Türkiye’de Yolsuzluk ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 353 - 361, 15.04.2021

Ferda Özsoy

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.762565

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Çalışmada Türkiye’de 1995-2016 gözlem aralığında kamudaki yolsuzluğun çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı ile incelenmiştir. Ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki doğrusal etkilerinin yanı sıra olası parabolik ve kübik etkileri de incelenmiş, bu doğrultuda ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki EKC hipotezi çerçevesinde test edilmiştir. Ayrıca dışa açıklık endeksi ve yolsuzluk endeksinin de çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmıştır. Kısa dönemde ekonomik büyüme ile çevre kirliliği arasında N-şeklinde bir ilişki tespit edilmiş; dışa açıklık endeksinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olduğu ve yolsuzluğun ise çevre kirliliğini artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Uzun dönemde ekonomik büyüme ile çevre kirliliği arasında ters N-şeklinde ilişki tespit edilmiş; dışa açıklık endeksi ve yolsuzluk değişkenlerinin katsayısının istatistiki olarak anlamsız olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Yolsuzluk, Ekonomik Büyüme, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi

Investigation of Relationship Between Corruption and Ecological Footprint in Turkey

Abstract

In this study, the effect of the corruption in the public sector on environmental pollution is examined in Turkey during 1995-2016 by applying ARDL bounds testing approach. In addition to the linear effects of economic growth on the ecological footprint, possible parabolic and cubic effects are also examined, and the relationship between economic growth and ecological footprint is tested in the framework of the EKC hypothesis. In addition, the effects of trade openness index and corruption index on environmental pollution are investigated. In the short term, the N-shaped relationship has been detected between economic growth and environmental pollution. It is concluded that the trade openness index has a negative effect on the ecological footprint and corruption increases environmental pollution. In the long term, the inverse N-shaped relationship has been found between economic growth and environmental pollution. It is concluded that the coefficient of trade openness index and corruption are statistically insignificant.

