 06–09
17 Y Wolde-Rufael. Electricity consumption and economic growth: a time series experience for 17 African countries. Energy Policy, 2006, 34(10): 1106–1114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.10.008
18 T Zachariadis, N Pashourtidou. An empirical analysis of electricity consumption in Cyprus. Energy Economics, 2007, 29(2): 183–198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.05.002
19 A Acaravci, I Ozturk. Electricity consumption-growth nexus: evidence from panel data for transition countries. Energy Economics, 2010, 32(3): 604–608
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.016
20 S H Yoo, S Kwak. Electricity consumption and economic growth in Seven South American countries. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 181–188
21 S Abosedra, A Dah, S Ghosh. Electricity consumption and economic growth, the case of Lebanon. Applied Energy, 2009, 86(4): 429–432
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.06.011
22 S Ghosh. Electricity consumption and economic growth in India. Energy Policy, 2002, 30(2): 125–129
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00078-7
23 S Ghosh. Electricity supply, employment and real GDP in India: evidence from cointegration and Granger-causality tests. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(8): 2926–2929
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.022
24 P K Narayan, R Smyth. Electricity consumption, employment and real income in Australia: evidence from multivariate Granger causality tests. Energy Policy, 2005, 33(9): 1109–1116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.010
25 S H Yoo. The causal relationship between electricity consumption and economic growth in the ASEAN countries. Energy Policy, 2006, 34(18): 3573–3582
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.07.011
26 S H Yoo, Y Kim. Electricity generation and economic growth in Indonesia. Energy, 2006, 31(14): 2890–2899
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.11.018
27 P Mozumder, A Marathe. Causality relationship between electricity consumption and GDP in Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(1): 395–402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.033
28 J Squalli. Electricity consumption and economic growth: bounds and causality analyses for OPEC members. Energy Economics, 2007, 29(6): 1192–1205
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.10.001
29 F Jamil, E Ahmad. The relationship between electricity consumption, electricity prices and GDP in Pakistan. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(10): 6016–6025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.057
30 H H Lean, R Smyth. Multivariate Granger causality between electricity generation, exports, prices and GDP in Malaysia. Energy, 2010, 35(9): 3640–3648
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.008
31 A Aqeel, M S Butt. The relationship between energy consumption and economic growth in Pakistan. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 2001, 8(2): 101–110
32 A Shiu, P L Lam. Electricity consumption and economic growth in China. Energy Policy, 2004, 32(1): 47–54
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00250-1
33 Y Wolde-Rufael. Disaggregated industrial energy consumption and GDP: the case of Shanghai. Energy Economics, 2004, 26(1): 69–75
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00032-X
34 G Altinay, E Karagol. Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Turkey. Energy Economics, 2005, 27(6): 849–856
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2005.07.002
35 F Halicioglu. Residential electricity demand dynamics in Turkey. Energy Economics, 2007, 29(2): 199–210
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.11.007
36 C Y Ho, K W Siu. A dynamic equilibrium of electricity consumption and GDP in Hong Kong: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(4): 2507–2513
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.09.018
37 P K Narayan, B Singh. The electricity consumption and GDP nexus for the Fiji Islands. Energy Economics, 2007, 29(6): 1141–1150
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.05.018
38 J Yuan, C Zhao, S Yu, Z Hu. Electricity consumption and economic growth in China: co-integration and co-feature analysis. Energy Economics, 2007, 29(6): 1179–1191
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.09.005
39 A Acaravci. Structural breaks, electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Turkey. Journal for Economic Forecasting, 2010, (2): 140–154
40 V G R Chandran, S Sharma, K Madhavan. Electricity consumption-growth nexus: the case of Malaysia. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 606–612
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.013
41 A R Sarker, K Alam. Nexus between electricity generation and economic growth in Bangladesh. Asian Social Science, 2010, 6(12): 16–22
42 H Y Yang. A note of the causal relationship between energy and GDP in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 2000, 22(3): 309–317
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(99)00044-4
43 C B L Jumbe. Cointegration and causality between electricity consumption and GDP: empirical evidence from Malawi. Energy Economics, 2004, 26(1): 61–68
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00058-6
44 R Morimoto, C Hope. The impact of electricity supply on economic growth in Sri Lanka. Energy Economics, 2004, 26(1): 77–85
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00034-3
45 S H Yoo. Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Korea. Energy Policy, 2005, 33(12): 1627–1632
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.02.002
46 A Cifter, A Ozun. Multi-scale causality between energy consumption and GNP in emerging markets: evidence from Turkey. MPRA Papers, 2007, Paper No. 2483
47 C Aktaş, V Yilmaz. Causality between electricity consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Journal of the Social Sciences, 2008, 4(8): 45–54
48 C F Tang. A re-examination of the relationship between electricity consumption and economic growth in Malaysia. Energy Policy, 2008, 36(8): 3077–3085
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.026
49 N M Odhiambo. Electricity consumption and economic growth in South Africa: a trivariate causality test. Energy Economics, 2009, 31(5): 635–640
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.01.005
50 H H Lean, R Smyth. On the dynamics of aggregate output, electricity consumption and exports in Malaysia: evidence from multivariate Granger causality tests. Applied Energy, 2010, 87(6): 1963–1971
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.11.017
51 T Lorde, K Waithe, B Francis. The importance of electrical energy for economic growth in Barbados. Energy Economics, 2010, 32(6): 1411–1420
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.05.011
52 I M Ouédraogo. Electricity consumption and economic growth in Burkina Faso: a cointegration analysis. Energy Economics, 2010, 32(3): 524–531
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.08.011
53 C F Tang, M. Shahbaz Revisiting the electricity consumption-growth nexus for Portugal: evidence from a Multivariate framework analysis, MPRA Papers, 2011, Paper No. 28393
54 R E Engle, C W J Granger. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 1987, 55(2): 251–276
https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
55 D A Dickey, W A Fuller. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979, 74(366): 427–431
https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
56 P C B Phillips, P Perron. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 1988, 75(2): 335–346
https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
57 G Elliott, T J Rothenberg, J H Stock. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 1996, 64(4): 813–836
https://doi.org/10.2307/2171846
58 D Kwiatkowski, P C B Phillips, P Schmidt, Y Shin. Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 1992, 54(1–3): 159–178
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
59 E Zivot, D W K Andrews. Further evidence on the Great Crash, the oil price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1992, 10(3): 251–270
60 J Clemente, A Montañés, M Reyes. Testing for a unit root in variables with a double change in the mean. Economics Letters, 1998, 59(2): 175–182
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(98)00052-4
61 S Johansen, K Juselius. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 1990, 52(2): 169–210
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
62 M Belloumi. Energy consumption and GDP in Tunisia: cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(7): 2745– 2753
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.027
63 V Bianco. O Manca. S Nardini. Electricity consumption forecasting in Italy using linear regression models. Energy, 2009, 34(9): 1413– 1421
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.027
[1] Seiya MAKI, Shuichi ASHINA, Minoru FUJII, Tsuyoshi FUJITA, Norio YABE, Kenji UCHIDA, Gito GINTING, Rizaldi BOER, Remi CHANDRAN. Employing electricity-consumption monitoring systems and integrative time-series analysis models: A case study in Bogor, Indonesia[J]. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 426-439.
[2] Alper ASLAN, Nicholas APERGIS, Selim YILDIRIM. Causality between energy consumption and GDP in the U.S.: evidence from wavelet analysis[J]. Front. Energy, 2014, 8(1): 1-8.
[3] Lianhong LV, Hong LUO, Baoliu ZHANG. Relationship between electricity consumption and economic growth of Guangdong Province in China[J]. Front Energ, 2012, 6(4): 351-355.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed