Gelişmiş Ülkeler İçin Nükleer Enerji Üretimi ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler İçin Teşvik Edici Olabilir Mi?: Panel ARDL Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı yüksek enerji maliyetleri nedeniyle ödemeler dengesi bilançosu büyük açık veren gelişmekte olan ülkeler için politika önerilerinde bulunmaktır. Bu nedenle, çalışmanın ilk hedefi gelişmiş ülkelerin nükleer enerji politikalarının ortaya konulması, böylece sürdürülebilir ve daha yüksek kişi başı gelir ve enerji fiyatlarındaki oynaklıklara karşı kendilerini koruma altına alabilmeleri için (özellikle Türkiye ve benzeri ülkeler) gelişmekte olan ülkelerin alternatif enerji politikalarını adapte etmelerine sevk etmektir. Bu hedefler, gelişmiş ülkelerden daha düşük kişi başına sahip gelişmekte olan ülkeler veya bir diğer adıyla orta gelirli ülkelerin, Büyüme Teorisi’nde yakalama etkisi olarak bilinen gelişmiş ülkelerin refah seviyelerini ulaşmalarına ve bu anlamda aradıkları alternatif stratejilerinin tespitine yardımcı olacaktır. Bu sebeple, kısıtlı yatay kesit ve zaman serileri üzerinden, 14 gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülke ve 1977- 2014 dönemlerine panel veriler kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın amacına hizmet etmesi adına Panel ARDL yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, beklendiği gibi, hata düzeltme katsayısı negatif ve istenen aralıkta tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular elektrik üretiminde nükleer üretimin artması ile kişi başına düşen GSYİH arasında anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişkiyi gösterirken, bu tür enerji üretim fikrine karşı kişilerin gelişmekte olan ülkelerde nükleer tipi enerji üretiminin alternatif olarak tavsiye edilmesini mümkün kılabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nükleer Enerji,Ekonomik Büyüme,Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler,Panel ARDL,Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Could Nuclear Energy Production and Economic Growth Relationship for Developed Countries Be An Incentive for Developing Ones?: A Panel ARDL Evidence Including Cointegration Analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop policy recommendations for indebted developing countries which have big balance of payment deficits due to high energy costs. For this reasons, the study initialy explores developed countries’ nuclear energy policies and hence, to guide developing countries (especially for Turkey and similar countries) who can adopt alternative energy resources to reach a sustainable and higher GDP per capita and to protect themselves against energy price volatilities. Therefore, in available theoretical studies, developing countries, also named as middle income countires whose GDP per capita is lower than developed countries, have been searching for different strategies to catch up the wealth level of developed countires from the aspect of catch-up effect in the Growth Theory. In the context of cross sectional and time series data, the paper anlaysis all available retroperspective panel data method which uses time interval between 1977-2014 for 14 developed and developing countires. The study employs Panel ARDL approach to serve the aim of the study. According to the emprical results, as expected, vector error correction coefficient was founded negaitvely and accepted numerical interval. Therefore, test results indicate that there has been significant and positive relationship between the increment of nuclear share in electricity production and GDP per capita. Countries, especially dependent on raw materials, can reduce reliance on energy import with nuclear energy sources, then they will have a stabilizer for a reasonable level of current deficits which may be necessary for economic growth. In conclusion, the results also indicates that nucluear energy production in developing countries can stimulate economic growth by lowering energy import related production costs in favor of country-wide producers.

Keywords

• Nuclear Energy,Panel ARDL,Developed Countries,Developing Countries,Energy Dependency

References

1. AGARWAL, A. (2014). Impact of current account deficit on economic growth: a comparative study of selected developing countires. Phd Thesis, Deemed University, Agra.
2. AKBAŞ, Y. A., LEBE, F. & ZEREN, F. (2014). Testing the validity of the triplet deficit hypothesis for Turkey: asymmetric causality analysis. Journal of Business and Economics,7(14), 137-154.
3. AKKAYA, Y. & GÜRKAYNAK, R. (2011). Cari Açık, Bütçe Dengesi, Finansal İstikrar ve Para Politikası: Heyecanlı Bir Dönemin İzi. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 27, 93-119
4. ALACAHAN, N. D. (2011). Enflasyon, döviz kuru ilişkisi ve yansıma: Türkiye. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (1), 49-56.
5. AYDIN, C. & ESEN, Ö. (2016). Threshold effects of energy consumption on economic growth in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 7(3 (15)), 370-382.
6. BOLAT, S., DEGİRMEN, S., & SENGONUL, A. (2015). The dynamics of triple deficits in European countries: new ınsights from panel granger causality tests. Last Accesed:16.12.2016,http://macro.soc.uoc.gr/docs/Year/2015/papers/paper_4_118.pdf.
7. BORDO, M. D., MEISSNER, C. M., & STUCKLER, D. (2010). Foreign currency debt, financial crises and economic growth: a long-run view. Journal of International Money and Finance, Volume 29, 642-665.
8. BREITUNG, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data, in B. Baltagi (ed.), nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, Advances In Econometrics. Vol. 15, JAI, Amsterdam, 161–178.

