Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Türkiye’de Çevre Kalitesi Üzerinde Etkili mi? Asimetrik ARDL Yöntemi ile Bir Yaklaşım

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 17, 30 - 46, 27.02.2022

Serhat Çamkaya , İbrahim Halil Polat , Ümmügülsüm Polat

https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1023839

Abstract

Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde doğrudan yabancı yatırımların sağladığı ekonomik avantajlar ve çevre kalitesi açısından dezavantajların olup olmadığı konusunda literatürde tartışmalar bulunmaktadır. Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi çerçevesinde incelenen bu tartışmalar birçok ampirik çalışmaya konu olmuştur. Bu çalışma, Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi çerçevesinde Türkiye için karbon emisyonları, ekonomik büyüme, enerji kullanım miktarı, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve ticarete açıklık arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı ve söz konusu hipotezin Türkiye'de geçerli olup olmadığını test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada hipotezin Türkiye'deki geçerliliği 1970-2018 yıllarına ait veriler kullanılarak NARDL yöntemi ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular, Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezinin uzun vadede Türkiye için geçerli olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Büyüme ve enerji kullanımındaki olumsuz şokların karbon emisyonlarını azalttığı, enerji kullanımı ve ticarete açıklığa yönelik pozitif şokların ise uzun vadede karbon emisyonlarını artırdığı belirlenmiştir. Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezinin kısa vadede geçerli olmadığına ilişkin bulgular da çalışmadan elde edilen diğer bulgular arasındadır. Ayrıca kısa dönemde büyüme ve ticarete açıklıktaki negatif şok ile enerji kullanım miktarındaki negatif ve pozitif şokun anlamlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Çevresel Kalite, Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi, NARDL Yöntemi.

Are Foreign Direct Investments Effective on Environmental Quality in Turkey? An Approach with Non-Linear ARDL Method

Abstract

There are discussions in the literature on whether there are disadvantages in terms of environmental quality and the economic advantages provided by foreign direct investments in developing countries. These discussions, which were studied within the framework of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis, have been the subject of many empirical studies. This study aims to investigate the relationship between carbon emissions, economic growth, amount of energy use, foreign direct investments, and trade openness for Turkey within the Pollution Haven Hypothesis framework and test whether the hypothesis mentioned above is valid in Turkey. In the study, the validity of the hypothesis in Turkey was tested using the NARDL method between 1970 and 2018. The findings validate that the Pollution Haven Hypothesis is valid for Turkey in the long term. It was also determined that negative shocks in growth and energy use reduce carbon emissions, while positive shocks in energy use and trade openness increase carbon emissions in the long term. The findings that the Pollution Haven Hypothesis is not valid in the short term are among the other findings obtained from the study. Also, it was determined that the negative shock in growth and trade openness and negative and positive shock in the amount of energy use are significant in the short term.

Keywords

Environmental Quality, Foreign Direct Investments, Pollution Haven Hypothesis, NARDL Method

