İnovasyon-Doğal Kaynak Bağımlılığı-Enerji-Ekolojik Ayak İzi Bağlantısı: Küresel İnovasyon Endeksi’ne Göre Seçilmiş Ülkelerden İçgörüler

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, küresel inovasyon endeksi sıralamasında yer alan ilk on ülkenin 2009-2021 dönemindeki inovasyon, doğal kaynak bağımlılığı, enerji ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki bağlantılarının panel veri metodolojisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesidir. İnovasyonu temsilen küresel inovasyon endeksi, küreselleşme ve doğrudan yabancı yatırım parametreleri model içerisine dâhil edilmektedir. İnovasyon kapasitesinin makroekonomik belirleyicileri konusunda literatürün çoğunlukla finansal gelişmişlik, altyapı, eko-inovasyon, patent sayıları, araştırma & geliştirme, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve beşeri sermaye gibi parametrelerin kullanımında yoğunlaştığı görülmektedir. Ancak inovasyon vekili olarak ele alınan bu parametrelerin yapılan çalışmalarda ayrı ayrı değerlendirildiği dikkati çekmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada küresel inovasyon endeksi, bir bütün olarak ele alınmakta, dolayısıyla inovasyonun kapsamı genişletilmektedir. Söz konusu durum makalenin literatüre katkısıdır. Driscoll-Kraay dirençli tahminciden ulaşılan temel bulgular, istatistiksel olarak anlamlılık altında, küresel inovasyon endeksindeki artışın ekolojik ayak izini azalttığı, doğal kaynaklar ve birincil enerjinin ise artırdığını kanıtlamaktadır. Nedensellik bulguları ise küresel inovasyon endeksi ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımlardan ekolojik ayak izine doğru geri besleme etkisi olmayan tek yönlü nedenselliğe işaret etmektedir. Bu bağlamda politika çıkarımları, ekolojik ayak izini azaltmanın bir yolu olarak yeniliklere odaklanmayı, doğal kaynak bağımlılığının yenilenebilir enerjilerle desteklenmesini ve birincil enerji içerisindeki yenilenemeyen enerji tüketiminin azaltılmasını belirtmektedir.

Keywords

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Küresel İnovasyon Endeksi
• Kaynak Bağımlılığı
• Birincil Enerji
• Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik
• Panel Veri Analizi

Innovation-Natural Resource Dependency-Energy-Ecological Footprint Nexus: Insights from Selected Countries according to The Global Innovation Index

Abstract

The goal of this article is to evaluate the connections among innovation, natural resource dependency, energy and ecological footprint of the top ten countries in the global innovation index ranking in the 2009-2021 period within the framework of panel data methodology. Global innovation index, globalization and foreign direct investment parameters representing innovation are included in the model. It is seen that the literature on macroeconomic determinants of innovation capacity mostly focuses on the use of parameters such as financial development, infrastructure, eco-innovations, number of patents, research & development, foreign direct investments and human capital. However, it is noteworthy that these parameters, which are considered as innovation proxies, are evaluated separately in the studies. Therefore, in this study, the global innovation index is considered as a whole, thus expanding the scope of innovation. The situation in question is the article's contribution to the literature. The main findings from the Driscoll-Kraay robust estimator prove that, under statistical significance, an increase in the global innovation index reduces the ecological footprint, while natural resources and primary energy increase it. Causality findings point to one-way causality with no feedback effect from the global innovation index and foreign direct investments to the ecological footprint. In this context, policy implications indicate focusing on innovation as a way to reduce the ecological footprint, supporting natural resource dependency with renewable energies, and reducing non-renewable energy consumption in primary energy

Keywords

• Ecological Footprint
• Global Innovation Index
• Resource Dependency
• Primary Energy
• Environmental Sustainability
• Panel Data Analysis