9. CALDERON, C., CHONG, A. & LOAYZA, N. (1999). Determinants of current account deficits in developing countries. Working Papers of Central Bank of Chile, 51, 1-41.
10. CHINN, M. & PRASAD, E. (2000). Medium-term determinants of current accounts in industrial and developing countries: an empirical exploration. Journal of International Economics, 59, 47–76.
11. CHUDIKA, A., MOHADDESB, K., PESARANC, M. H. & RAİSSİ M. (2015). Long-Run Effects in Large Heterogeneous Panel Data Models with Cross-Sectionally Correlated Errors. Last accessed: 05.04.2016, http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/cto/km418/CS-DL.pdf .
12. CORNER, A., VENABLES, D. , SPENCE, A. , POORTINGA, W. , DEMSKI, C. & PIDGEON, N. (2013). Nuclear power, climate change and energy security- exploring British public attitudes. Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 39, 4823–4833.
13. ÇİFTÇİ, N. (2014). Türkiye'de Cari açık, reel döviz kuru ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiler: eş bütünleşme analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14, 129-142.
14. ERDEM, E., GULOGLU, B. & NAZLİOGLU, Ş. (2010). The macroeconomy and Turkish agricultural trade balance with the EU countries: panel ardl analysis. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 371-379.
15. FUINHAS, J. A. & MARQUES, A.C. (2012). Energy Consumption and economic growth nexus in Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain And Turkey: an ardl bounds test approach (1965– 2009). Journal Of Energy Economics, Volume 34, Issue 2, 511–517.
16. GLOBAL, I. H. S. (2015). Eviews 9 User‟ s Guide.
17. GÖÇER, İ. (2013). Türkiye’de cari açığın nedenleri, finansman kalitesi ve sürdürülebilirliği: ekonometrik bir analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 8, Sayı 1, 213-242.
18. GREENING, L. A. GREENE D. L. & DIFIGLIO C. (2000). Energy efficiency and consumption — the rebound effect — a survey. Energy Policy, Volume 28 Issues 6–7, 389–401.
19. GÜLER, A. & ÖZYURT, H. (2011). Merkez bankası bağımsızlığı ve reel ekonomik performans: panel ardl analizi. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi Cilt 3, No 2. 11-20.
20. HADRI, K. (2000.) Testing For Stationarity In Heterogeneous Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, Volume 3, 148–161.
21. HAUSMAN, J. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, vol. 46, issue 6, 1251-1271.
22. HAUSMANN, J. A. & TAYLOR, W. E. (1981). Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects. Econometrica, Vol. 49, No.6, 1377-1398.
23. HUNTINGTON, H. (2015). Crude Oil Trade and Current Account Deficits. Energy Economics, 50, 70-79.
24. IM, S. K. , PASERAN, M. H., & SHIN, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots İn Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics 115, 53 – 74.
25. KING, M. L. & WU, P. X. (1997). Locally optimal one-sided tests for multiparameter hypotheses. Econometric Reviews, 16(2), 131-156.
26. KUNST, R. 2011. Asymptotics Summary based on Chapter 12 of Baltagi: Panel unit root tests. Lecture Notes. Last Accessed: 4.12.2016, http://homepage.univie.ac.at/robert.kunst/pan2011_pres_nell.pdf
27. LEVIN, A., LIN, C. & CHU, C. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, Volume 108, Issue 1, 1–24.
28. LEWANDOWSKI, P. (2007). PESCADF: Stata module to perform Pesaran's CADF panel unit root test in presence of cross section dependence. Last Accesed: 27.03.2017: http://fmwww.bc.edu/repec/bocode/p/pescadf.html and http://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s456732.htm
29. MANGIR, F. (2012). Türkiye için ikiz açıklar hipotezi testi (1980-2011). Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5, 136-149.
30. MARI, C. (2014). Hedging electricity price volatility using nuclear power. Applied Energy, Volume 113, 615-621.
31. MOULTON, B. R. & RANDOLPH, W. C. (1989). Alternative tests of the error components model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Vol 57, No.3, 685-693.
32. NAZLIOĞU, Ş., LEBE, F. & KAYHAN, S. (2011). Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in OECD countries: cross sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel causality test. Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 39, 6615–6621.
33. NARAYAN, S. (2016). Predictability within the energy consumption–economic growth nexus: some evidence from ıncome and regional groups. Journal of Economic Modeling, Volume 54, 515-521.
34. NASER, H. (2015). Can nuclear energy stimulates economic growth?, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol.5, No. 1, 164-173.
