Comparative evidence reveals asymmetric shock responses in Chinese and European energy markets, indicating varying systemic risks.
Stable interactions among electricity, carbon allowance, and fossil fuel markets are essential for sustainable energy transition, because excessive cross-market risk transmission may affect energy affordability, carbon-price credibility, and low-carbon investment signals. This study provides comparative evidence on dynamic connectedness, tail-state shock responses, and return-based complexity in representative Chinese and European benchmark markets. Using daily market data from the Wind database for November 2021–January 2026, the empirical framework combines time-varying parameter vector autoregression (TVP-VAR), quantile vector autoregression and quantile impulse response functions (QVAR/QIRFs), and rolling multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis (MFDFA). The results show that the European benchmark system has a higher absolute connectedness level than the Chinese benchmark system: the full-sample mean total connectedness index (TCI) is 18.75 in Europe and 5.63 in China, while the crisis-period mean TCIs are 25.19 and 12.12, respectively. Post-peak adjustment depends on the reversion metric used: China shows a faster initial half-life decline from the crisis peak, whereas reversion to lower region-specific connectedness thresholds depends on the selected benchmark. Natural-gas-shock QIRFs indicate stronger upper-tail persistence in Europe, whereas China is characterized mainly by short-run directional divergence; supplementary coal-, oil-, and carbon-shock checks show that response patterns are shock-source-dependent. Electricity-return multifractal spectrum width (MFW) does not show stable full-sample explanatory power for TCI, but it provides stage-dependent auxiliary diagnostic information. These findings provide a comparative diagnostic framework for monitoring cross-market systemic risk and supporting sustainability-oriented energy-market governance under low-carbon transition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: