TÜRKİYE’DE ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİNİN CO2 EMİSYONU İÇİN GEÇERLİLİĞİ: YUMUŞAK GEÇİŞ REGRESYON YAKLAŞIMINDAN YENİ KANITLAR

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezinin Türkiye için ne kadar geçerli ve uygulanabilir olabildiğini incelemektedir. ÇKE’nin geçerliliği  1971-2014 dönemi için kişi başına karbondioksit (CO₂) emisyonu ve kişi başına GSYİH veri seti kullanılarak yumuşak geçiş regresyon modeli ile test edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, çevresel kirliliğin kalkınmanın ilk evrelerinde ekonomik büyümeyle birlikte yükselme eğiliminde olduğunu göstermektedir. Gelir, belirli bir eşik seviyesini (8,022 $) aştıktan sonra ise kirlilik artış oranı yavaşlamakta ancak daha fazla büyüme ile birlikte düşüş göstermemektedir. Tahmin sonuçları, belirli bir gelir düzeyinden itibaren çevresel koşullarda iyileşmelerin gözlenebileceğini ifade eden EKC hipotezinin varlığını destekleyecek kanıtlar sunmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, gelir düzeyi ile çevresel kirlilik arasındaki ilişkinin birçok faktöre bağlı olduğunu ve bu nedenle ekonomik büyümenin tek başına çevre sorunlarını çözemediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu araştırma bulguları, hem politika yapıcılar ve araştırmacılara çevresel kirliliği gidermek için bir rehber olarak hem de uzun vadede Türkiye'nin sürdürülebilir büyümesini sağlamak için bir politika önerisi olarak yararlı olabilir.

Keywords

• Doğrusal Olmama,CO2 Emisyonu,Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi

THE VALIDITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2 EMISSIONS IN TURKEY: NEW EVIDENCE FROM SMOOTH TRANSITION REGRESSION APPROACH

Abstract

This study examines to what extent the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis may be valid and applicable for Turkey. In the present paper, we employ a smooth transition regression (STR) model to test validity of the EKC hypothesis, using a dataset of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission per capita and GDP per capita over the period of 1971–2014. The environmental pollution tends to rise with economic growth in the early stages of development. After exceeding a turning point of income ($8,022), it smoothly slows down but does not decline with further growth. Estimation results provide no evidence to support  the presence of the EKC hypothesis, which implies that after passing a certain point, economic growth may actually be profitable for environmental quality. This study reveals that the relationship between income level and environmental pollution depends on many factors, and therefore economic growth singly cannot solve environmental problems. This research finding may be useful as a guide for policy makers and researchers to resolve environmental pollution and as a policy recommendation to ensure sustainable growth of Turkey in the long run.

Keywords

• Nonlinearity,CO2 Emissions,Environmental Kuznets Curve

References

1. Akbostancı, E., Türüt-Aşık, S., and Tunç, G. İ. (2009). The Relationship between Income and Environment in Turkey: Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve?. Energy Policy, 37(3), 861-867. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.088
2. Akpan, U. F., and Abang, D. E. (2014). Environmental Quality and Economic Growth: A Panel Analysis of the" U" in Kuznets. MPRA Paper, No. 54461.
3. Albayrak, E. N., and Gökçe, A. (2015). Relation Between Economic Growth and Environmental Pollutant: Environmental Kuznets Curve and Turkey Case. Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(2), 279-301.
4. Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., and Ozturk, I. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 76, 123-131. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.019
5. Apergis, N., and 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
6. Atici, C., and Kurt, F. (2007). Turkey's Foreign Trade and Environmental Pollution: An Environmental Kuznets Curve Approach. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 13(2), 61-69.
7. Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., and Van, P. N. (2006). Economic development and CO2 emissions: a nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6-7), 1347-1363. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.005
8. Baek, J., and Kim, H. S. (2013). Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Economics, 36, 744-749. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.11.020