References

• Adewuyi, A. O., and Awodumi, O. B. (2017). Biomass energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: fresh evidence from West Africa using a simultaneous equation model. Energy, 119, 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.059
• Akbostancı, E., Tunç, G. İ., and Türüt-Aşık, S. (2007). Pollution haven hypothesis and the role of dirty industries in Turkey's exports. Environment and Development Economics, 12(2), 297-322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X06003512
• Akçay, S. and Karasoy, A. (2018). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve karbondioksit emisyonu ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Ankara University Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 73(2), 501-526. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002507
• Artan, S; Hayaloğlu, P. and Seyhan, B. (2015). Türkiye’de çevre kirliliği, dışa açıklık ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 308-323. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yead/issue/21806/234380
• Al-Mulali, U. (2012). Factors affecting CO2 emission in the Middle East: a panel data analysis. Energy, 44, 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.05.045
• 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 (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
• Al-Mulali, U., and Tang, C. F. (2013). Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.055
• Assamoi, G. R., Wang, S., Liu, Y., and Gnangoin, Y. T. (2020). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Cote D’Ivoire: evidence from Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach with structural breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 16886–16899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08246-w
• Azam, M., Khan, A. Q., Zaman, K., and Ahmad, M. (2015). Factors determining energy consumption: evidence from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 1123-1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.061
• Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., and Mestre, R. (1998). Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00091
• Behera, S. R., and Dash, D. P. (2017). The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emission in the SSEA (South and Southeast Asian) region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.201
• Chandran, V., and Tang, C. F. (2013). The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 445-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.054
• Chen, B. (2021). Industrial agglomeration and the pollution haven hypothesis: evidence from Chinese prefectures. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. Early online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2021.1892567
• Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.09.007
• Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J., ve Zhang, J. (2011). Growth, foreign direct investment, and the environment: evidence from Chinese cities. Journal of Regional Science, 51(1), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00674.x
• Copeland, B. R. and Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-71. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/002205104773558047
• Çınar, S., Yılmazer, M., and Aprazlı Fazlılar, T. (2012). Kirlilik yaratan sektörlerin ticareti ve çevre: gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler karşılaştırması. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 13(2), 212-226. http://journal.dogus.edu.tr/index.php/duj/article/view/321/pdf
• Danish, Khan, S. U.-D., and Ahmad, A. (2021). Testing the pollution haven hypothesis on the pathway of sustainable development: accounting the role of nuclear energy consumption. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. Early online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.008
• Dickey, D. A., and Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
• Dietzenbacher, E., and Mukhopadhyay, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: towards a green leontief paradox? Environmental and Resource Economics, 36, 427-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9036-9
• Ghouali, Y. Z., Belmokaddem, M., Sahraoui, M. A., and Guellil, M. S. (2015). Factors affecting CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries: a panel data analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00890-4
• Grossman, G. M., and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Papers, 3914. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w3914
• Guzel, A. E., and Okumus, İ. (2020). Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis in ASEAN-5 countries: new insights from panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 18157-18167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08317-y
• Hansen, H., and Rand, J. (2006). On the causal links between FDI and growth in developing countries. World Economy, 29(1), 21-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00756.x
• He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60, 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.008
• Hoffman, R., Lee, C.-G., Ramasamy, B., and Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: a Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17, 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1196
• Kearsley, A., and Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 69, 905-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.014
• Keho, Y. (2016). Do foreign direct investment and trade lead to lower energy intensity? Evidence from selected African countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(1), 1-5. https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/1280
• Kılıçarslan, Z., and Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: the case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2017.73
• Kılıç C., and Balan, F. (2018) Is there an environmental Kuznets inverted-U shaped curve? Panoeconomicus, 65(1), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN150215006K
• Kivyiro, P., and Arminen, H. (2014). Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy, 74, 595-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.025
• Koçak, E., and Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0468-2
• Kurt, Ü., Kılıç, C., and Özekicioğlu, H. (2019). The effect of foreign direct investments on CO2 emissions: ARDL boundary test approach for Turkey. Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 22(1), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.487139
• Lau, L.-S., Choong, C.-K., and Eng, Y.-K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy, 68, 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.002
• Liang, F. (2008). Does foreign direct investment harm the host country’s environment? Evidence from China. International Finance eJournal. Early online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1479864
• Mike, F. (2020). Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi Türkiye için geçerli mi? ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımından bulgular. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 21(2), 107-121. http://journal.dogus.edu.tr/index.php/duj/article/view/1259
• Mike, F., and Kardaşlar, A. (2018). Doğrudan yabanci sermaye yatirimlarinin çevre kirliliği üzerine etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(3), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.377182
• Mutafoglu, T. H. (2012). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and economic growth: evidence from Turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X12453780
• Nathaniel, S., Aguegboh, E., Iheonu, C., Sharma, G., and Shah, M. (2020). Energy consumption, FDI, and urbanization linkage in coastal mediterranean countries: Re-assessing the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(28), 35474-354787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09521-6
• Neequaye, N. A., and Oladi, R. (2015). Environment, growth, and FDI revisited. International Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2015.06.002
• Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K., and Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.026
• Öztürk, S., and Saygin, S. (2020). Türkiye’de 1974-2016 döneminde yapısal kırılma altında kişi başına reel gelir, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, ticari açıklık ve karbon emisyonları arasındaki ilişki. Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.02.04
• Pao, H.-T., and Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Multivariate granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 36, 685-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.041
• Perron, P. (1990). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 8(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391977
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., and Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
• Rafiq, S., Salim, R., and Nielsen, I. (2016). Urbanization, openness, emissions, and energy intensity: a study of increasingly urbanized emerging economies. Energy Economics, 56, 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.02.007
• Rahman, Z., Chongboa, W., and Ahmad, M. (2019). An (a)symmetric analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis in the context of Pakistan: a non-linear approach. Carbon Management, 10(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1577179
• Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X., and Chen, X. (2014). International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of Chinas industrial sectors. China Economic Review, 28, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2014.01.003
• Sadik-Zada, E. R., and Ferrari, M. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, technical progress and pollution haven hypothesis. Sustainability, 12(9), 3880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093880 .
• Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., and Cetin, M. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.118
• Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., and Afza, T. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: evidence from panel data analysis. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32547/.
• Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., and Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Economics, 51, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.014
• Shin, Y., Yu, B., and Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. R. Sickles, and W. Horrace (Ed.), Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt in (s. 281-314). Springer.
• Singhania, M., and Saini, N. (2021). Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: role of FDI. Journal of Business Research, 123, 516-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.007
• Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., and Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.089
• Şahinöz, A. and Fotourehchi, Z. (2014). Kirlilik emisyonu ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları: Türkiye için "kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi" testi. Sosyoekonomi, 21(21), 187-210. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sosyoekonomi/issue/21081/226983
• Tamazian, A., and Rao, B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004
• Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., and Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
• Tang, C. F., and Tan, B. W. (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.033
• Waldkirch, A., and Gopinath, M. (2008). Pollution control and foreign direct investment in Mexico: an ındustry-level analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9192-1
• Wang, D. T., and Chen, W. Y. (2014). Foreign direct investment, institutional development, and environmental externalities: evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.013
• World Bank Open Data. (2021, 2 June). https://data.worldbank.org/
• Yıldırım, M., Destek, M. A., and Özsoy, F. N. (2017). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cumuiibf/issue/32189/330140
• Zheng, S., Kahn, M. E., and Liu, H. (2010). Towards a system of open cities in China: home prices, FDI flows and air quality in 35 major cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.10.003
• Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., and Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.003