Enerji Güvenliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türk Dünyası Ülke Panelinden Kanıtlar

Abstract

Modern dünya ekonomisinin en stratejik girdisi konumunda olan enerji, uluslararası politik rekabetin de önemli bir unsurudur. Ampirik literatürde enerjinin ekonomik büyümedeki rolüne yönelik birçok çalışma bulunmasına rağmen, enerji güvenliği konusunda çok az sayıda çalışma mevcuttur. Bu bağlamda, Türk Dünyası ülkeleri arasında yer alan Türkiye, Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Türkmenistan ve Özbekistan’dan oluşan panel veri setiyle 1992-2016 yılları arasında enerji güvenliği ve büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen bu çalışmayla literatüre önemli bir katkı yapılması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan veri setinde yatay kesit bağımlılığı tespit edilmiş olup, bu duruma uygun ekonometrik yöntemlerden CIPS testi ile değişkenlerin farkında durağan olduğu; Panel Durbin-Hausman Eşbütünleşme testi ile değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. AMG tahmincisinden elde edilen sonuçlara göre, enerji güvenliği risk seviyesinde %1 artış Türk Dünyası ülkelerinde ekonomik büyümeyi yaklaşık %0,95 azaltmaktadır. Elde edilen bu sonuçlar, enerji güvenliği konusunun Türk Dünyası ülkeleri için önemli bir politika meselesi olduğunu göstermekte, bu yönde uygulanacak politikaların önemini vurgulamaktadır

Keywords

• Enerji Güvenliği
• Enerji Ekonomisi
• Enerji Jeopolitiği
• Türk Dünyası
• Büyüme
• Durbin-Hausman Eşbütünleşme
• Augmented Mean Group Estimator.

The Relationship between Energy Security and Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel of Turkic World Countries

Abstract

Energy, which is the most strategic input of the modern world economy, is also an important element of international political competition. Although many studies in the current empirical literature provide evidence for the role of energy in economic growth, there are few studies in the empirical literature on energy security. In this context, it is aimed to make an important contribution to the literature with this study that examines the relationship between energy security and growth in the years 1992 to 2016 with the panel data set consisting of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, which are among the countries of the Turkic World. The Cross-section dependence has been determined in the data set used in the study, and it has been determined that the variables are stationary at the first difference by the CIPS test, which is one of the econometric methods suitable for this situation. Then, it has been concluded that there is a cointegration relationship between the variables by the panel Durbin-Hausman cointegration test. According to the AMG estimator, a 1% increase in energy security risk reduces economic growth by approximately 0.95%. These results demonstrate that energy security is an important policy issue for the Turkic World countries and emphasizes the importance of policies to be implemented in this direction.

Keywords

• Energy Security
• Energy Economy
• Energy Geopolitics
• Turkic World
• Growth
• Durbin-Hausman Cointegration
• Augmented Mean Group Estimator.

References

1. Aminjonov, Farkhod. “Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation Program as Driver of Regional Energy Projects to Promote Energy Security in the Post-Soviet Central Asia.” Post-Soviet Issues, no. 6, vol. 1, 2019, ss. 53–64, doi:10.24975/2313-8920-2019-6-1-53-64.
2. Aminjonov, Farkhod. Limitations of the Central Asian Energy Security Policy: Priorities and Prospects for Improvement. The Centre for International Governance Innovation, Paper No: 103, 2016.
3. BP. “Statistical Review of World Energy.” 26 Ekim 2019, https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html.
4. Breusch, Trevor S., ve Adrian R. Pagan. “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics.” The Review of Economic Studies, no. 47, vol. 1, 1980, ss. 239–53.
5. Eberhardt, Markus, and Stephen Bond. “Cross-section Dependence in Nonstationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator”. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 2009.
6. Eberhardt, Markus, and Francis Teal. “Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production.” Economics Series Working Papers, no. 515, 2010.
7. Global Energy Institute. “Energy Security Risk Index.” 1 Temmuz 2019, https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/energy-security-risk-index.
8. Global Energy Institute. International Index of Energy Security Risk 2018 Edition. The United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation, 2018.

9. Hadri, Kaddour. “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data.” The Econometrics Journal, no. 3, vol. 2, 2000, ss. 148–61, doi:10.1111/1368-423X.00043.
10. International Energy Agency. “Energy Security.” 6 Ağustos 2020, https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-security.
11. Karabulut, Bilal. “Enerji Güvenliğine Küresel Ölçekte Bir Bakış.” Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, no. 15, vol. 1, 2016, ss. 31–54.
12. Kartal, Gökhan. Orta Doğu Ülkelerinde Politik İstikrarsızlık, Enerji Güvenliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi. Doktora Tezi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi, 2018.
13. Kartal, Gökhan. “The Effects of Positive and Negative Shocks in Energy Security on Economic Growth: Evidence From Asymmetric Causality Analysis for Turkey”. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, vol. 56, no. 1, 2022, ss. 223-239, doi: 10.24818/18423264/56.1.22.14.
14. Kruyt, Bert vd. “Indicators for Energy Security.” Energy Policy, no. 37, vol. 6, 2009, ss. 2166–81, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.006.
15. Le, Thai Ha, and Canh Phuc Nguyen. “Is Energy Security a Driver for Economic Growth? Evidence from a global sample.” Energy Policy, 2019, ss. 436–51, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.038.
16. Pamir, Necdet. “Enerji Politikaları ve Küresel Gelişmeler.” Stratejik Analiz, no. 6, vol. 68, 2005, ss. 57–73.
17. Pesaran, M. Hashem. “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence Of Crosssection Dependence.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, no. 22, vol. 2, 2007, ss. 265–312, doi:10.1002/jae.951.
18. Pesaran, M. Hashem. “Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure”. Econometrica, no. 74, vol. 4, 2006, ss. 967–1012, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x.
19. Pesaran, M. Hashem. “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels.” CESifo Working Paper, No:1229, 2004.
20. Pesaran, M. Hashem, and Takashi Yamagata. “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels.” Journal of Econometrics, no. 142, vol. 1, 2008, ss. 50–93, doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
21. Pesaran, M. Hashem vd. “A Bias-adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-section Independence.” The Econometrics Journal, no. 11, vol. 1, 2008, ss. 105–27, doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x.
22. Sevim, Cenk. “Küresel Enerji Jeopolitiği ve Enerji Güvenliği.” Journal of Yasar University, no. 7, vol. 26, 2012, ss. 4378–91.
23. Stavytskyy, Andriy vd. “Estimating the Interrelation between Energy Security and Macroeconomic Factors in European Countries.” Journal of International Studies, no. 11, vol. 3, 2018, ss. 217–38, doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-3/18.
24. Trade Map. “Trade Statistics.” 26 Ekim 2019, https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx.
25. Westerlund, Joakim. “Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Effect.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, no. 23, vol. 2, 2008, ss. 193–233, doi:10.1002/jae.967.
26. Westerlund, Joakim, and David L. Edgerton. “A Panel Bootstrap Cointegration Test”. Economics Letters, no. 97, vol. 3, 2007, ss. 185–90, doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
27. World Bank. “World Development Indicators Database.” 26 Ekim 2019, https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators.