Dış Ticaret-Çevre Kirliliği İlişkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerinden Analiz

Year 2024, , 474 - 489, 31.05.2024

İbrahim Çütcü , Özge Yavuz Selçuk Gökhan Gerlikhan

https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1339779

Abstract

Çalışmada, Türkiye ekonomisi üzerinden dış ticaret ile çevre arasındaki ilişki 1960-2015 dönemi yıllık verileri ile incelenmektedir. Çevresel gösterge ekolojik ayak izi kullanılmaktadır. Dış ticaret göstergeleri olarak ise ihracat ithalat verileri modele dahil edilmiştir. Yapısal kırılmaya izin veren zaman serisi analizlerinin kullanıldığı çalışmada; Maki eşbütünleşme testine göre değişkenler arasında yapısal kırılmalar ile birlikte uzun dönemli ilişki görülmektedir. Zamanla Değişen Nedensellik Analizi sonuçlarına göre GDP’den ekolojik ayak izine doğru herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisi yakalanmamış olup diğer tüm değişkenlerin bağımlı değişken olan ekolojik ayak izi ile belirtilen tarih aralıklarında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi görülmüştür.

Keywords

Dış Ticaret, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Enerji Tüketimi

Supporting Institution

TUBİKTAK

Project Number

1919B012215338

Foreign Trade-Environmental Pollution Relationship: An Analysis over the Turkish Economy

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between foreign trade and the environment through the Turkish economy using annual data for the period 1960-2015. For environmental indicators, the study employs the ecological footprint. Export and import data are included in the model as foreign trade indicators. In the study, time series analyses that allow for structural breaks are used, and according to the Maki cointegration test, a long-term relationship with structural breaks between the variables is observed. However, the results of Time-Varying Causality Analysis show that there is no causality relationship from GDP to the ecological footprint, while all other variables exhibit a bidirectional causality relationship with the dependent variable, the ecological footprint, in the specified time intervals.

Keywords

Foreign Trade, Ecological Footprint, Energy Consumption

Project Number

1919B012215338

References

• Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai,C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A.H. (2015). Investigating the environmental kuznets curve (ekc) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation, Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
• Andersson, J.O., & Lindroth, M. (2001). Analysis ecologically unsustainable trade, Ecological Economics, 37, 113–122.
• Ansari, M.A., Ahmad, M.R., Siddique, S., & Mansoor, K. (2020). An environment kuznets curve for ecological footprint: evidence from GCC countries, Carbon Management, 11(4), 355–368.
• Arslantürk, Y., Balcılar, M., & Özdemir, Z.A. (2011). Time-varying linkages between tourism receipts and economic growth in a small open economy, Economic Modelling, 28(1), 664-671.
• Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1), 1-22.
• Carrion-I Silvestre, J.L., Kim, D., & Perron, P. (2009). GLS-based unit root tests with multiple structural breaks under both the null and the alternative hypotheses, Econometric Theory, 25(06)1, 1754-1792.
• Charfeddine, L. (2017). The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and co2 emissions: evidence from a markov switching equilibrium correction model, Energy Economics, 65: 355–374.
• Destek, M.A. & Sarkodie, S.A. (2019). Investigation of environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development, Sci Total Environ, 650(2), 2483-2489.
• Dogan, E., Ulucak, R., Kocak, E., & Isık, C. (2020). The use of ecological footprint in estimating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity, Sci. Total Environ. 723, 138063.
• Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T.J.& Stock, J.H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root, Econometrica, 64, 813–836.
• Farhani, S., Shahbaz, M., & Arouri, M.E.H. (2013). Panel analysis of co2 emissions, gdp, energy consumption, trade openness and urbanization for MENA countries, MPRA Paper 49258, 1-19. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49258
• Fotros, M.H., & Maaboudi, R. (2010). The impact of trade openness on co2 emissions in Iran, 1971-2005. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/5112.pdf
• Gao, J., & Tian, M. (2016). Analysis of over-consumption of natural resources and the ecological trade deficit in China based on ecological footprints, Ecological Indicators, 61, 899-904.
• Ghita S.I., Saseanu A.S., Gogonea, R.M., & Huidumac-Petrescu C.E. (2018). Perspectives of ecological footprint in European context under the impact of information society and sustainable development, Sustainability, 10(3224), 1-25.
• Global Footprint Network (2022) (2022). Global ecological footprint data. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
• Göçer, İ. , Mercan, M., & Peker, O. (2013). Kredi hacmi artışının cari açığa etkisi: çoklu yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme analizi, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 18, 1-17.
• Hacker, R.S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application, Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500.
• Hervieux, M.S., & Darné O. (2015). Environmental kuznets curve and ecological footprint: a time series analysis, Economics Bulletin, 35(1):814–826.
• Jorgenson, A.K., & Rice, J. (2005). Structural dynamics of international trade and material consumption: a cross-national study of the ecological footprints of less-developed countries, Journal of World SystemsResearch, 11, 57-77.
• Kahn, R.J. (1998). The economic approach to environmental and natural resources. Second Edition, Thomson South-Western, United States.
• Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). 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, 54: 159-178.
• Le Th, C.Y., & Park, D. (2016). Trade openness and environmental quality: international evidence, Energy Policy, 92:45–55.
• Maki, D. (2012). Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks, Economic Modelling, 29(5), 2011-2015.
• Perron, P., & Qu, Z. (2006). Estimating restricted structural change models, Journal of Econometrics, 134(2), 373-399.
• Rehman, A., Radulescu, M., Ma, H., Dagar, V., Hussain, I., & Khan, M.K. (2021). The impact of globalization, energy use, and trade on ecological footprint in Pakistan: does environmental sustainability exist, Energies, 14, 5234.
• Saqib, M., & Benhmad, F. (2021). Does ecological footprint matter for the shape of the environmental kuznets curve? evidence from european countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 13634–13648.
• Schwert, G.W. (1989). Tests for unit root: a monte carlo investigation, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 7, 147-160.
• Tang, C.F. (2008). Wagner’s law versus keynesian hypothesis: new evidence from recursive regression based causality approaches, ICFAI Journal of Public Finance, 6(4), 29-38.
• Tran, N.V. (2020). The environmental effects of trade openness in developing countries: conflict or cooperation?, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19783–19797.
• Udemba, E.N. (2021). Ascertainment of ecological footprint and environmental kuznets in China. In: Muthu, S.S. (Ed.). Assessment of ecological footprints. environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes. Springer, Singapore.
• Usman, M., Kousar, R., Yaseen, M.R., & Makhdum, M.S.A. (2020). An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in upper-middle-income countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 27, 38995–39018.
• WackernageL, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: reducing human ımpact on the earth. Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers.
• Yılancı, V., Pata, U.K., & Cutcu, I. (2022). Testing the persistence of shocks on ecological footprint and sub accounts: evidence from the big ten emerging markets, Int. J. Environ. Res. 16(1), 1-13.