35. OGUNNIYI, M. B., IWEGBU, O. & ADEKOYA, K. I. (2018). A comparative analysis of the impact of current account balances on economic growth of sane countries. International Journal of Development and Sustainability. Volume 7 Number 3, 1220-1237.
36. ÖZATA, E. (2014). Sustainability of current account deficit with high oil prices: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Economic Science, Volume II, No:2, 71-88.
37. ÖZDAMAR, G. (2015). Factors affecting current account balance of Turkey: A Survey With The Cointegrating Regression Analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Finance. Volume 4, Issue 4, 633-658.
38. ÖZTÜRK, İ. (2010). A literature survey on energy–growth nexus. Energy policy, 38(1), 340-349.
39. PESARAN, M. H., SHIN, Y. & SMITH, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
40. PASERAN, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics. Volume 22, Issue 2, 265-312.
41. PEKER, O. & Hotunluoğlu, H. (2009). Türkiye’de cari açığının nedenlerinin ekonometrik analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 3, 221-237.
42. ROUBINI, N. & SETSER, B. (2004). The effects of the recent oil price shock on the U.S. and global economy. Last Acessed: 25.12.2016, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/papers/OilShockRoubiniSetser.pdf .
43. RUFAEL, W. Y. & MENYAH, K. (2010). Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in nine developed countries. Energy Economics, 32, 550–556.
44. TATOĞLU, F. Y. (2013). İleri panel veri analizi: Stata uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi, 2. Ed.
45. YEMANE, W. & MENYAH, K. (2010). Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in nine developed countries. Journal of Energy Economics, Volume 32, 550-556.
46. YÜKSEL, S. (2016). Türkiye’de cari işlemler açığının belirleyicileri: mars yöntemi ile bir inceleme. Bankacılık Dergisi, Sayı 96, 102-121.
47. ZHA, D. & DING, N. (2015). Threshold characteristic of energy efficiency on substitution between energy and non-energy factors. Journal of Economic Modelling, Volume 46, 180–187
48. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı. 2016 Ticaret Verileri. Last Accessed: 16.12.2016, http://bakanrapor.ekonomi.gov.tr/detay.cfm?MID =153 .
49. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUİK). Dış Ticaret Verileri. Last Accessed: 15.12.2016, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1046.
50. Index Mundi. Country Facts. Last Accessed: 11.12.2016, http://www.indexmundi.com/facts .
51. Enerdata. Global Energy Statistical Book, 2018. Last Accessed:15.12.2016, https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil-balance-trade.html#electricity-balance-trade-information-by-region.html.
52. TMMOB Eelektrik Mühendisleri Odası. Türkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Kurulu Gücü -2016 Kasım Sonu. Last Accessed: 22.12.2016, http://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/18ca27f9941712f_ek.pdf .
53. World Bank. Turkey SME Energy Efficiency Project. Last Accessed: 28.12.2016, http://projects.worldbank.org/P122178/turkey-sme-energy-efficiency?lang=en&tab=overview.
54. European Nuclear Society. Nuclear power plants, world-wide (28 November 2016). Last Accesed: 01.02.2019, https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm .
55. Centro Studi Sel Federalismo International Democracy Watch. 3 July 1955: Messina Decleration. Last Accessed: 14.02.2019, http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/attachments/296_The%20Messina%20Declaration%201955.pdf
56. Commision of the European Communities. 10 January 2007: Communicatıon from the commission to the European Council And The European Parliament an energy policy for Europe. Last Accessed: 14.02.2019., http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2007)0001_/com_com(2007)0001_en.pdf.
57. World Bank. Eenrgy imports, net (% of energy ıse). Last Accessed: 18.03.2019, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?end=2015&locations=AR-BE-CA-FR-DE-IN&start=1980 .
58. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Country information. Last Accessed: 20.03.2019,https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/BCA_NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/TUR
59. ABC News. Fact check: Does infrasound from wind farms make people sick?(3 March 2016). Last Accesed: 21.03.2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/wind-farms-david-leyonhjelm-fact-check/6553746
60. International Atomic Eenrgy Agency (IAEA) The Database on nuclear power reactors. Last Accessed: 21.03.2019, https://www.iaea.org/pris/