Does Trade Openness Affect Energy Security? Empirical Evidence from Türkiye

Abstract

Trade openness can create advantageous and disadvantageous situations for national economies. The impacts of trade openness on energy security are also crucial for policymakers, especially in countries dependent on fossil resources. This study aims to identify the link between trade openness and energy security and to prove that trade openness is one of the determinants of energy security for the Turkish economy. In the study, long-run analysis was carried out using cointegration analysis based on time series analysis. We used Türkiye's annual data for the period 1980-2018. Empirical findings point to a long-run relationship between the variables. According to the estimation results, trade openness increases the energy security risk. This result shows that increasing trade openness increases energy security risk due to the scale effect. We can say that the scale and composition effects dominate the relationship between openness and energy security for Türkiye. As can be seen from the study's empirical results, there is a significant relationship between trade openness and energy security in Türkiye, both in the short and long run. In this context, policymakers need to implement energy policies and trade policies simultaneously and with consideration for each other.

Keywords

• Energy Security
• Trade Openness
• Energy Policy
• Trade Policy

Ticari Açıklık Enerji Güvenliğini Etkiler mi? Türkiye’den Ampirik Bulgular

Abstract

Açıklık, ulusal ekonomiler için avantajlı ve dezavantajlı durumlar yaratabilir. Açıklığın enerji güvenliği üzerindeki etkileri, özellikle fosil kaynaklara bağımlı ülkelerde, politika yapıcılar için hayati öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışma, ticari açıklık ile enerji güvenliği arasındaki bağlantıyı belirlemeyi ve ticaret açıklığının Türkiye ekonomisi için enerji güvenliğinin belirleyicilerinden biri olduğunu kanıtlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, zaman serisi analizine dayalı eşbütünleşme analizi kullanılarak uzun vadeli analiz yapılmıştır. Türkiye'nin 1980-2018 dönemine ait yıllık verileri kullanılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, kullanılan değişkenler arasında uzun vadeli bir ilişkiye işaret etmektedir. Tahmin sonuçlarına göre, ticari açıklık enerji güvenliği riskini arttırmaktadır. Bu sonuç, ölçek etkisi nedeniyle artan ticari açıklığın enerji güvenliği riskini artırdığını göstermektedir. Türkiye için açıklık ile enerji güvenliği arasındaki ilişkide ölçek etkisi ve bileşik etkinin baskın olduğu söylenebilir. Çalışmanın ampirik sonuçlarından görüleceği üzere, Türkiye'de ticari açıklık ile enerji güvenliği arasında hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde önemli bir ilişki mevcuttur. Bu çerçevede politika yapıcıların enerji politikaları ve ticaret politikalarını eşanlı ve birbirini gözeterek yürütmesi önem arz etmektedir.

Keywords

• Enerji Güvenliği
• Ticari Açıklık
• Enerji Politikaları
• Ticaret Politikaları

References

1. Akinyemi, O.E., Osabuohien, E.S., Alege, P.O. and Ogundipe, A.A. (2017). Energy security, trade and transition to green economy in Africa. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(3), 127-136. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijeeep
2. Alkhateeb, T.T.Y. and Mahmood, H. (2019). Energy consumption and trade openness nexus in Egypt: Asymmetry analysis. Energies, 12(10), 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12102018
3. Al-Mulali, U. and Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (The Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
4. Arrow, K.J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/restud
5. Çetin, M. and Çınar, U. (2021). The link between trade openness and energy consumption: A time series analysis for Turkish economy. Doğuş University Journal, 22(1), 57-74. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/doujournal
6. Cherp, A. and Jewell, J. (2014). The concept of energy security: Beyond the four as. Energy Policy, 75, 415–421. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.005
7. Cole, M.A. (2006). Does trade liberalization increase national energy use? Economics Letters, 92(1), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.018
8. Dedeoğlu, D. and Kaya, H. (2013). Energy use, exports, imports and GDP: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy Policy, 57, 469-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.016