9. Başar, S., and Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis for Turkey. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 1-12.
10. Bölük, G., and Mert, M. (2015). The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 587-595. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.138
11. Carson, R. T., Jeon, Y., and McCubbin, D. R. (1997). The Relationship Between Air Pollution Emissions and Income: US Data. Environment and Development Economics, 2(04), 433-450. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X97000235
12. Chen, L., and Chen, S. (2015). The Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve in China: Nonparametric Panel Approach. Computational Economics, 46(3), 405-420. doi:10.1007/s10614-015-9486-7
13. Chiu, Y. B. (2012). Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Developing Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(2), 177-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01251.x
14. Chiu, Y. B. (2017). Carbon dioxide, income and energy: Evidence from a non-linear model. Energy Economics, 61, 279-288.
15. Dinda, S., (2001). A note on global EKC in case of CO2 emission. Economic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. Mimeo
16. Erdoğan, I., Türköz, K., and Görüş, M. Ş. (2015). Validity of Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for the Turkish Economy. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 44, 113-123.
17. Esteve, V., and Tamarit, C. (2012). Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment between CO2 and income: the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain, 1857–2007. Energy Economics, 34(6), 2148-2156. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.03.001
18. Focacci, A. (2003). Empirical evidence in the analysis of the environmental and energy policies of a series of industrialised nations, during the period 1960–1997, using widely employed macroeconomic indicators. Energy Policy, 31(4), 333-352. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00068-X
19. Fodha, M., and Zaghdoud, O. (2010). Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1150-1156. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.002
20. Fosten, J., Morley, B., and Taylor, T. (2012). Dynamic misspecification in the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics, 76, 25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.023
21. Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. (2008). The Feldstein–Horioka puzzle: a panel smooth transition regression approach. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 284-299.
22. Fouquau, J., Destais, G., and Hurlin, C. (2009). Energy demand models: a threshold panel specification of the ‘Kuznets curve’. Applied Economics Letters, 16(12), 1241-1244. doi: 10.1080/13504850701367197
23. Friedl, B., and Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 Emissions in A Small Open Economy. Ecological Economics, 45(1), 133-148. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00008-9
24. González, A., Teräsvirta, T., & Dijk, D. V. (2005). Panel smooth transition regression models (No. 604). SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance.
25. Granger, C. W. J., and Teräsvirta, T. (1993). Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Grossman, G. M., and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER Working Papers, WP. No: 3914.
27. Grossman, G. M., and Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
28. Harbaugh, W. T., Levinson, A., and Wilson, D. M. (2002). Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3), 541-551. doi:10.1162/003465302320259538
29. Helland, E., & Whitford, A. B. (2003). Pollution incidence and political jurisdiction: evidence from the TRI. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 46(3), 403-424.
30. Iwata, H., Okada, K., and Samreth, S. (2011). A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: a pooled mean group approach. Applied Energy, 88(5), 1986-1996. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.11.005
31. Kearsley, A., and Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 905-919. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.014
32. Koçak, E. (2014). The validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Turkey: ARDL bounds test approach. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 62-73.
33. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
34. Lean, H. H., and Smyth, R. (2010). CO2 Emissions, Electricity Consumption and Output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87(6), 1858-1864. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.003
35. Lebe, F. (2016). The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: Cointegration and Causality Analysis for Turkey. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 17(2), 177-194.
36. Lise, W. (2006). Decomposition of CO2 emissions over 1980–2003 in Turkey. Energy Policy, 34(14), 1841-1852. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.12.021
37. Martı́nez-Zarzoso, I., and Bengochea-Morancho, A. (2004). Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Economics Letters, 82(1), 121-126. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2003.07.008
38. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.
39. Nasr, A. B., Gupta, R., and Sato, J. R. (2015). Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve for South Africa? A co-summability approach using a century of data. Energy Economics, 52, 136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.10.005
40. Omay, R. E. (2013). The relationship between environment and income: regression spline approach. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 3, 52-61.
41. Ozturk, I., and Acaravci, A. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 3220-3225. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.005
42. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development, WP. No: 238, Technology and Employment Programme, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
43. Richmond, A. K., and Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions?. Ecological economics, 56(2), 176-189. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.011
44. Roberts, J. T., and Grimes, P. E. (1997). Carbon Intensity and Economic Development 1962-1991: A Brief Exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World development, 25(2), 191-198. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00104-0
45. Roca, J., Padilla, E., Farré, M., and Galletto, V. (2001). Economic growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain: discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 39(1), 85-99. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00195-1
46. Ruttan, V. W. (1971). Technology and the Environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(5), 707-717.
47. Saatçi, M., and Dumrul, Y. (2011). The relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution: the estimation of environmental Kuznets curve with a cointegration analysis of structural breaks for Turkish economy. Erciyes University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, (37), 65-86.
48. Saboori, B., and Sulaiman, J. (2013). Environmental degradation, economic growth and energy consumption: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in
49. Malaysia. Energy Policy, 60, 892-905. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.099
50. Saboori, B., Sulaiman, J., and Mohd, S. (2012). Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 51, 184-191. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.065
51. Saikkonen, P., & Lütkepohl, H. (2002). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a level shift at unknown time. Econometric theory, 18(02), 313-348.
52. Selden, T. M., and 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. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
53. Sengupta, R. (1996). CO2 emission–income relationship: policy approach for climate control. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy, 7(2), 207-229.
54. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757-773.
55. Shafik, N., and Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Time-Series and Cross-Country Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper Series, WP. No. 904, Washington, DC.: World Bank Publications.
56. Shahbaz, M., Mutascu, M., and Azim, P. (2013). Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and the role of energy consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 165-173. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.012
57. Soytas, U., Sari, R., and 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
58. Teräsvirta, T. (1994). Specification, estimation, and evaluation of smooth transition autoregressive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(425), 208-218. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476462
59. Terasvirta, T., and Anderson, H. M. (1992). Characterizing nonlinearities in business cycles using smooth transition autoregressive models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 7(S1), 119–136. doi:10.1002/jae.3950070509
60. Tunçsiper, B., Uçar, B. (2017). Validity Test of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Turkey: Granger Causality Analysis. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(2), 657-666.
61. York, R., Rosa, E. A., and Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic Tools for Unpacking the Driving Forces of Environmental Impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00188-5