Keywords

Corruption, Economic Growth, Environmental Kuznets Curve

References

• Ahmad, N., Du, L., Lu, J., Wang, J., Li, H. Z., & Hashmi, M. Z. (2017). Modelling the Co2 emissions and economic growth in Croatia: is there any environmental kuznets curve? Energy, 123, 164-172.
• 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.
• Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I, & Solarin SA. (2016) Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: the role of renewable energy. Ecol Indic 67:267–282.
• Anser, M. K., Alharthi, M., Aziz, B., & Wasim, S. (2020). Impact of urbanization, economic growth, and population size on residential carbon emissions in the SAARC countries. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1-14.
• Aslan, A., Destek, M. A., & Okumus, I. (2018). Sectoral carbon emissions and economic growth in the US: further evidence from rolling window estimation method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200, 402–411.
• Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Driha, O. M. (2019). The role of energy innovation and corruption in carbon emissions: evidence based on the ekc hypothesis. Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization (pp. 271-304). Springer, Cham.
• Bölük, G. & Mert, M. (2015). The renewable energy, growth and environmental kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 587-595.
• Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z., (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76, 138–154.
• Chen, H., Hao, Y., Li, J., & Song, X. (2018). the impact of environmental regulation, shadow economy, and corruption on environmental quality: theory and empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner production, 195, 200-214.
• Cho, C. H., Chu, Y. P. & Yang, H. Y. (2014). An environment kuznets curve for ghg emissions: a panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(2), 120-129.
• Çetin, M., Ecevit, E., & Yucel, A. G. (2018). The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(36), 36589-36603.
• Damania, R., P.G. Fredriksson, & J.A. List (2003), Trade liberalization, corruption and environmental policy formation: theory and evidence, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46: 490–512.
• Desai, U. (ed.) (1998), Ecological policy and politics in developing countries: growth, democracy and environment, Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Destek, M. A. & Ozsoy, F. N. (2015). Relationships between economic growth, energy consumption, globalization, urbanization and environmental degradation in Turkey. International Journal of Energy and Statistics, 3(4), 1-13.
• Destek, M. A., Balli, E., & Manga, M. (2016). The relationship between co2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, 7(1), 52-58.
• Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387-29396.
• Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of The Total Environment, 650, 2483–2489. Do, T., & Dinh, H. (2020). Short-and long-term effects of gdp, energy consumption, fdi, and trade openness on co2 emissions. Accounting, 6(3), 365-372.
• Dogan, E., & Turkekul, B. (2016). Co2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the ekc hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203-1213.
• Dogan, E., & Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2020). the impact of economic structure to the environmental kuznets curve (ekc) hypothesis: evidence from European Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-8.
• Fredriksson, P. G., Vollebergh, H. R., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2004). Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 47(2), 207-231.
• Global Footprint Network, 2017. National footprint accounts, ecological footprint. (Erişim: 25.06.2020). http://data.footprintnetwork.org.
• Grossman, G.M. & A.B. Krueger (1995), Economic growth and the environment, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 353–377.
• Hafner, O. (1998), The role of corruption in the misappropriation of tropical forest resources and in tropical forest destruction, Transparency International Working Paper, www.transparency.org/documents/work-papers.
• Hervieux, M.-S., & Darné, O., (2015). Environmental kuznets curve and ecological footprint: time series analysis. Econ. Bull. 35, 814–826
• Kahia, M., Omri, A., & Jarraya, B. (2021). Does green energy complement economic growth for achieving environmental sustainability? evidence from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 13(1), 180.
• Kasman, A. & Duman, Y. S. (2015). Co2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 44, 97-103.
• Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, & P. Zoido-Lobaton (1999), governance matters, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
• Khan, S. A. R., Zaman, K., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The relationship between energy-resource depletion, climate change, health resources and the environmental kuznets curve: evidence from the panel of selected developed countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 468-477.
• Kılavuz, E., & Doğan, İ. (2020). Economic growth, openness, industry and co2 modelling: are regulatory policies important in Turkish economies?. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies.
• Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter?. Energy Policy, 68, 490-497.
• Li, T., Wang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2016). Environmental kuznets curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy, 91, 138-147.
• Lippe, M. (1999). Corruption and environment at the local level. Transparency International Working Paper. Retrieved March, 31, 2014.
• López, R., & Mitra, S. (2000). Corruption, pollution, and the kuznets environment curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40(2), 137-150.
• Lucas, R.E., Wheeler, D., & Hettige, H. (1992). Economic development, environmental regulation, and the international migration of toxic industrial pollution, vol.1062. World Bank Publications, 1960-1988.
• Mrabet, Z., & Alsamara, M., (2017). Testing the kuznets curve hypothesis for Qatar: a comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 1366–1375.
• Murthy, K. V. & Gambhır, S. (2018). Analyzing environmental kuznets curve and pollution haven hypothesis in India in the context of domestic and global policy change. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 12(2): 134-156.
• Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl. Econ 37(17):1979–1990.
• Naz, S., Sultan, R., Zaman, K., Aldakhil, A. M., Nassani, A. A., & Abro, M. M. Q. (2019). Moderating and Mediating Role of Renewable Energy Consumption, FDI Inflows, and Economic Growth on Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence from Robust Least Square Estimator. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(3), 2806-2819.
• Ongan, S., Isik, C., & Özdemir, D. (2020). Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from the US case environmental kuznets curve hypothesis with application of decomposition. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1-8.
• Öztürk, I. & Acaravcı, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262-267.
• Özturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., & Saboori, B., (2016). Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 1916–1928.
• Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, O. (2017). Economic growth, energy, and environmental kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 639-647.
• Panayotou, T., (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. International Labour Organization.
• Pata, U. K. (2019). Environmental kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: bootstrap ardl approach with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20264-20276.
• Pearse, R. (2016). The coal question that emissions trading has not answered. Energy Policy 99, 319-328.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. Econometric Society Monographs 31: 371-413.
• Ridzuan, N. H. A. M., Marwan, N. F., Khalid, N., Ali, M. H., & Tseng, M. L. (2020). Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence of the environmental kuznets curve. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104879.
• Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K. & Eden, L. (2005). Government corruption and the entry strategies of multinationals. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30(2), 383-396.
• Sinha, A., Gupta, M., Shahbaz, M., & Sengupta, T. (2019). Impact of corruption in public sector on environmental quality: implications for sustainability in BRICS and Next 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1379–1393.
• Transparency International, (2016). (Erişim: 25.06.2020). https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2016.
• Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). a reinvestigation of ekc model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
• Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996.
• Uzar, U., & Eyuboglu, K. (2020). Do natural resources heal the environment? empirical evidence from Turkey. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 1-10.
• Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W., (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.
• World Bank, 2016. World development indicators. (Erişim: 25.06.2020). http://data.worldbank. org/country.
• Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). investigating the ekc hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International.
• Zhang, S., Liu, X., & Bae, J. (2017). Does trade openness affect co2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(21), 17616-17625.