Ecological Reflections of Turkey’s Financial Development: An Evaluation on Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Credit

Abstract

Financial development, which is an important driver of economic growth, also has critical impacts on environmental sustainability. This study takes a holistic approach to examining the environmental consequences of financial development through the ecological footprint indicator, which represents the ecological capacity required for the continuity of an economy. The Global Footprint Network states the ecological footprint must be below 1.5 gha to protect biodiversity. However, in 2022, Turkey’s per capita footprint was 2.58 gha. This shows its way of life isn’t sustainable, so policymakers need action plans based on solid data. Within this framework, the main objective of this study is to empirically examine the causal relationship between domestic loans, which are an indicator of financial depth, and foreign direct investment, which represents financial openness, in order to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the environmental impacts of financial development. The Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis was applied in the study covering the period 1985-2022. According to the analysis results, a two-way causal relationship was found between the ecological footprint and direct foreign investment, while a one-way causal relationship was identified between domestic loans and the ecological footprint. These findings show that both the national financial system and international capital flows have a direct impact on Turkey's environmental performance. The study's results emphasize that if the capital accumulation provided through these channels is directed toward environmentally conscious investment areas, it can give the financial development process a dynamic momentum focused on sustainability.

Keywords

• Sustainability
• Ecological Footprint
• Financial Development
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Toda Yamamoto

Türkiye'nin Finansal Gelişiminin Ekolojik Yansımaları: Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım ve Yurtiçi Kredi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Ekonomik büyümenin önemli bir itici gücü olan finansal gelişme, aynı zamanda çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde de kritik etkilere sahiptir. Bu çalışma, finansal gelişimin çevresel sonuçlarını, bir ekonominin devamlılığı için gereken ekolojik kapasiteyi temsil eden ekolojik ayak izi göstergesi üzerinden bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele almaktadır. Küresel Ayak İzi Ağı'na göre, biyolojik çeşitliliği korumak ve artan dünya nüfusunun ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için ekolojik ayak izinin 1.5 kha'in altında olması gerekirken, Türkiye'nin 2022'deki kişi başına ekolojik ayak izi 2.58 kha olarak ölçülmüştür. Bu durum, ülkedeki yaşam faaliyetlerinin sürdürülebilir olmadığını ve politika yapıcılar için somut verilere dayalı eylem planlarına ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çerçevede çalışmanın temel amacı, finansal derinliğin bir göstergesi olan yurtiçi krediler ile finansal açıklığı temsil eden doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar (DYY) arasındaki nedensel ilişkiyi ampirik olarak inceleyerek, finansal gelişimin çevresel etkilerine dair daha kapsamlı bir bakış açısı sunmaktır. 1985-2022 dönemini kapsayan çalışmada Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi uygulanmıştır. Yapılan analizler, ekolojik ayak izi ile doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar arasında iki yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi bulunduğunu ortaya koyarken, yurtiçi kredilerden ekolojik ayak izine doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik saptamıştır. Bu bulgular hem ulusal finansal sistemin hem de uluslararası sermaye akışlarının Türkiye'nin çevresel performansı üzerinde doğrudan bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma sonuçları, bu kanallar aracılığıyla sağlanan sermaye birikiminin çevreye duyarlı yatırım alanlarına yönlendirilmesi durumunda, finansal gelişme sürecine sürdürülebilirlik odaklı dinamik bir ivme kazandırılabileceğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Ekolojik ayak izi
• Finansal Gelişme
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar
• Toda Yamamoto

