Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Sektörel Analizi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı çevresel Kuznets eğrisi (EKC) hipotezinin geçerliliğini OECD ülkeleri için sektör düzeyinde incelemektir. Çalışmada analiz edilen beş farklı sektör bulunmaktadır: enerji, konut, ulaştırma, sanayi ve diğer. Çalışma kapsamında yürütülen ampirik analiz eşbütünleşme testleri ile ortalama grup tahmincilerine dayanmakta ve 28 OECD ülkesi ile 1971-2018 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, gelir-çevre ilişkisi sektörel farklılık göstermektedir. EKC hipotezi enerji ve ulaştırma sektörleri için geçerlidir; fakat konut, sanayi ve diğer sektörleri için geçerli değildir. Diğer bir ifadeyle, gelirin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi, sadece enerji ve ulaştırma sektörleri için, önce azalan sonra artan bir etkiye sahiptir. Şehirleşmenin sektörel emisyonlar üzerindeki etkisi sadece sanayi, diğer ve ulaştırma sektörleri için negatif ve istatistiki olarak anlamlıdır. Enerji tüketimi değişkenine ait tüm katsayılar istatistiki olarak anlamlı ve sektörel CO2 emisyonlarını artıcı bir etkiye sahip iken, küreselleşmenin CO2 emisyonları üzerindeki etkisi sadece enerji sektörü için pozitiftir.

Keywords

• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• Sektörel CO2 Emisyonları
• Panel Veri
• OECD

Sectoral Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from OECD Countries

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in the OECD countries at the sectoral level. We cover five different sectors: power industry, buildings, transport, other industrial combustion, and other. We conduct our empirical analysis for the 28 OECD countries over the period 1971-2018 by using the cointegration tests and mean group estimators. The results reveal that the income-environment nexus varies across sectors. The EKC hypothesis is valid for the power and transport sectors, but not for the buildings, industrial combustion, and other sectors. In other words, the income has an inverted U-shaped impact on environmental degradation only for the power and transport sectors. The effect of urbanization on sectoral emissions is negative for the industry, other, and transport sectors. While energy consumption positively affects sectoral emissions, the effect of globalization on emissions is positive only for the energy sector.

Keywords

• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Sectoral CO2 emissions
• Panel Data
• OECD

References

1. Agarwal, S., Kumar, S. & Goel, U. (2019). Stock market response to information diffusion through Internet sources: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 45 April, 18-131.
2. Abid, M. (2017). Does economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental quality? A comparative analysis of EU and MEA countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 188, 183–194. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.007
3. Alper, A. ve Onur, G. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for sub-elements of the carbon emissions in China. Natural Hazards, 82(2), 1327–1340. doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2246-8
4. Amin, A., Altinoz, B. ve Dogan, E. (2020). Analyzing the determinants of carbon emissions from transportation in European countries: the role of renewable energy and urbanization. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22(8), 1725–1734. doi:10.1007/s10098-020-01910-2
5. Ang, J. B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772–4778. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.032
6. Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2009). CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3282–3286. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.048
7. Aslan, A., Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2018). Sectoral carbon emissions and economic growth in the US: Further evidence from rolling window estimation method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200, 402–411. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.237
8. Aslan, A., Dogan, E. ve Altinoz, B. (2019). Single-Country Versus Multiple-Country Studies. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) içinde (ss. 25–36). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816797-7.00004-7

9. Aydin, C. ve Esen, Ö. (2017). The Validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for CO2 Emissions in Turkey: New Evidence From Smooth Transition Regression Approach. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 14(39), 101–116.
10. Aydin, C., Esen, Ö. ve Aydin, R. (2019). Is the ecological footprint related to the Kuznets curve a real process or rationalizing the ecological consequences of the affluence? Evidence from PSTR approach. Ecological Indicators, 98(November 2018), 543–555. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.034
11. Bhattacharya, M. (2019). The Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) içinde (ss. 9–14). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-816797-7.00002-3
12. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E. ve Bulut, Ü. (2016, 1 Şubat). The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080
13. Breitung, J. ve Das, S. (2005). Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414–433.
14. Congregado, E., Feria-Gallardo, J., Golpe, A. A. ve Iglesias, J. (2016). The environmental Kuznets curve and CO2 emissions in the USA: Is the relationship between GDP and CO2 emissions time varying? Evidence across economic sectors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(18), 18407–18420. doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6982-9
15. Crippa, M., Oreggioni, G., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Lo Vullo, E., … Vignati, E. (2020). Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/143674, JRC121460
16. Dogan, E., Seker, F. ve Bulbul, S. (2017). Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: A panel study of OECD countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1701–1719. doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1119103
17. Dogan, E. ve Turkekul, B. (2016). CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203–1213. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5323-8
18. Dogan, E., Ulucak, R., Kocak, E. ve Isik, C. (2020). The use of ecological footprint in estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Science of the Total Environment, 723, 138063. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063
19. Eberhardt, M. (2012). Estimating panel time-series models with heterogeneous slopes, (1), 61–71. doi:10.1177/1536867X1201200105
20. Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F. (2010). Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production. Oxford Department of Economics Discussion Paper, (515), 1–31.
21. Erdogan, S., Fatai Adedoyin, F., Victor Bekun, F. ve Asumadu Sarkodie, S. (2020). Testing the transport-induced environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of air and railway transport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 101935. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101935
22. Erdoğan, S., Yıldırım, S., Yıldırım, D. Ç. ve Gedikli, A. (2020). The effects of innovation on sectoral carbon emissions: Evidence from G20 countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 267(December 2019), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110637
23. Fatima, T., Karim, M. Z. abd ve Meo, M. S. (2020). Sectoral CO2 emissions in China: asymmetric and time-varying analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(4), 581–610. doi:10.1080/09640568.2020.1776691
24. Gavrilyeva, T., Sugimoto, A., Bochkarev, N., Stepanova, N., Nogovitcyn, A. ve Semenova, L. (2020). Economy-related green-house gases emissions and validation of the environmental Kuznets curve for Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Polar Science, 23(January), 100507. doi:10.1016/j.polar.2020.100507
25. Grossman, G. ve Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, (3914). doi:10.3386/w3914
26. Grossman, G. ve Krueger, A. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377. doi:10.2307/2118443
27. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index – revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. doi:10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
28. Henningsen, A. ve Henningsen, G. (2019). Analysis of panel data using R. Panel Data Econometrics: Theory. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-814367-4.00012-5
29. IEA. (2019). Global Energy & CO2 Status Report: The Latest Trends in Energy and Emissions in 2018. https://webstore.iea.org/global-energy-co2-status-report-2018 adresinden erişildi.
30. IEA. (2020). No Title. World Energy Balances (database). https://www.iea.org/subscribe-to-data-services/world-energy-balances-and-statistics adresinden erişildi.
31. Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2019). Recent Studies (Extending Basic Environmental Kuznets Curve Model by Adding More Variables). Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) içinde (ss. 15–23). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816797-7.00003-5
32. Karakaya, E., Alataş, S. ve Yılmaz, B. (2020). Sectoral convergence in energy consumption from developing country perspective: The case of Turkey. Energy Efficiency, 13(7), 1457–1472. doi:10.1007/s12053-020-09891-3
33. Kasman, A. ve Duman, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: A panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 44, 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.022
34. Khan, A. N., En, X., Raza, M. Y., Khan, N. A. ve Ali, A. (2020). Sectorial study of technological progress and CO2 emission: Insights from a developing economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151(December 2019), 119862. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119862
35. Kharbach, M. ve Chfadi, T. (2017). CO2 emissions in Moroccan road transport sector: Divisia, Cointegration, and EKC analyses. Sustainable Cities and Society, 35(July), 396–401. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.016
36. Koçak, E. (2014). Türkiye ’ de Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Geçerliliği : ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 62–73.
37. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581 adresinden erişildi.
38. Lin, B. ve Xu, B. (2018). Factors affecting CO2 emissions in China’s agriculture sector: A quantile regression. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94(April), 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.065
