KİRLİLİK YARATAN SEKTÖRLERİN TİCARETİ VE ÇEVRE: GELİŞMİŞ VE GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKELER KARŞILAŞTIRMASI

Abstract

Sanayi Devrimi’nden bu yana; gelişmiş ülkelerin küresel çevre kirliliğindeki payının yüksek olduğu bilinmektedir. Bununla birlikte; çevre koruma unsurlarının önemi ortaya çıktıktan sonra, gelişmiş ülkeler dış ticaret ve yatırım yoluyla kirli endüstrilerini gelişmekte olan ülkelere taşıma eğilimine girmişlerdir. Dolayısıyla; günümüzde hızla sanayileşen gelişmekte olan ülkelerin kirlilikteki payı önemli ölçüde artmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi ÇKE birlikte incelenmiştir. İnceleme sonucunda ÇKE’ye göre; kişi başına gelir ile CO2 emisyonu arasındaki ilişki gelişmiş ülkelerde ters-U; gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ise U şeklinde çıkmıştır. Ayrıca gelişmekte olan ülkelerde, kirlilik yaratan sektörlerin ihracattaki payı arttıkça CO2 salımının arttığı da bulgular arasındadır.

Keywords

• Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, Kirli Endüstriler

TRADE BETWEEN POLLUTION-CREATING SECTORS AND ENVIRONMENT: A COMPARISON OF DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Abstract

It has-been a very well known fact that developing countries have had a higher share in creating environmental pollution since the Industrial Revolution. Besides this fact, in the aftermath of emergence of environmental protection necessities, developed countries have tended to carry their pollution creating industries to the developing world by means of foreign trade and investment. As a result of this, rapidly industrializing developing counties have had a more substantial share in the creation of pollution. This work analyzes both the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Environmental Kuznets Curve EKC thesis at the same time. The study indicates that according to the EKC, there exists an inverse U relationship between CO2 emissions and per capita income in the developed countries while the pattern of the relationship takes a U shape for the developing countries. In the meantime the study also finds out that as the sectors causing more pollution have an increasing share in exports in developing countries, the CO2 emissions do increase too

Keywords

• Pollution Haven Hypothesis, Environmental Kuznets Curve, Dirty Industries

References

1. BALTAGI, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 4th Edition, Chichester, England.
2. BIRDSALL, N., WHEELER, D. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are the pollution havens? Journal of Environment & Development 2(1), 137-147. ss.
3. BÖLGESEL ÇEVRE MERKEZİ (REC) (2006). Birleşmiş Milletler iklim değişikliği çerçeve sözleşmesi ve Kyoto Protokolü metin ve bilgiler. Yunus Arıkan (yayına hazırlayan), Ankara.
4. BREUSCH, T. S., PAGAN, A. R., (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review Of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, Vol. 47 (1), 239-253. ss.
5. COLE, A.MATTHEW (2000). Air pollution and ‘dirty’ industries: how and why does the composition of manufacturing output change with economic development? Environmental and Resource Eraconomics 17, 109-123 ss.
6. ÇEVRE VE ORMAN BAKANLIĞI (1998). Birleşmiş Milletler iklim değişikliği çerçeve sözleşmesi Kyoto Protokolü. Birleşmiş Milletler-Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı.
7. DIETZ, S., ADGER, W.N. (2003). Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort. Journal of Environmental Management 68, 23–35. ss.
8. EROĞLU, V. (2009), İklim Değişikliğinde Çözüme Ortak Türkiye. [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 05.12.2009].

