ÇEVRESEL PHİLLİPS EĞRİSİ HİPOTEZİNİN GEÇERLİLİĞİNİN ANALİZİ: CIVETS ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, CIVETS ülkeleri (Kolombiya, Endonezya, Vietnam, Mısır, Türkiye ve Güney Afrika) için 1991-2022 döneminde çevresel Phillips eğrisinin geçerliliğini incelemektedir. Ekolojik ayak izi bağımlı değişken, işsizlik oranı temel açıklayıcı değişken, ekonomik büyüme ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ise kontrol değişkenleri olarak modele dâhil edilmiştir. Uzun dönem analizinde panel DOLSMG yöntemi uygulanmış, nedensellik ilişkilerinin belirlenmesinde Canning ve Pedroni (2008) panel nedensellik testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı etkisi olduğunu, yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ise ekolojik ayak izini azalttığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca işsizlik oranının ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki düşürücü etkisi, ekonomik durgunluk dönemlerinde çevresel baskının azaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çevresel Phillips eğrisi Kolombiya, Vietnam, Türkiye, Güney Afrika ve panel geneli için geçerli, Endonezya ve Mısır için geçerli bulunmamıştır. Nedensellik analizine göre, işsizlik ile yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve ekolojik ayak izi arasında çift yönlü; ekonomik büyümeden ekolojik ayak izi, yenilenebilir enerji ve işsizliğe tek yönlü; ekolojik ayak izinden yenilenebilir enerjiye ise tek yönlü nedensellik mevcuttur.

Keywords

• Çevresel Phillips Eğrisi
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• CIVETS

ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PHILLIPS CURVE HYPOTHESIS: THE CASE OF CIVETS COUNTRIES

Abstract

This study examines the validity of the environmental Phillips curve for CIVETS countries (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Türkiye, and South Africa) during the period 1991-2022. The ecological footprint is the dependent variable, the unemployment rate is the primary explanatory variable, and economic growth and renewable energy consumption are included as control variables in the model. The panel DOLSMG method was applied in the long-term analysis, and the Canning and Pedroni (2008) panel causality test was used to determine causal relationships. The findings show that economic growth has a positive and significant effect on the ecological footprint, while renewable energy consumption reduces the ecological footprint. Furthermore, the reducing effect of the unemployment rate on the ecological footprint reveals that environmental pressure decreases during periods of economic recession. The environmental Phillips curve is valid for Colombia, Vietnam, Türkiye, South Africa, and the panel as a whole, but not for Indonesia and Egypt. According to the causality analysis, there is a bidirectional causality between unemployment and renewable energy consumption and ecological footprint; a unidirectional causality from economic growth to ecological footprint, renewable energy, and unemployment; and a unidirectional causality from ecological footprint to renewable energy.

Keywords

• Environmental Phillips Curve
• Ecological Footprint
• CIVETS

References

1. Anser, M. K., Apergis, N., Syed, Q. R. ve Alola, A. A. (2021). Exploring a new perspective of sustainable development drive through environmental Phillips curve in the case of the BRICST countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48112-48122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14056-5
2. Ayad, H. ve Djedaiet, A. (2024). Does the unemployment rate matter for environmental issues in the G7 nations? New testing for the environmental Phillips curve using the load capacity factor. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04956-0
3. Azimi, M. N. ve Rahman, M. M. (2024). Examining the environmental Phillips curve hypothesis in G7 nations: Critical insights from wavelet coherence and wavelet causality analysis. Quality & Quantity, 58(4), 5683-5713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01909-7
4. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data (6th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
5. Bhowmik, R., Syed, Q. R., Apergis, N., Alola, A.A. ve Gai, Z. (2022). Applying a dynamic ARDL approach to the environmental Phillips curve (EPC) hypothesis amid monetary, fiscal, and trade policy uncertainty in the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10), 14914-14928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16716-y
6. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
7. Canning, D. ve Pedroni, P. (2008). Infrastructure, long-run economic growth and causality tests for cointegrated panels. The Manchester School, 76(5), 504-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2008.01073
8. Çakmak, T. K., Beşer, M. K. ve Alola, A. A. (2023). Environmental effect of high-, upper, and lower middle-income economies’ energy mix: Is there a trade-off between unemployment and environmental quality? Energy & Environment, 36(2), 851-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231187034

