Ticari Açıklığın ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketiminin Çevresel Etkilerinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi; Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomileri Örneği

Year 2022, Volume: 18 Issue: 2, 32 - 57, 30.12.2022

Alper Yılmaz

Abstract

Küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği son dönemlerde modern ekonomilerin üzerinde önemle durduğu problemlerdendir. Dolayısıyla konu ile ilgili çalışmalar ampirik literatürde önemli yer tutmaktadır. Bu çalışmada küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği gibi önemli çevresel sorunları ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni üzerinden ele alınarak, yenilenebilir enerji ve ticari açıklığın bunlar üzerinde ne derece belirleyici olduğu ve ne derece etkilediği değişkenler arasındaki eş bütünleşme ve nedensellik ilişkileri bağlamında, yükselen piyasa ülkelerine ait 1990-2018 dönemi yıllık verileri için analiz edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle değişkenler arasındaki eş bütünleşme ilişkisi Durbin-Hausman (Durbin-H) testi ile incelenmiş ve değişkenlerin birlikte hareket ettikleri, uzun dönem denge değerinden sapma olduğu takdirde dengeye birlikte döndükleri tespit edilmiştir. İkinci olarak değişkenler arasındaki Granger nedensellik ilişkisi önce kısa dönemde Dimitrescu-Hurlin (2012) testi ile, daha sonra uzun dönemde hem nedenselliği hem de nedenselliğin yönünü pozitif yada negatif olarak verebilen Canning-Pedroni (2008) testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre ekolojik ayak izi değişkeninden diğer değişkenlere doğru nedensellik tespit edilemezken, yenilenebilir enerji ve ticari açıklık değişkenleri üzerinden ekolojik ayak izi değişkenine doğru hem kısa hem uzun dönemde nedensellik tespit edilmiştir

Keywords

Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Yenilenebilir Enerji, Ticaret ve Çevre, Panel Veri Analizi