9. Deese, D.A. (1979). Energy: Economics, politics, and security. International Security, 4(3), 140-153. doi:10.2307/2626698
10. Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
11. Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
12. Dithmer, J. and Abdulai, A. (2017). Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis. Food Policy, 69, 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.04.008
13. Emeç, A.S. and Yarbaşı, İ.Y. (2018). Ticari dışa açıklık ile enerji tüketimi arasındaki simetrik ve asimetrik nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(6), 193-206. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/etusbed
14. Energy Institute. (2023). Statistical review of world energy (Energy Institute, 2024/73rd edition). Retrieved from https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
15. Erdal, L. (2015). Determinants of energy supply security: An econometric analysis for Turkey. Ege Academic Review, 15(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2015217981
16. Franki, V. and Višković, A. (2015). Energy security, policy and technology in South East Europe: Presenting and applying an energy security index to Croatia. Energy, 90(1), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.07.087
17. Fusco, G., Coluccia, B. and De Leo, F. (2020). Effect of trade openness on food security in the EU: A dynamic panel analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 4311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124311
18. Global Energy Institute. (2024). Energy security risk index. Retrieved from https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/energy-security-risk-index
19. Gnedeka, K.T. and Wonyra, K.O. (2023). New evidence in the relationship between trade openness and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture & Food Security, 12, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00439-z
20. Gujarati, D.N. and Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5.ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill.
21. Ibrahiem, D.M. and Hanafy, S.A. (2021). Do energy security and environmental quality contribute to renewable energy? The role of trade openness and energy use in North African countries. Renewable Energy, 179, 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2021.07.019
22. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3
23. Johansen, S. and Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210. Retrieved from https://research.ebsco.com/
24. Koengkan, M. (2018). The positive impact of trade openness on consumption of energy: Fresh evidence from Andean community countries. Energy, 158, 936–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.091
25. Korkmaz, Ö. (2018). Enerji tüketimi ile finansal açıklık, ticari açıklık ve finansal gelişme arasındaki ilişkinin karşılaştırmalı analizi: Türkiye ve İtalya örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Harun TERZİ Özel Sayısı, 83-100. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.441281
26. Kruyt, B., van Vuuren DP., de Vries HJM. and Groenenberg, H. (2009). Indicators for energy security. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2166–2181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.006
27. Le, T.H. and Park, D. (2021). What drives energy insecurity across the world? A panel data analysis. Energy Research & Social Science, 77, 102093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2021.102093
28. Managi, S., Hibiki, A. and Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade openness improve environmental quality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.008
29. Nasreen, S. and Anwar, S. (2014). Causal relationship between trade openness, economic growth and energy consumption: A panel data analysis of Asian countries. Energy Policy, 69, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.009
30. Nepal, R., Paija, N., Tyagi, B. and Harvie, C. (2021). Energy security, economic growth and environmental sustainability in India: Does FDI and trade openness play a role? Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111886
31. Odhiambo, N.M. (2021). Trade openness and energy consumption in sub-Saharan African countries: A multivariate panel Granger causality test. Energy Reports, 7, 7082-7089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.09.103
32. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57, 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
33. Phillips, P. (1987). Time series regression with unit roots. Econometrica, 55, 277-301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913237
34. Phillips, P.C.B. and Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series re¬gression. Biometrika, 75(4), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
35. Qamruzzaman, M. and Jianguo, W. (2020). The asymmetric relationship between financial development, trade openness, foreign capital flows, and renewable energy consumption: Fresh evidence from panel NARDL investigation. Renewable Energy, 159, 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.069
36. Rasoulinezhad, E. and Saboori, B. (2018). Panel estimation for renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, CO2 emissions, the composite trade intensity, and financial openness of the commonwealth of independent states. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(18), 17354–17370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1827-3
37. Sadorsky, P. (2011). Trade and energy consumption in the Middle East. Energy Economics, 33, 739-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.12.012
38. Sbia, R., Shahbaz, M. and Hamdi, H. (2014). A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Economic Modelling, 36, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.09.047
39. Sebri, M. and Ben-Salha, O. (2014). On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: Fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2014.07.033
40. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q.M.A., Tiwari, A.K. and Leitão, N.C. (2013b). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 25, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.009
41. Shahbaz, M., Khan, S. and Tahir, M.I. (2013a). The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic growth, financial development and trade in China: Fresh evidence from multivariate framework analysis. Energy Economics, 40, 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.06.006
42. Shahbaz, M, Loganathan, N, Sbia, R. and Afza, T. (2015). The effect of urbanization, affluence and trade openness on energy consumption: A time series analysis in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 47, 683–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.044
43. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ling, C.H. and Sbia, R. (2014). Causality between trade openness and energy consumption: What causes what in high, middle and low income countries. Energy Policy, 70, 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.029
44. Sohag, K., Begum, R.A., Abdullah, S.M.S. and Jaafar, M. (2015). Dynamics of energy use, technological innovation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia. Energy, 90, 1497–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.101
45. Sun, Z. and Zhang, D. (2021). Impact of trade openness on food security: Evidence from panel data for Central Asian countries. Foods, 10, 3012. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123012
46. Tiba, S. and Frikha, M. (2018) Income, trade and energy interactions: Evidence from simultaneous equation modeling. Energy, 147, 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.013
47. Topcu, M. and Payne, J.E. (2018). Further evidence on the trade-energy consumption nexus in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 117, 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.007
48. World Bank. (2024). World development indicators. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
49. Yang, Z. and Zhao, Y. (2014). Energy Consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in India: Evidence from directed acyclic graphs. Economic Modelling, 38, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.01.030
50. Zeren, F. and Akkuş, H.T. (2020). The relationship between renewable energy consumption and trade openness: New evidence from emerging economies. Renewable Energy, 147, 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.006
51. Zivot, E. and Andrews, D.W.K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102753410372