References

1. Abzari, M., Zarei, F., & Esfahani, S. S. (2011). Analyzing the link between financial development and foreign direct investment among D-8 group of countries. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(6), 148-156.
2. Ahmed, Z., Zhang, B., & Cary, M. (2021). Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecological indicators, 121, 107060.
3. Akinsola, G. D., Awosusi, A. A., Kirikkaleli, D., Umarbeyli, S., Adeshola, I., & Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Ecological footprint, public-private partnership investment in energy, and financial development in Brazil: a gradual shift causality approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(7), 10077-10090.
4. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2003). FDI spillovers, financial markets, and economic development. International Monetary Fund.
5. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2004). FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 89-112.
6. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment?. American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908.
7. Arogundade, S., Mduduzi, B., & Hassan, A. S. (2022). Spatial impact of foreign direct investment on ecological footprint in Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(34), 51589-51608.
8. Ashraf, A., & Doytch, N. (2023). Does investing abroad reduce the ecological footprints at home? Analysis of outward GFDI and M&A from developed and developing countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(7), 6689-6710.

9. Bakkal, H. (2022). Ekonomik büyüme, doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları, finansal gelişme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: ABD ve Çin üzerine bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 366-386.
10. Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency. (2024). Türk bankacılık sektöründe çevresel ve sosyal sürdürülebilirlik: Sürdürülebilir bankacılık soru seti bulguları. https://www.bddk.org.tr/KurumHakkinda/EkGetir/18?ekId=361
11. Barış, S. (2024). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ekolojik ayak izini artırıyor mu? Yüksek doğrudan yabancı yatırım alan ülkeler için bir analiz. Journal of Academic Opinion, 4(2), 52-63.
12. Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. (1998). Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3), 247-277.
13. Caglar, A. E., Mert, M., & Boluk, G. (2021). Testing the role of information and communication technologies and renewable energy consumption in ecological footprint quality: Evidence from world top 10 pollutant footprint countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, 126784.
14. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A., & Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? New evidence from the panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 14372-14385.
15. Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. (2005). FDI and the capital intensity of “dirty” sectors: A missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics, 9(4), 530–548.
16. Demir, S., & Guzel, A. (2024). Revisiting policy and practices of sustainable development in Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-23.
17. Destek, M. A., & Okumus, I. (2019). Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23689-23695.
18. Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of the total environment, 650, 2483-2489.
19. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
20. Doğan, B. Ö. (2023). Ekolojik sürdürülebilirlikte finansal gelişme ve teknolojik inovasyon etkisi: Türkiye’den kanitlar. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 10(23), 200-217.
21. Doytch, N. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecological footprints of nations. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 8, 100085.
22. Eskeland, G. S., & Harrison, A. E. (2003). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of development economics, 70(1), 1-23.
23. Eweade, B. S., Karlilar, S., Pata, U. K., Adeshola, I., & Olaifa, J. O. (2024). Examining the asymmetric effects of fossil fuel consumption, foreign direct investment, and globalization on ecological footprint in Mexico. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 2899-2909.
24. Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds in Asia. Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/691951/ado2021bn-corporate-green-bonds-asia.pdf
25. Global Footprint Network. (n.d.). Explore the data. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/exploreData
26. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
27. Hafeez, M., Yuan, C., Shahzad, K., Aziz, B., Iqbal, K., & Raza, S. (2019). An empirical evaluation of financial development-carbon footprint nexus in One Belt and Road region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 25026-25036.
28. Han, A. (2024). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 158-183.
29. 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, 112057.
30. Idrees, M., & Majeed, M. T. (2022). Income inequality, financial development, and ecological footprint: fresh evidence from an asymmetric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(19), 27924-27938.
31. International Finance Corporation. (2012). IFC performance standards on environmental and social sustainability. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/policies-standards/performance-standards
32. Ionescu, L. (2021). Leveraging green finance for low-carbon energy, sustainable economic development, and climate change mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, (20), 175-186.