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

-

References

• Akbostancı, E., Asık, S. ve Tunc, G. (2009). The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy Policy, 37, 861–867.
• Akar, I. (2019). Kirlilik cennetleri hipotezi ve dış ticaret çevre ilişkisinde literatür incelemesi. Economics Literature, 1(1), 37-50.
• Akıllı, H., Kemahlı, F., Okudan, K. ve Polat, F. (2008). Ekolojik ayak izinin kavramsal içeriği ve Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi’nde bireysel ekolojik ayak izi hesaplaması. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, (15) 2008, 1-25.
• Alam, M.M. ve Murad, M.W. (2020). The impacts of economic growth, trade openness and technological progress on renewable energy use in organization for economic cooperation and development countries. Renewable Energy, 145, 382–390.
• Al-Mulali, U., Fereidouni, H.G. ve Lee, J.Y.M. (2014). Electricity consumption from renewable and non-renewable sources and economic growth: evidence from Latin American countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 30, 290–298.
• Alper, A.E. ve Oransay, G. (2015). Cari açık ve finansal gelişmişlik ilişkisinin panel nedensellik analizi ekseninde değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1 (2), 73-85.
• Altınay, G. ve Karagöl, E. (2005). Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Turkey. Energy Economics, 27, 849–856.
• Amri, F. (2019). Renewable and non-renewable categories of energy consumption and trade: do the development degree and the industrialization degree matter?. Energy, 173, 374–383.
• Asafu, J. ve Adjaye, Y. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, 22 (6), 615–625.
• Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2004), A Panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72 (4), 1127-1177.
• Bai, J. ve Kao, C. (2006). Chapter 1 on the estimation and inference of a panel cointegration model with cross-sectional dependence. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 274, 3-30.
• Bai, J., Kao, C. ve Ng, S. (2009). Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends. Journal of Econometrics, 149, 82-99.
• Baltagi, B.H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Başar, S. (2007). İktisadi büyümenin çevresel etkileri. 1. Baskı, Ankara, İmaj Yayınevi.
• Bellakhal, R., Kheder, S.B. ve Haffoudhi, H. (2019). Governance and renewable energy investment in MENA countries: how does trade matter?. Energy Economics, 84, Issue C, 104541.
• Bilman, A. S. (2014). Interaction between trade openness and growth: panel data analysis and comparison between countries (Doktora tezi). Erişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=y1-NmBZkMLDsf6JWfv2O6A&no=kL526xvJlUJnYSNp4b5rfA
• Bond, S. (2002). Ecological footprints; a guide for local authorities. No: 181247, Panda House Weyside Park, Godalming Surrey GU7 1XR, Published by WWF-UK.
• Boone, T. Jayaraman, V. ve Ganeshan, R. (2012). Carbon foot print of products supply chain approach. T. Boone, V. Jayaraman, ve R. Ganeshan (Yay. Haz.). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Sustainable Supply Chain içinde (s. 175-191), CA-USA, Springer.
• Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47 (1), 239-253.
• Canning, D. ve Pedroni, P. (2008). Infrastructure, long-run economic growth and causality tests for cointegrated panels. The Manchester School, 76 (5), 504-527.
• Cheng, B.S. ve Lai, T.W. (1995). An investigation of co-integration and causality between energy consumption and economic activity in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 19(4), 435–444.
• Cheng, B.S. (1995). An investigation of cointegration and causality between energy consumption and economic growth. Journal of Energy and Development, 21, 73–84.
• Cheng, B.S. (1999). Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: an application of cointegration and errorc orrection modelling. Indian Economic Review, 34, 39–49.
• Chima, C. M. (2007). Intensity of energy use in the U.S.A.: 1949–2003. Journal of Bussiness and Economic Reseach, 5, 17–30.
• Copleland, B. ve Taylor, S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 42 (1), 7-71.
• Çalışkan, S. (2009). Türkiye’nin enerjide dışa bağımlılık ve enerji arz güvenliği sorunu. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25, 297-310.
• Çetin, M. ve Saygın, S. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi’nin ampirik analizi: Türkiye örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 26 (2), 529-546.
• Çınar, S. (2010). OECD Ülkelerinde kişi başına GSYH durağan mı? panel veri analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 29, 591-601.
• Çınar, S. (2011), Gelir Ve CO2 Emisyonu ilişkisi: panel birim kök ve eş-bütünleşme testi. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (2), 71-83.
• De Hoyos, R.E. ve Sarafidis, Y. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata Journal, 6: 482–496.
• Deschenes, O. (2015). Environmental regulations and labor markets. IZA World of Labor 2018: 22v2. Erişim adresi: https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/458/pdfs/environmental-regulations-and-labor-markets.pdf
• Di Iorio, F. ve Fachin, S. (2008). A note on the estimation of long-run relationships in dependent cointegrated panels. MPRA Paper, 12053, 1-7.
• Dimitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29 (4), 1450-1460.
• Dinda, S. ve Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and emissions: a panel based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57, 167–181.
• Eberhart M, ve Teal F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Economic Series Working Paper, 515, 1-32.
• Erol, U. ve Yu, E.S.H. (1987). On the causal relationship between energy and income for industrialized countries. Journal of Energy and Development, 13 (1), 113–122.
• Galli, A., Lin, D. Wackernagel, M., Gressot, M. ve Winkler, S. (2015). Humanity’s growing ecological footprint: sustainable development implications. Brief for GSDR 2015. Global Footprint Network. Erişim adresi: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5686humanitysgrowingecologicalfootprint.pdf
• Ghiso, S. J. V. ve Liverman, D. M. (2006). Scale, technique and composition effects in the mexican agricultural sector: the influence of NAFTA and the institutional environment. Third North American Symposium on Assessing the Environmental Effects of Trade. Erişim adresi: http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/2258-scale-technique-and-composition-effect-in-mexican-agricultural-sector-influence-en.pdf
• Gill, F.L., Viswanathan, K. ve Abdulkarim, M. (2018). The critical review of the pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167-174.
• Glasure, Y. U. (2002). Energy and national income in Korea: further evidence on the role of omitted variables. Energy Economics, 24, 355–365.
• Glasure, Y.U. ve Lee, A.R. (1998). Cointegration, error correction and the relationship between GDP and energy: the case of South Korea and Singapore. Resource and Energy Economics, 20 (1), 17–25.
• Granger, C.W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37 (3), 424-438.
• Guloglu, B. ve Ivrendi, M. (2010). Output fluctuations: transitory or permanent? the case of Latin America. Applied Economics Letters, 17, 381-386.
• Grossman, M. ve Krueger, B. (1995). Economic environment and the economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (2), 353-377.
• Grunewald, N., Hanscom, L., Halle, M., Iha, K. ve Galli, A. (2015). Montenegro Ecological Footprint Study. Global Footprint Network, November 2015, Montenegro. Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/2015_Montenegro_Ecological_Footprint_Technical_Report.pdf
• Hadri, K. ve Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115 (1), 31-34.
• Halıcıoglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey, Energy Policy, 37, 1156–1164.
• Heil, M.T. ve Selden, T.M. (2001). Carbon emissions and economic development: future trajectories based on historical experience. Environmental and Development Economics, 6, 63–83.
• Hood, M.V., Kidd, Q. ve Morris, I.L., (2008). Two sides of the same coin: employing granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis, 161, 324-344.
• Hossain, S. (2011). Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, 2011, 39 (11), 6991-6999.
• Hubler, M. (2009). Energy saving technology diffusion via FDI and trade using CGE model of China. Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 1491, 1-40.
• Jalil, A. ve Mahmud, S.F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37, 5167–5172.
• Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., ve Apergis, N. (2019). The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Latin American Economic Review, 28, 1–19.
• Kar, M. ve Kar, B. B. (2019). OECD ülkelerinde mobil iletişimin talep esnekliklerinin tahmini. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15 (4), 991-1009.
• Keleş, R., Hamamcı, C. ve Çoban, A. (2009). Çevre politikası. 9. Baskı, Ankara, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Küçükkaya, E. (2019). Ekolojik ayak izi nedir, nasıl hesaplanır?. Erişim adresi: https://www.enerjiportali.com/ekolojik-ayak-izi-nedir-nasil-hesaplanir/
• Lean, H.H. ve Smyth, R. (2010). CO2 Emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87, 1858–1864.
• Lee, J.W. (2013). The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483–489.
• Li, Z., Dong, H. Huang, Z. ve Failler, P. (2019). Impact of foreign direct investment on environmental performance. Sustainability, 11 (13), 3538.
• Masih, A.M.M. ve Masih, R. (1996). Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality: results from multi-country study based on cointegration and error correction modeling techniques. Energy Economics, 18, 165–183.
• Masih, A.M.M. ve Masih, R. (1997). On the temporal causal relationship between energy consumption, real income, and prices: some new evidence from Asian energy dependent NICs based on a multivariate cointegration and vector error- correction approach. Journal of Policy Modeling, 19 (4), 417–440.
• Matyas, L. ve Sevestre, P. (1996). The econometrics of panel data - fundamentals and recent developments in theory and practice. Third Edition, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer.
• Mcausland, C. ve Najjar, N. (2015). Carbon footprint taxes, Environmental Resource Economics. 61, 37–70. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9749.
• Mena, A. K. ve Yadav, T. K. (2019). What is ecological footprintand why is it important?. Agro-Bios Newsettler, 18 (1), 25-26.
• Menyah, K., Nazlıoğlu, Ş. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: new ınsights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modelling, 37, (386-394),
• Mielnik, O. ve Goldemberg, J. (2002). Foreign direct investment and decoupling between energy and gross domestic production in developing countries. Energy Policy, 30, 87–89.
• Morimoto, R. ve Hope, C. (2004). The impact of electricity supply on economic growth in Sri Lanka. Energy Economics, 26, 77–85.
• Murshed, M. (2020), Are trade liberalization policies aligned with renewable energy transition in low- and middle-income countries; An instrumental variable approach. Renewable Energy, 151, 1110–1123.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Singh, B. (2007). The electricity consumption and GDP nexus for the Fiji Islands. Energy Economics, 29, 1141–1150.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Smyth, R. (2008). Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Economics, 30, 2331–2341.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38, 661–666.
• Nargeleçekenler, M. (2009). Makroekonomik ve finansal serilerin ekonometrik analizi: panel veri yaklaşımı (Doktora tezi). Erişim adresi: https://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/handle/11452/3316
• Oh, W. ve Lee, K. (2004a). Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP revisited: the case of Korea 1970–1999. Energy Economics, 26, 51–59.
• Oh, W. ve Lee, K. (2004b). Energy consumption and economic growth in Korea: testing the causality relation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26, 973–981.
• Önder, H. (2012). Trade and climate change: an analytical review of key issues. The World Bank Economic Premise, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, August 2012, No: 86.
• Omri, A. ve Nguyen, D.K. (2014). On the determinants of renewable energy consumption: international evidence. Energy, 72, 554–560.
• Pesaran, H.M., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of American Statistic Association, 94, 621–634.
• Pesaran, H. M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge Discussion Paper, 1240, 1-42.
