Türkiye’de Dış Ticaret ve Karbondioksit Salınımı Arasındaki İlişkilerin Simetrik ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Testleriyle Analizi

Abstract

Dış ticaret, karbondioksit salınımını doğrudan ve dolaylı bir şekilde etkileyebilmektedir. Doğrudan etkinin karbondioksit salınımını arttırması, dolaylı etkinin azaltması sebebiyle artan dış ticaretin karbondioksit salınımı üzerindeki etkisi belirsizdir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de dış ticaret ile karbondioksit salınımı arasındaki ilişkiyi 1971-2011 döneminde simetrik Toda-Yamamoto 1995 , Hacker-Hatemi 2006 ve asimetrik Hatemi-J 2012 nedensellik testleri ile incelemektedir. Nedensellik testleri sonuçlarına göre dış ticaretten karbondioksit salınımına doğru pozitif tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca karbondioksit salınımından dış ticarete negatif bir geri besleme etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Karbondioksit Salınımı, Dış Ticaret, Simetrik ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Testleri, Çevre Kirliliği

The Symmetric and Asymmetric Causality Analysis between Foreign Trade and Carbon Emissions in Turkey

Abstract

Foreign trade can effect CO2 emissions either directly or indirectly. The impact of increasing foreign trade on carbon emissions is unclear because of direct effect increases carbon emissions versus indirect effect reduces this emission. This study investigates the causality relationship between foreign trade and carbon emissions with symmetric Toda-Yamamoto 1995 , Hacker-Hatemi 2006 and asymmetric Hatemi-J 2012 causality analyses covering the period from 1971 to 2011 in Turkey. According to these causality tests results, a positive one way causality is moving from foreign trade to carbon dioxide emissions. Also, a negative feedback effect has been found from carbon emissions to foreign trade

Keywords

• Carbon Emissions, Foreign Trade, Symmetric and Asymmetric Causality Tests, Environmental Pollution.

References

1. Ahmed, K., Shahbaz, M. ve Kyophilavong, P. (2016). Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: evidence from the newly industrializing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(8), 7676-7691.
2. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J. ve Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time-with discussion. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 37, 150-155.
3. Başar, S. ve Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Çevreye uyarlanmış kuznets eğrisi: Türkiye üzerine bir Uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 1-12.
4. Chebbi, H. E., Olarreaga, M. ve Zitouna, H. (2011). Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Tunisia. Middle East Development Journal, 3(1), 29-53.
5. Cialani C. (2013). CO2 emissions, GDP and trade: a panel cointegration approach. Dalarna University Working Papers in transport, tourism, information technology and microdata analysis No: 2013: 12. Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
6. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
7. Çetin, M. ve Seker, F. (2014). Ekonomik büyüme ve dış ticaretin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye için bir ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 213-230.
8. Dean, J. M. (1999). Testing the impact of trade liberalization on the environment: theory and evidence, P. Fredriksson, (Ed.) Trade, global policy and the environment. (55–63.ss) Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

9. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for an autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
10. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J. ve Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4), 813-836.
11. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50(4), 987-1007.
12. Ertugrul, H. M., Cetin, M., Seker, F. ve Dogan, E. (2016). The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 543-555.
13. Feridun, M., Ayadi, F. S. ve Balouga, J. (2006). Impact of trade liberalization on the environment in developing countries The case of Nigeria. Journal of Developing Societies, 22(1), 39-56.
14. Fotros, M. H. ve Maaboudi, R. (2011). Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Iran, 1971-2008. International Journal of Business and Development Studies, 3(1), 73-84.
15. Frankel, J. A. ve Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85-91.
16. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424-438.
17. Granger, C.W. J. ve Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden cointegration. University of California, Working Paper 2002–02.
18. Gu, Z., Gao, Y., ve Li, C. (2013). An empirical research on trade liberalization and CO2 emissions in China, International Conference on Education Technology and Information System (ICETIS 2013) içinde (243-246 ss.). Atlantis Press.
19. Hacker, R. S. ve Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500.
20. Hsiao, C. (1981). Autoregressive modelling and money-income causality detection. Journal of Monetary Economics, 7(1), 85-106.
21. Hatemi-J, A. (2003). A new method to choose optimal lag order in stable and unstable VAR models. Applied Economics Letters, 10(3), 135-137.
22. Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 447-456.
23. Ibrahim, M. H. ve Law, S. H. (2016). Institutional quality and CO2 emission–trade relations: evidence from Sub‐Saharan Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 84(2), 323-340.
24. Le, T. H., Chang, Y. ve Park, D. (2016). Trade openness and environmental quality: International evidence. Energy Policy, 92, 45-55.
25. Managi, S. (2004). Trade liberalization and the environment: carbon dioxide for 1960-1999. Economics Bulletin, 17(1), 1-5.
26. Managi, S., Hibiki, A. ve Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade openness improve environmental quality?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(3), 346-363.
27. Naranpanawa, A. (2010). Does trade openness promote carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(10), 973-986.
28. Phillips, P. C. B., ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for unit roots in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
29. Rahman, M. Z. (2013). Relationship between trade openness and carbon emission: a case of Bangladesh. Journal of Empirical Economics, 1(4), 126-134.
30. Salam, S., Sattar, A. ve Gilani, S. W. (2015). An empirical research on trade libralization and Co2 emission in Pakistan. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 6(9), 39-46.
31. Sims, C. A. (1972). Money, income, and causality. The American Economic Review, 62(4), 540-552.
32. Tayebi, S. K. ve Younespour, S. (2012). The effect of trade openness on environmental quality: evidence from Iran's trade relations with the selected countries of the different blocks. Iranian Economic Review, 16(32), 19-40.
33. Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66(1), 225-250.
34. Ubaidillah, N. Z., Decker, L., Rahim, R. A. ve Ismail, F. (2013). The nexus between trade openness and CO2 emıssıons ın selected BIMP-EAGA countrıes. BIMP-EAGA Journal for Sustainable Tourism Development, 2(2), 29-39.