9. ESKELAND, G.S., HARRISON, A.E. (1997). Moving to greener pastures: multinationals and pollution-havens. The World Bank Environment, Infrastructure and Agriculture Divisions: Policy Research Department, World Bank, Washington.
10. GRETHER, J.M., de MELO, J. (2003). Gloablization and dirty industries: Do pollution havens matter? NBER Working Papers 9776, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
11. GROSSMAN, G., KRUEGER, A.B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North-American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper 3914.
12. GROSSMAN, G., KRUEGER, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, May: 353-377.
13. GÜLOĞLU, B., İVRENDİ, M. (2008) Output fluctuations: transitory or permanent? the case of Latin America. Applied Economic Letters 17: 4, 381-386. ss.
14. HARRIS, M.N.; MATYAS, L., KONYA, L. (2002),.Modelling the impact of environmental regulations on bilateral trade flows: OECD 1990-96. The World Economy, 25(3), 387- 405. ss.
15. HETTIGE, H., LUCAS, R.E.B., WHEELER, D. (1992). The toxic intensity of industrial production: global patterns, trends and trade policy. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 82, 478-81. ss.
16. HOFFMANN, R., LEE, C., RAMASAMY, B., YEUNG, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: a Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17, 7–311. ss.
17. IM, K., PESARAN, H., SHIN, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogenous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74. ss.
18. KOLSTAD, C.D., XING, J. (1998). Do lax environmental regulations attract foreign investment? Department of Economics, UCSB, Departmental Working Papers, Paper wp28-98pt1.
19. KUZNETS, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review 49, 1–28. ss.
20. LETCHUMANAN R., KODAMA, F. (2000). Reconciling the conflict between the “pollution-haven” hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer. Research Policy, vol 29, 59-79. ss.
21. LIST, J.A., CO, C.Y. (2000). The effects of environmental regulations on foreign direct investment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40, 1-20. ss.
22. LOW, P., YEATES, A. (1992). Do 'dirty' industries migrate. P. LOW (ed.) International trade and the environment içinde. World Bank discussion paper, No. 159, 89-104. ss.
23. LUCAS, R., WHEELER, P., HETTIAGE, H. (1992). Economic development, environmental regulation and international migration of toxic pollution 1960-1988, P. LOW (ed.) International trade and the environment World Bank Discussion Paper 159, Washington.
24. MANI, M. S. (1996). Environmental tariffs on polluting imports: an empirical study. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 391-411. ss.
25. MANI, M., WHEELER, D. (1997). In search of pollution havens?: dirty industry migration in the world economy. World Bank Working paper No. 16, April.
26. MARK, N. C., SUL, D. (2002). Cointegration vector estimation by panel DOLS and long-run money demand. NBER Technical Working Paper No. 287, 1-23.
27. MILLS, J.H., WAITE, T.A. (2009). Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics 68, 2087-2095. ss.
28. PESARAN, H.M., SHIN, Y., SMİTH R. P. (2004). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogenous panels. ESE Discussion Paper 16, 1-26. ss.
29. PESARAN, M. H. (2006). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Cambridge University & USC, 1-64. ss.
30. PESARAN, M. H., SHİN, Y. AND SMİTH, R. J. (1999), Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 621– 34. ss.
31. ROBISON, H. D. (1988). Industrial pollution abatement: the impact on balance of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, 21, 187-99. ss.
32. SHAFIK, N. (1994). Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 757-73. ss.
33. STERN, D. I. (2004). Comment on: Cole M. A. (2003) development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economics, 8, 557–580. ss.
34. TOBEY, J.A. (1990). The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: An empirical test. Kyklos, 43, 191-209. ss.
35. TORRAS, M., BOYCE, J.K. (1998). Income, inequality and pollution: A reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 195-208. ss.
36. UN-DPT (United Nations-Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı) (2005). Binyıl Kalkınma Hedefleri Raporu 2005.
37. United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Data Base, [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 07.03.2011].
38. United Nations Statistic Division, Environmental Indıcators Greenhouse Gas Emission, [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 15.03.2011].
39. UNU-WIDER (United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research) (2008). WIDER annual lecture 11 the climate change challenge, UNDP.
40. Van BEERS, C., van den BERGH, J.C.J.M. (1997). An emprical multi-country analysis of the impact of environmental regulations on foreign trade flows. Kyklos, 50(1), 29-46. ss.
41. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: WCED.
42. WESTERLUND, J. (2006). Testing for panel cointegration with multiple structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin Of Economics And Statistics, 68 (1), 101-132. ss.
43. WESTERLUND, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69 (6), 709-747. ss.
44. WHEELER D. (1999). Racing to the bottom? foreign investment and air pollution in developing countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2524.
45. WORLD BANK (2010). World development report 2010: development and climate change.
46. The World Bank, Data, [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 16.03.2011].
47. The World Bank, Global Development Finance, [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 02.02.2011].
48. World Trade Organization, [Erişim adresi]: , [Erişim tarihi: 04.04.2011].
49. XU X. (1999). Do stringent environmental regulations reduce the international competitiveness of environmentally sensitive goods? A Global Perspective. World Development, Volume 27(7), 1215-1226. ss.