33. Khan, A., Chenggang, Y., Hussain, J., & Bano, S. (2019). Does energy consumption, financial development, and investment contribute to ecological footprints in BRI regions?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(36), 36952-36966.
34. Kihombo, S., Ahmed, Z., Chen, S., Adebayo, T. S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61235-61245.
35. King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 717-737.
36. Levine, R. (1997). Financial development and economic growth: Views and agenda. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(2), 688-726.
37. Li, M., Badeeb, R. A., Dogan, E., Gu, X., & Zhang, H. (2023). Ecological footprints and sustainable environmental management: A critical view of China's economy. Journal of Environmental Management, 347, 118994.
38. Liu, H., & Kim, H. (2018). Ecological footprint, foreign direct investment, and gross domestic production: Evidence of belt & road initiative countries. Sustainability, 10(10), 3527.
39. Long, Y., Yang, H., Shah, W. U. H., & Yasmeen, R. (2023). Unveiling the liaison between financial development dimensions, energy efficiency and ecological footprint in the context of institutional frameworks: Evidence from the Emerging-7 economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(36), 85655-85669.
40. Nuta, F., Shahbaz, M., Khan, I., Cutcu, I., Khan, H., & Eren, M. V. (2024). Dynamic impact of demographic features, FDI, and technological innovations on ecological footprint: evidence from European emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(12), 18683-18700.
41. Olowu, G., Bein, M., & Olasehinde-Williams, G. (2018). Examining the relationship between financial development, sustainable economic opportunity and ecological footprint in SADC countries. Applied Ecology & Environmental Research, 16(5).
42. Özcan, K. A. (2024). Determinants of ecological footprint: A quantile regression approach. Systems, 12(2), 59.
43. Özkan, O., & Çoban, M. N. (2022). Türkiye'de finansal gelişmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi: Yeni dinamik ARDL simülasyon yaklaşımından ampirik kanıtlar. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3), 1293-1309.
44. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
45. Roy, A. (2024). The impact of foreign direct investment, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and natural resources on ecological footprint: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(1), 141-161.
46. Şahin, D., & Durmuş, S. (2018). Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme, ihracat ve hisse senedi fiyatlari arasindaki nedensellik ilişkisinin analizi. Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(15), 808-825.
47. Saud, S., Chen, S., & Haseeb, A. (2020). The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119518.
48. Solarin, S. A., & Al-Mulali, U. (2018). Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 24845-24859.
49. Soundarrajan, P., & Vivek, N. (2016). Green finance for sustainable green economic growth in India. Agricultural Economics/Zemědělská Ekonomika, 62(1), 1–10.
50. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated and cointegrated variables. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
51. Turkish Investment Office. (2024). Türkiye'de doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar. https://www.invest.gov.tr/tr/whyturkey/sayfalar/fdi-in-turkey.aspx
52. Udemba, E. N. (2020). Ecological implication of offshored economic activities in Turkiye: Foreign direct investment perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 38015–38028, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09629-9.
53. Udemba, E. N. (2021). Nexus of ecological footprint and foreign direct investment pattern in carbon neutrality: new insight for United Arab Emirates (UAE). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 34367-34385.
54. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2023). World investment report 2023: Investing in sustainable energy for all. United Nations. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2023_en.pdf
55. Usman, M., & Hammar, N. (2021). Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(12), 15519-15536.
56. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1997). Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(1), 3-24.
57. Wang, J. Y., & Blomström, M. (1992). Foreign investment and technology transfer: A simple model. European Economic Review, 36(1), 137-155.
58. World Bank. (2016). Financial development. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/gfdr/gfdr-2016/background/financial-development
59. World Wide Fund for Nature. (2006). Living planet report 2006. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2006.pdf
60. World Wildlife Fund. (2022). Living planet report 2022. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/embargo_13_10_2022_lpr_2022_full_report_single_page_1.pd
61. Yağiş, O. (2023). Finansal gelişme ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ekolojik ayakizi üzerindeki etkileri: Panel nedensellik analizi. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri, 9(19), 200-215.
62. Yang, B., Jahanger, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 23482-23500.
63. Yao, X., Yasmeen, R., Hussain, J., & Shah, W. U. H. (2021). The repercussions of financial development and corruption on energy efficiency and ecological footprint: evidence from BRICS and next 11 countries. Energy, 223, 120063.
64. 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, 101428.