References

1. Adekoya, O. B. Oliyide, J. A., & Fasanya, I. O. (2022). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption - Ecological footprint nexus in net-oil exporting and net-oil importing countries: Policy implications for a sustainable environment. Renewable Energy, 189, 524-534.
2. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Ahmad, M. & Wu, Y. (2022). Combined role of green productivity growth, economic globalization, and eco-innovation in achieving ecological sustainability for OECD economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 302, 1-13.
4. Ahmad, M., Pata, U. K., Ahmed, Z. & Zhao, R. (2024). Fintech, natural resources management, green energy transition, and ecological footprint: Empirical insights from EU countries. Resources Policy, 92, 1-10.
5. Akram, R., Ibrahim, R. L., Wang, Z., Adebayo, T. S. & Irfan, M. (2023). Neutralizing the surging emissions amidst natural resource dependence, eco-innovation, and green energy in G7 countries: Insights for global environmental sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 1-14.
6. Alfalih, A. A. & Hadj, T. B. (2024). Ecological impact assessment of green technological innovation under different thresholds of human capital in G20 countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 201, 1-15.
7. Ali, K., Jianguo, D. & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Modeling the natural resources and financial inclusion on ecological footprint: The role of economic governance institutions. Evidence from ECOWAS economies. Resources Policy, 79, 1-13.
8. Appiah, M., Li, M., Naeem, M. A. & Karim, S. (2023). Greening the globe: Uncovering the impact of environmental policy, renewable energy, and innovation on ecological footprint. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 192, 1-14.

9. Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S. & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Global innovation efficiency assessment of EU member and candidate countries via DEA-EATWIOS multi-criteria methodology. Technology in Society, 68, 1-11.
10. Aytun, C., Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K. & Cengiz, O. (2024). Associating environmental quality, human capital, financial development and technological innovation in 19 middle-income countries: A disaggregated ecological footprint approach. Technology in Society, 76, 1-12.
11. Bashir, M. A., Dengfeng, Z., Filipiak, B. Z., Bilan, Y. & Vasa, L. (2023). Role of economic complexity and technological innovation for ecological footprint in newly industrialized countries: Does geothermal energy consumption matter? Renewable Energy, 217, 1-8.
12. Baykul, A. (2022). İnovasyonun belirleyicileri: Küresel inovasyon endeksi üzerinde bir araştırma. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(1), 52-66.
13. Breusch, T. S. & 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.
14. British Petroleum. (2022). BP statistical review of world energy 2022: 71st edition. On date 3 February 2024 https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf accessed from.
15. Chishti, M. Z. (2023). Exploring the dynamic link between FDI, remittances, and ecological footprint in Pakistan: Evidence from partial and multiple wavelet based-analysis. Research in Globalization, 6, 1-16.
16. Croitoru, A. (2012). Schumpeter, J. A., 1934 (2008), The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle, translated from the German by Redvers Opie, New Brunswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers. Journal of comparative research in anthropology and sociology, 3(2), 137-148.
17. Dai, J., Ahmed, Z., Sinha, A., Pata, U. K. & Alvarado, R. (2023). Sustainable green electricity, technological innovation, and ecological footprint: Does democratic accountability moderate the nexus? Utilities Policy, 82, 1-9.
18. Dao, N. B., Chu, L. K., Shahbaz, M. & Tran, T. H. (2024). Natural resources-environmental technology-ecological footprint nexus: Does natural resources rents diversification make a difference? Journal of Environmental Management, 359, 1-15.
19. Dhaene, G. & Jochmans, K. (2015). Split-panel jackknife estimation of fixed-effect models. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(3), 991-1030.
20. Driscoll, J. C. & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
21. Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T. & 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.
22. Du, Z., Xu, C. & Lin, B. (2022). Does the Emission Trading Scheme achieve the dual reducing dividend of reducing pollution and improving energy efficiency? Micro evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Management, 323, 1-13.
23. Energy Institute. (2024). On date 5 April 2024 https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads accessed from.
24. ETH Zürich KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2024). On date 5 April 2024 https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html accessed from.
25. Georgescu, I. & Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4, 1-12.
26. Global Footprint Network. (2024). On date 5 April 2024 https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ accessed from.
27. Gupta, M., Saini, S. & Sahoo, M. (2022). Determinants of ecological footprint and PM2.5: Role of urbanization, natural resources and technological innovation. Environmental Challenges, 7, 1-12.
28. Güriş, S. (2015). Stata ile panel veri modelleri. İstanbul: Der yayınevi.
29. Hassan, S. T., Batool, B., Wang, P., Zhu, B. & Sadiq, M. (2023). Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: First insights in OECD context. Energy, 263, 1-10.
30. He, Y., Wang, S. & Chen, N. (2024). Mineral rents, natural resources depletion, and ecological footprint nexus in high emitting countries: Panel GLM analysis. Resources Policy, 89, 1-10.
31. Hoffmann, R., Lee, C., Ramasamy, B. & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17, 311-317.
32. Ibrahim, M. & Vo, X. V. (2021). Exploring the relationships among innovation, financial sector development and environmental pollution in selected industrialized countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 284, 1-15.
33. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
34. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H. & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resources Policy, 76, 1-18.
35. Juodis, A., Karavias, Y. & Sarafidis, V. (2021). A homogeneous approach to testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Empirical economics, 60(1), 93-112.
36. Kang, H., Li, L. & Feng, J. (2023). Are natural resources a hindrance to ecological footprint? Mineral rents, energy production, and consumption positions. Resources Policy, 86, 1-10.
37. Karimli, T., Mirzaliyev, N. & Guliyev, H. (2024). The globalization and ecological footprint in European countries: Correlation or causation? Research in Globalization, 8, 1-9.
38. Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (and so what?). Foreign Politics, (118), 104-119.
39. Li, H. & Xu, R. (2023). Impact of fiscal policies and natural resources on ecological sustainability of BRICS region: Moderating role of green innovation and ecological governance. Resources Policy, 85, 1-10.
40. Luo, S. & Mabrouk, F. (2022). Nexus between natural resources, globalization and ecological sustainability in resource-rich countries: Dynamic role of green technology and environmental regulation. Resources Policy, 79, 1-11.
41. Ma, F., Saleem, H., Ding, X., Nazir, S. & Tariq, S. (2024). Do natural resource rents, green technological innovation, and renewable energy matter for ecological sustainability? Role of green policies in testing the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis. Resources Policy, 91, 1-14.