• Peseran M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error. Econometrica, 74 (4): 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312.
• Pesaran, H. M., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11 (1), 105-127.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (2008), 50–93.
• Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 38, 2528–2535.
• Sen, A. & Acharyya, R (2012). Environmental standard and employment: impact of productivity effect. Environment and Development Economics, 17 (2), 207-225.
• Shibamoto, M. ve Tsutsui, Y (2014), Note on the ınterpretation of convergence speed in the dynamic panel model, Applied Economics Letters, 21 (8): 533-535.
• Soytas, U. ve Sarı, R. (2003). Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Economics, 25, 33–37.
• Soytas, U., Sarı, R. ve Ewing, B.T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States, Ecological Economics, 62, (482–489).
• Soytas, U. ve Sarı, R. (2009). Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member, Ecological Economics, 68, 1667–1675.
• Srinivasan, P. ve Ravindra, I. S. (2015). Causality among Energy Consumption, CO2 Emission, Economic Growth and Trade: A Case of India. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade SAGE Publications, Foreign Trade Review, 50 (3), 168–189.
• Stern, D. I. (1993). Energy growth in the USA: a multivariate approach. Energy Economics, 15, 137–150.
• Sulaiman, J., Azman, A. ve Saboori, B. (2013). The potential of renewable energy: using the environmental Kuznets curve model. American Journal of Environment and Science, 9, 103–112.
• Şahinöz, A. ve Fotourehchi, Z. (2013). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi: indirgenmiş ve ayrıştırılmış modellerle ampirik bir analiz. H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31 (1), 199-224.
• Tamazian, A. ve Rao, B. B. (2009). Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economies. EERI Research Paper, 02/2009.
• Teyyare, E. (2018). Tasarruf-yatırım-kurumsal kalite ilişkisine yönelik bir analiz: Türkiye örneği. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2018, 18 (1), 119-139.
• Tobey, J. (1990). The Effects of Domestic Environmental Policies on Patterns of World Trade: An Empirical Test. Kyklos International Review for Social Sciences, 43 (2), 191-209.
• Topcu, M. ve Payne, J. E. (2018). Further evidence on the trade-energy consumption nexus in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 117, 160–165.
• Topal, M. H. (2017). Vergi yapısının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: oecd ülkelerinden ampirik bir analiz. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Temmuz 2017, 5 (3), 183-206.
• Turan, Z. (2018). Türkiye’de tarımsal mal ticaretinin ve hayvancılığın ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi (1990-2014). International Journal Of Disciplines Economics and Administrative Sciences Studies, 4 (8), 200-209.
• Tüzüntürk, S. (2007). Panel veri modellerinin tahmininde parametre heterojenliğinin önemi: geleneksel Phillips eğrisi üzerine bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21 (2), 1-14.
• Wagner, M. (2006). The Carbon Kuznets Curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics. IHS Economics Series, 197, 1-36.
• Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, UCLA Electronic Green Journal, 1 (17), 1997. Erişim adresi: https://escholarship.org/content/qt7730w81q/qt7730w81q.pdf?t=q9ns62
• Wackernagel, M. (2007). Advancing sustainable production with the ecological footprint. Copenhagen Workshop - Solstice, 2007, Global Footprint Network. Erişim adresi: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/38875804.pdf
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23 (2), 193-223.
• Widemann, T. (2009). A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade; MRIO versus PLUM. Ecological Economics, 68, 1975-1990.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory Econometrics A Modern Approach. 5 th. edition, South-Western, Cengage Learning.
• World Wide Fund (2012). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu, World Wide Fund for Nature. Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Turkish.pdf
• Xiaoli, S., Junfeng, S. ve Xuefei, S. (2007). Empirical of industry distribution of FDI impact on China's energy consumption analysis. Finance & Trade Economics, 3, 117–121.
• Yalta, A. T. (2011). Analyzing energy consumption and GDP nexus using maximum entropy bootstrap: the case of Turkey. Energy Economics, 33 (3), 453-460.
• Yang, H.Y. (2000). A note on the causal relationship between energy and GDP in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 22 (3), 309–317.
• Yıldırım, E. ve Aslan, A. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus for 17 highly developed OECD countries: further evidence based on bootstrap corrected causality tests. Energy Policy, 51, 985-993.
• Yılmazer, M. Ve Ersoy, B. (2009), Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kamu politikaları. Ege Akademik Bakış, 9 (4), 1441-1462.
• Yu, E.S.H. ve Hwang, B.K. (1984). The relationship between energy and GNP: further results. Energy Economics, 6 (3), 186–190.
• Yu., E.S.H. ve Choi, J.Y. (1985). The causal relationship between energy and GNP: an International comparison. Journal of Energy and Development, 10 (2), 249–272.
• Zafar, M.W., Mirza, F.M., Zaidi, S.A.H., ve Hou, F.J. (2019). The nexus of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption, trade openness, and CO2 emissions in the framework of EKC: evidence from emerging economies. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 26, 15162–15173.
• Zhang, X. P. ve Cheng, X. M. (2009). Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Journal of Ecological Economics, 68, 2706–2712.
• Zhang, M., Lee, C. ve Zhou, D. (2021). Effects of trade openness on renewable energy consumption in OECD countries: New insights from panel smooth transition regression modelling. Energy Economics, 104 (2021), 105649.
• Zheng, Y., Qi, J. ve Chen, X. (2011). The effect of increasing exports on industrial energy intensity in China. Energy Policy, 39, 2688–2698.
• Zeren, F. ve Akkuş, H. T. (2020). The relationship between renewable energy consumption and trade openness: new evidence from emerging economies. Renewable Energy, 147 (2020), 322-329.