9. Daştan, M. ve Eygü, H. (2023). An empirical investigation of the link between economic growth, unemployment, and ecological footprint in Turkey: Bridging the EKC and EPC hypotheses. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04106-y
10. Djedaiet, A. (2023). Does environmental quality react asymmetrically to unemployment and inflation rates? African OPEC countries’ perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 102418-102427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29621-3
11. Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T. ve Luni, T. (2022). Revisiting the nexus of ecological footprint, unemployment, and renewable and non-renewable energy for South Asian economies: Evidence from novel research methods. Renewable Energy, 194, 1060-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.165
12. Durani, F., Bhowmik, R., Sharif, A., Anwar, A. ve Syed, Q. R. (2023). Role of economic uncertainty, financial development, natural resources, technology, and renewable energy in the environmental Phillips curve framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 420, 138334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138334
13. Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N. et al. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science, 15, 1101-1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x
14. Global Footprint Network. (2025). Ecological Footprint, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2025)
15. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
17. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2023a). MIKTA ülkelerinde çevresel Phillips eğrisi hipotezinin test edilmesi: CS-ARDL testi yaklaşımı. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 301-316. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1104588
18. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2023b). A new approach to sustainable development: analysis of the environmental Phillips curve hypothesis. Sosyoekonomi, 31(56), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.02.01
19. International Energy Agency. (2025). Renewable Energy Consumption Per Capita (kWh). https://www.iea.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2025)
20. IPCC (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
21. Kashem, M. A. ve Rahman, M. M. (2020). Environmental Phillips curve: OECD and Asian NICs perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(25), 31153-31170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08620-8
22. Kinnunen, J., Georgescu, I. ve Nica, I. (2024). Evaluating the Environmental Phillips Curve Hypothesis in the STIRPAT Framework for Finland. Sustainability, 16(11), 4381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114381
23. Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. OECD Development Centre Studies. OECD Publishing.
24. Malik, Z. ve Shaikh, O. (2023). The EPC hypothesis revisited in G-20 countries: A novel panel data analysis. IJCRT, 11(3), 305-317. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4405374
25. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. ve Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
26. Ng, C-F., Yii, K-J., Lau, L-S. ve Go, Y-H. (2023). Unemployment rate, clean energy, and ecological footprint in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 42863-42872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17966-6
27. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (No. WP238). Technology and Environment Programme, International Labour Office.
28. Pearce, D. W. ve Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727-731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803
30. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
31. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
32. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
33. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
34. Phillips, A. W. (1958). The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861–1957. Economica, 25(100), 283-299.
35. Rayhan, I., Al Nahian, M. A. ve Siddika, A. (2020). Reevaluating the environmental Kuznets curve and environmental Phillips curve in Bangladesh: An augmented ARDL bounds test approach with a structural break. The Jahangirnagar Economic Review, 31, 109-134.
36. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... ve Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.
37. Sahin, G., Naimoglu, M., Kavaz, I. ve Sahin, A. (2025). Examining the environmental Phillips curve hypothesis in the ten most polluting emerging economies: Economic Dynamics and Sustainability. Sustainability, 17(3), 920. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030920
38. Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications.
39. Shastri, S., Mohapatra, G. ve Giri, A. K. (2023). The environmental Phillips curve from a gender perspective: Empirical evidence from India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 17487-17496. https://doi.org/10.1007
40. Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
41. Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press.
42. Tanveer, A., Song, H., Faheem, M. ve Chaudhry, I. S. (2022). Validation of environmental Phillips curve in Pakistan: A fresh insight through ARDL technique. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 25060-25077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17099-w
43. Tariq, S., Mehmood, U., ul Haq, Z. ve Mariam, A. (2022). Exploring the existence of environmental Phillips curve in South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 35396-35407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18099-6
44. Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
45. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
46. Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
47. World Bank. (2025). Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (Constant 2015 US$), Unemployment Rate (%). https://data.worldbank.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2025)
48. Yavuz, E., Kilic, E. ve Caglar, A. E. (2023). A new hypothesis for the unemployment-environment dilemma: Is the environmental Phillips curve valid in the framework of load capacity factor in Turkiye? Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04258-x