42. Nathaniel, S. P., Ahmed, Z., Shamansurova, Z. & Fakher, H. A. (2024). Linking clean energy consumption, globalization, and financial development to the ecological footprint in a developing country: Insights from the novel dynamic ARDL simulation techniques. Heliyon, 10, 1-17.
43. Nketiah, E., Song, H., Adjei, M., Obuobi, B. & Adu-Gyamfi, G. (2024). Assessing the influence of research and development, environmental policies, and green technology on ecological footprint for achieving environmental sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 199, 1-16.
44. Özarslan Doğan, B. (2023). Ekolojik sürdürülebilirlikte finansal gelişme ve teknolojik inovasyon etkisi: Türkiye’den kanıtlar. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 23(10), 200-217.
45. Qing, L., Usman, M. Radulescu, M., & Haseeb, M. (2024). Towards the vision of going green in South Asian region: The role of technological innovations, renewable energy and natural resources in ecological footprint during globalization mode. Resources Policy, 88, 1-13.
46. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge: Discussion Paper No: 1240.
47. 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.
48. Rennen, W. & Martens, P. (2003). The globalisation timeline. Integrated Assessment, 4(3), 137-144.
49. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
50. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
51. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I. & Usman, M. (2023). Investigating the implications of technological innovations, financial inclusion, and renewable energy in diminishing ecological footprints levels in emerging economies. Geoscience Frontiers, 14, 1-17.
52. Satrovic, E., Cetindas, A., Akben, I. & Damrah, S. (2024). Do natural resource dependence, economic growth and transport energy consumption accelerate ecological footprint in the most innovative countries? The moderating role of technological innovation. Gondwana Research, 127, 116-130.
53. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F. & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 1-14.
54. Ullah, S. & Lin, B. (2024). Natural resources, renewable energy-environment nexus for Pakistan: A policy perspective. Resources Policy, 90, 1-16.
55. Ullah, A., Ahmed, M., Raza, S. A. & Ali, S. (2021). A threshold approach to sustainable development: nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. Journal of Environmental Management, 295, 1-10.
56. Usman, M. & Makhdum, M. S. A. (2021). What abates ecological footprint in BRICS-T region? Exploring the influence of renewable energy, non-renewable energy, agriculture, forest area and financial development. Renewable Energy, 179, 12-28.
57. Usman, M. & Radulescu, M. (2022). Examining the role of nuclear and renewable energy in reducing carbon footprint: Does the role of technological innovation really create some difference? Science of the Total Environment, 841, 1-15.
58. Uzar, U. (2024). The dynamic effect of income distribution, natural resources, and freedom of press on ecological footprint: Theory and empirical evidence for emerging economies. Resources Policy, 89, 1-16.
59. Wang, C. & Uctum, M. (2024). Ecological footprint of FDI inflows and income threshold effect: New results with a new approach to income classification. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 22, 1-8.
60. Wang, E., Padhan, H., Pruseth, S. K. & Ma, J. (2024). Government efficiency, green technology, and ecological footprint: Strategic framework for natural resource management efficiency targets. Resources Policy, 91, 1-6.
61. Wei, Z. & Lihua, H. (2023). Effects of tourism and eco‑innovation on environmental quality in selected ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 42889-42903.
62. Wei, S., Wei, W. & Umut, A. (2023). Do renewable energy consumption, technological innovation, and international integration enhance environmental sustainability in Brazil? Renewable Energy, 202, 172-183.
63. World Bank. (2024). On date 5 April 2024 https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators# accessed from.
64. World Economic Forum. (2024). The global risks report 2024. 19th edition. On date 4 April 2024 https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/ accessed from.
65. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024). Global innovation index reports. On date 5 April 2024 https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/ accessed from.
66. Xia, A. & Liu, Q. (2024). Modelling the asymmetric impact of fintech, natural resources, and environmental regulations on ecological footprint in G7 countries. Resources Policy, 89, 1-16.
67. Xu, P., Hussain, M., Ye, C., Wang, J., Wang, C., Geng, J., Liu, Y. & Chen, J. (2022a). Natural resources, economic policies, energy structure, and ecological footprints’ nexus in emerging seven countries. Resources Policy, 77, 1-5.
68. Xu, L., Wang, X., Wang, L. & Zhang, D., (2022b). Does technological advancement impede ecological footprint level? The role of natural resources prices volatility, foreign direct investment and renewable energy in China. Resources Policy, 76, 1-8.
69. Yasmeen, R., Zhaohui, C., Shah, W. U. H., Kamal, M. A. & Khan, A. (2022). Exploring the role of biomass energy consumption, ecological footprint through FDI and technological innovation in B&R economies: A simultaneous equation approach. Energy, 244, 1-13.
70. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2012). Panel veri ekonometrisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
71. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F. & Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: The case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 1-10.
72. Zhang, S. & Chen, K. (2023). Green finance and ecological footprints: Natural resources perspective of China’s growing economy. Resources Policy, 85, 1-8.
73. Zhang, H., Shao, Y., Han, X. & Chang, H.-L. (2022). A road towards ecological development in China: The nexus between green investment, natural resources, green technology innovation, and economic growth. Resources Policy, 77, 1-11.