39. Morales-Lage, R., Bengochea-Morancho, A., Camarero, M. ve Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2019). Club convergence of sectoral CO2 emissions in the European Union. Energy Policy, 135, 111019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111019
40. Moutinho, V., Madaleno, M. ve Elheddad, M. (2020). Determinants of the Environmental Kuznets Curve considering economic activity sector diversification in the OPEC countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 122642. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122642
41. Nasir, M. ve Ur Rehman, F. (2011). Environmental Kuznets Curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1857–1864. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.025
42. Neal, T. (2014). Panel cointegration analysis with xtpedroni, (3), 684–692. doi:10.1177/1536867X1401400312
43. OECD. (2020). Environment at a Glance Indicators. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/ac4b8b89-en adresinden erişildi.
44. Ozcan, B. (2013). The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 62, 1138–1147. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.016
45. Özcan, B. ve Öztürk, I. (2019). A Historical Perspective on Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) içinde (ss. 1–7). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816797-7.00001-1
46. Ozkan, T., Yanginlar, G. ve Kalayci, S. (2019). Testing the transportation-induced environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: Evidence from eight developed and developing countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 174–183. doi:10.32479/ijeep.7330
47. Özpolat, A. (2020). Sektörel CO2 Emisyonlarını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi: Gelecek-11 Ülkeleri Örneği. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, (653), 115–136.
48. Ozturk, I. ve Al-Mulali, U. (2015). Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecological Indicators, 57, 324–330. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.018
49. Pablo-Romero, M. del P. ve Sánchez-Braza, A. (2017). Residential energy environmental Kuznets curve in the EU-28. Energy, 125, 44–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.091
50. Panayotou, T. (1994). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy (C. 4).
51. Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve : turning a black box into a Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve : turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 465–484. doi:10.1017/S1355770X97000259
52. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, (Special Issue), 653–670.
53. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tets with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis, 20(3), 597–625. doi:10.1017/S0266466604203073
54. Persyn, D. ve Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-correction – based cointegration tests for panel data, 8(2), 232–241.
55. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13–50. doi:10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
56. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. doi:10.1002/jae.951
57. Pesaran, M. H. ve Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics (C. 68). doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-F
58. Phuc Nguyen, C., Schinckus, C. ve Dinh Su, T. (2020). Economic integration and CO2 emissions: evidence from emerging economies. Climate and Development, 12(4), 369–384. doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1630350
59. Rahman, M. M., Karim, A. A. M. E., Ahmed, Z. ve Acet, H. (2021). Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) for Bangladesh: Evidence from Fully Modified OLS Approach. JOURNAL OF EMERGING ECONOMIES AND POLICY, 6(2), 5–14.
60. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757–773.
61. Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T. ve Ali, A. (2013, 1 Eylül). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021
62. Sinha, A., Shahbaz, M. ve Balsalobre, D. (2019). Data Selection and Environmental Kuznets Curve Models - Environmental Kuznets Curve Models, Data Choice, Data Sources, Missing Data, Balanced and Unbalanced Panels. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) içinde (ss. 65–83). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816797-7.00007-2
63. Soytas, U., Sari, R. ve Ewing, B. T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 482–489. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.009
64. Sözen, A., Cakir, M. T. ve Cipil, F. (2016). Sectoral CO 2 emission reductions in Turkey: Preparing for Doha 2020. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects, 38(7), 905–913. doi:10.1080/15567036.2013.850559
65. Stern, D. I. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, 32(8), 1419–1439. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
66. Tiwari, A. K., Shahbaz, M. ve Adnan Hye, Q. M. (2013, 1 Şubat). The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: Cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Pergamon. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.031
67. Ugcu, C. T. (2018). Panel Data Analysis in the Energy-Growth Nexus (EGN). The Economics and Econometrics of the Energy-Growth Nexus içinde (ss. 255–271). Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-812746-9.00008-0
68. Ulucak, R. ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144–157. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
69. Ulucak, R., Danish ve Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Does information and communication technology affect CO2 mitigation under the pathway of sustainable development during the mode of globalization? Sustainable Development, 28(4), 857–867. doi:10.1002/sd.2041
70. Wang, Y., Zhang, C., Lu, A., Li, L., He, Y., ToJo, J. ve Zhu, X. (2017). A disaggregated analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for industrial CO2 emissions in China. Applied Energy, 190, 172–180. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.109
71. WDI. (2021). World development indicators. World Bank, World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators adresinden erişildi.
72. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x