Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi ve Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezleri Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler İçin Geçerli midir?

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, 55 gelişmekte olan ülke için çevresel Kuznets eğrisi (EKC) ve kirlilik sığınağı (PHH) hipotezlerinin geçerliliğini test etmektir. Yöntem: Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde EKC ve PHH hipotezlerinin varlığı statik ve dinamik panel veri teknikleri yardımıyla incelenmiştir. Araştırma 1991-2017 yılları arasındaki verileri kapsamaktadır. Bulgular: Statik ve dinamik panel veri tahmincilerinden elde edilen bulgulara göre, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik büyüme ile çevre kirliliği arasında bir ilişkinin varlığı saptanmıştır. Benzer şekilde söz konusu ülkelerde doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevre kalitesini olumsuz yönde etkilediği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca heterojen panel nedensellik test sonuçlarına göre, kişi başına düşen gelirden, kentsel nüfustan, elektrik tüketiminden ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımlardan kişi başına düşen karbondioksit emisyonuna doğru bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde EKC ve PHH hipotezlerinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Özgünlük: Bu çalışmanın literatüre iki önemli katkıda bulunması beklenmektedir: i. Gelişmekte olan ülkeler paneli için EKC ve PHH hipotezlerin geçerliliğini hem statik hem de gecikmeli etkileri göz önünde bulunduran dinamik panel veri tahmincileri yardımıyla incelemek ve bulguları kıyaslamak, ii. Gelişmekte olan ülkeler paneli için EKC hipotezinin geçerliliğini hem geleneksel yaklaşım hem de uzun ve kısa dönem esnekliklerin kıyaslanması temeline dayanan güncel yaklaşım ile test ederek elde edilen sonuçları karşılaştırmak.

Keywords

• Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi
• Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi
• Statik panel veri
• Dinamik panel veri
• Gelişmekte olan ülkeler.

Are Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Haven Hypotheses Valid for Developing Countries?

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to test the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and pollution haven (PHH) hypotheses for 55 developing countries. Method: The existence of EKC and PHH hypotheses in developing countries has been examined with the help of static and dynamic panel data techniques. The sample covers the period from 1991 to 2017. Findings: According to the findings obtained from static and dynamic panel data estimators, there is a relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution in developing countries. Similarly, it has been found that foreign direct investments in these countries negatively affect the environmental quality. In addition, according to the heterogeneous panel causality test results, a causality relationship from per capita income, urban population, electricity consumption and foreign direct investments to carbon dioxide emissions per capita was determined. Implications: It has been reached that the EKC and PHH hypotheses are valid in developing countries. Originality: This study aimed to make some significant contributions to the existing literature: i. Examining the validity of the EKC and PHH hypotheses for developing countries panel with using static and dynamic panel data estimators to consider both static and lagged effects and allows for comparision, ii. Investigating the validity of the EKC hypothesis for developing countries panel with both the traditional approach based on exponential calculation and the contemporary approach based on a comparison of long and short run elasticities and thus it is aimed to compare the findings.

Keywords

• Environmental Kuznets curve
• Pollution haven hypothesis
• Static panel data
• Dynamic panel data
• Developing countries

References

1. Acharyya, J. (2009). FDI, growth and the environment: Evidence from India on CO2 emission during the last two decades. Journal of Economic Development, 34(1), 43-58.
2. Agras, J. ve Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28, 267-277.
3. Ahmad, M., Muslija, A. ve Satrovic, E. (2021). Does economic prosperity lead to environmental sustainability in developing economies? Environmental Kuznets curve theory. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 22588-22601.
4. Aliyu, M. A. (2005). Foreign direct investment and the environment: Pollution haven hypothesis revisited. Eight Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, 1-35.
5. Al-Mulali, U. ve Öztürk, İ. (2016). The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: The role of energy prices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1622-1631.
6. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Tarım Bakanlığı (2022). Real GDP per capita historical. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-macroeconomic-data-set/
7. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S. ve Khan, N. A. (2020). Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115, 1-14.
8. Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2009). CO2 emissions, energy usage and output in central America. Energy Policy, 37, 3282-3286.

9. Apergis, N. ve Öztürk. İ. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16-22.
10. Arellano, M. ve Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297.
11. Arouri, M. E. H., Youssef, A. B., M’henni, H. ve Rault, C. (2012). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy, 45, 342-349.
12. Asteriou, D. ve Hall, S. G. (2011). Applied econometrics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Aşıcı, A. A. ve Şahin, Ü. (2012). Yeşil ekonomi. İstanbul: Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
14. Atıcı, C. ve Kurt, F. (2007). Türkiye'nin dış ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi yaklaşımı. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(2), 61-69.
15. Atıcı, C. (2012). Carbon emissions, trade liberalization, and the Japan–ASEAN interaction: A group-wise examination. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 26, 167-178.
16. Baek, J. (2016). A new look at the FDI-income-energy-environment nexus: Dynamic panel data analysis of ASEAN. Energy Policy, 91, 22-27.
17. Bailey, D. ve Katz, J. N. (2011). Implementing panel-corrected standard errors in R: The pcse package. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1-11.
18. Bakırtaş, İ., Bayrak, S. ve Çetin M. A. (2014). Economic growth and carbon emission: A dynamic panel data analysis. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4), 91-102.
19. Bakırtaş, İ. ve Çetin, M. A. (2017). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve and pollution haven hypotheses: MIKTA sample. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(22), 18273-18283.
20. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibanez-Luzon, L., Usman, M. ve Shahbaz, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries. Renewable Energy, 185, 1441-1455.
21. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170, 164-177.
22. Beck, N. ve Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634-647.
23. Birdsall, N. ve Wheeler, D. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: Where are the pollution havens?. The Journal of Environment & Development, 2(1), 137- 149.
24. Birleşmiş Milletler (2020). World economic situation prospects. New York: United Nations.
25. Blackburne, E. ve Frank, M. (2007). Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels. Stata Journal, 7(2), 197-208.
26. Breusch, T. S. ve 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.
27. Bruyn, S. M. ve Heniz, R. J. (1999). The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. J. C. J. M. Van den Berg (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and resource economics içinde. UK: Edward Elgar.
28. Chaudhry, I. S., Yin, W., Ali, S. A., Faheem, M., Abbas, Q., Farooq, F. ve Rahman, S. U. (2022). Moderating role of institutional quality in validation of pollution haven hypothesis in BRICS: A new evidence by using DCCE approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 9193-9202.
29. Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J. ve Bates, J. M. (1997). The environmental Kuznets curve: An empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 401-416.
30. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
31. Çetin, M. A. (2018). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve and the role of green energy: Emerging and developed markets. International Journal of Green Energy, 15(1), 37-44.
32. Çoban, M. N. ve Özkan, O. (2022a). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi: Türkiye'de küreselleşme ve ekonomik büyümenin çevre üzerindeki etkisinin yeni dinamik ARDL simülasyon modeli ile incelenmesi. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 9(19), 207-228.
33. Çoban, M. N. ve Özkan, O. (2022b). Türkiye’de enerji tüketimi, ticari açıklık, CO2 emisyonları ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi: Yeni dinamik ARDL simülasyonlarından kanıtlar. Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 480-507.
34. Dam, M. M., Karakaya, E. ve Bulut, Ş. (2013). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi ve Türkiye: Ampirik bir analiz. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi EYİ 2013 Özel Sayısı, 85-95.
35. Destek, M. A. ve 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(2), 2483-2489.
36. Dietzenbacher, E. ve Mukhopadhyay, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: Towards a green leontief paradox?. Environmental & Resource Economics, 36, 427-449.
37. Dinda, S., Coondoo, D. ve Pal, M. (2000). Air quality and economic growth: An empirical study. Ecologial Economics, 34, 409-423.
38. Doğan, M. (1997). Ulusal çevre eylem planı: Eğitim ve katılım. Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı.
39. Dünya Bankası (2022a). World Bank open data. https://data.worldbank.org/
40. Dünya Bankası (2022b). Foreign direct investment, net. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BN.KLT.DINV.CD
41. Dünya Bankası (2022c). Urban population. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL
42. Enerji Bilgi İdaresi (2022). Electricity. https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world
43. Erçandırlı, Y. (2020). Küresel çevre sorunları ve siyaseti. M. S. Erol ve M. Ekşi (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkilerde güncel sorunlar içinde. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları.
44. Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric analysis (8. Baskı). New York: Pearson Education.
45. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914, 1-57.
46. 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.
47. Hoffman, R., Lee, C. G., Ramasamy, B. ve Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17, 311-317.
48. Hsiao, C. (2014). Anaysis of panel data (3. Baskı). New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Kearsley, A. ve Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 69, 905- 919.
50. Kemp, D. D. (1994). Global environmental issues: A climatological approach (2. Baskı). London: Routledge.
51. Koç, S. ve Buluş, G. C. (2021). The effects of FDI and government expenditures on environmental pollution in Korea: The pollution haven hypothesis revisited. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 38238-38253.
52. Kula, E. (1998). History of environmental economic thought. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
53. Letchumanan, R. ve Kodama, F. (2000). Reconciling the conflict between the “Pollution-Haven” hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer. Research Policy, 29(1), 59-79.
54. Martinez-Zarzoso, I. ve Bengochea-Morancho, A. (2004). Pooled mean group estimation for an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Economics Letters, 82, 121-126.
55. Mike, F. ve Kardaşlar, A. (2018). Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının çevre kirliliği üzerine etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(3), 178-191.
56. Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., Boateng, F., Nyeadi, J. D. ve Coffie, C. P. K. (2022). Reinvestigating the pollution haven hypothesis: the nexus between foreign direct investments and environmental quality in G 20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18.
57. Narayan, P. K. ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38, 661-666.
58. Nathaniel, S., Aguegboh, E., Iheonu, C., Sharma, G. ve 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, 35474-35487.
59. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. World Employment Programme Research, 1-45.
60. Pao, H. T. ve 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.
61. Parks, R. W. (1967). Efficient estimation of a system of regression equations when disturbances are both serially and contemporaneously correlated. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 500-509.
62. Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770-779.
63. Pavloviç, A., Njegovan, M., Ivanisevic, A., Radisic, M., Takaci, A., Losonc, A. ve Kot, S. (2021). The impact of foreign direct investments and economic growth on environmental degradation: The case of the balkans. Energies, 14, 1-21.
64. Perman, R. ve Stern, D. I. (2003). Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3), 325-347.
65. Pesaran, M. H. ve Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79-113.
66. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. (1997). Pooled estimation of long-run relationships in dynamic heterogeneous panels. Cambridge (Working Papers in 199 Economics No. 94).
67. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 621-634.
68. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge Economics Working Paper, 435.
69. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
70. Richmond, A. K. ve Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions?. Ecological Economics, 56, 176-189.
71. Sarkodie, S. A. ve Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 862-871.
72. Selden, T. M. ve Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162.
73. Shafik, N. ve Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality time-series and cross-country evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, 1-55.
74. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F. ve Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?. Energy Economics, 51, 275-287.
75. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, İ. ve Öztürk, İ. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719.
76. Uluslararası Enerji Ajansı (2022). Data and statistics. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-products?filter=emissions
77. Wagner, U. J. ve Timmins, C. D. (2009). Agglomeration effects in foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental & resource economics, 43, 231-256.
78. Wang, Q., Wang, X. ve Li, R. (2022). Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 countries. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103382, 1-14.
79. Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P. ve Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39, 4780-875.
80. Yandle, B., Bhattarai, M. ve Vijayaraghavan, M. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curves: A review of findings, methods, and policy implications. PERC Research Study, 2(1), 1-38.
81. Yerdelen-Tatoğlu, F. (2020). Panel veri ekonometrisi: Stata uygulamalı (5. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım A.Ş.
82. Yeter, F., Eroğlu, İ., Kangal, N. ve Çoban, M. N. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi ve çevresel bozulma ilişkisi: Türk Cumhuriyetleri üzerine panel veri analizi. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 129, 405-432.