THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FINANCIAL GLOBALIZATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: TURKEY'S EXPERIENCE

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effects of financial globalization on environmental degradation for Turkey, with annual data covering the period 1970-2017. Although the EKC hypothesis has been examined using a variety of financial variables in the literature, no study has yet been found that deals with these variables as a whole in the Turkish sample. This is the first study to examine the relationship between financial globalization and the environment as a composite and comprehensive variable in the framework of the EKC hypothesis. Increasing commercial activities such as imports and exports are considered the engine of economic growth. However, the sustainability of trade in countries with a savings deficit such as Turkey is more dependent on financial markets. Because structural transformations occurred in the Turkish economy during periods of economic liberalization with an increasing effect of globalization. The possible relationships between the variables were investigated by using the Gregory-Hansen structural break cointegration test. The Fully Modified Least Squares Method (FMOLS), Dynamic Least Squares Method (DOLS), and Canonical Co-integrated Regression (CCR) estimated long-run coefficients. Finally, one of the most frequent methodologies, ARDL, was utilized to perform comparisons and verify robustness. According to the Gregory-Hansen structural break cointegration test results, there is a long-term cointegration relationship between the variables. When the long-term coefficients are estimated, it is seen that the results support the environmental Kuznets hypothesis. Furthermore, a 1% increase in financial globalization has been observed to boost CO2 emissions by some 0.16% in the long term. The ARDL approach also validated this finding.

Keywords

• Financial globalization
• Environmental Kuznets curve
• Gregory-Hansen structural break cointegration test

FİNANSAL KÜRESELLEŞME VE ÇEVRE İLİŞKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma Türkiye için finansal küreselleşmenin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkilerinin, 1970-2017 dönemini kapsayan yıllık verilerle incelenmesini amaçlamıştır. Literatürde birçok farklı finansal değişken ile EKC hipotezi test edilmiş olsa da bu değişkenleri Türkiye örnekleminde bir bütün halinde ele alan herhangi bir çalışmaya henüz rastlanılmamıştır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma kompozit ve kapsamlı bir değişken olan finansal küreselleşme ile çevre ilişkisini EKC hipotezi bağlamında test eden ilk çalışma özelliği taşımaktadır. İthalat ve ihracat gibi artan ticari faaliyetler ekonomik büyümenin motoru olarak kabul edilmektedir. Ancak Türkiye gibi tasarruf açığı olan ülkelerde ticaretin sürdürülebilirliği daha çok finansal piyasalara bağımlıdır. Değişkenler arasındaki olası ilişkiler Gregory-Hansen yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme testi kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Uzun dönem katsayıları Tam Değiştirilmiş En Küçük Kareler Yöntemi (FMOLS), Dinamik En Küçük Kareler Yöntemi (DOLS) ve Kanonik Eş-bütünleşik Regresyon (CCR) ile tahmin edilmiştir. Son olarak, en yaygın kullanılan yöntemlerden biri olan ARDL, karşılaştırma yapmak ve sonuçları güçlendirmek için kullanılmıştır. Gregory-Hansen yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme testi sonuçlarına göre değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde eşbütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. Uzun dönem katsayıları incelendiğinde, sonuçların çevresel kuznets hipotezini desteklediğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, finansal küreselleşmedeki %1'lik bir artışın, uzun vadede CO2 emisyonlarını yaklaşık %0,16 oranında artırdığı gözlemlenmiştir. ARDL yaklaşımı da bu bulguyu doğrulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Finansal Küreselleşme
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• Gregory-Hansen Yapısal Kırılmalı Eşbütünleşme Testi

References

1. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z. ve Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, 101817. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L. ve Khan, Z. (2021). Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: Does financial globalization matter? Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102881. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102881
3. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N. ve Nawaz, K. (2020). Moving towards a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677.
4. Al-Azzam, A. ve Hawdon, D. (1999). Estimating the demand for energy in Jordan: a Stock-Watson dynamic OLS (DOLS) approach. Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), School of Economics, University of Surrey.
5. Alagöz, M., Erdoğan, S. ve TOPALLI, N. (2008). Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları ve ekonomik büyüme: Türkiye deneyimi 1992-2007. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 79–89.
6. Ali, H. S., Law, S. H., Lin, W. L., Yusop, Z., Chin, L. ve Bare, U. A. A. (2019). Financial development and carbon dioxide emissions in Nigeria: evidence from the ARDL bounds approach. GeoJournal, 84(3), 641–655. doi:10.1007/s10708-018-9880-5
7. An, C.-B. ve Jeon, S.-H. (2006). Demographic changes and economic growth in Korea. APEA Conference içinde (ss. 103–113). Apaydin, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin Ekolojik Ayakizi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Türkiye Örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23–42.
8. Aslanidis, N. ve Iranzo, S. (2009). Environment and development: is there a Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions? Applied Economics, 41(6), 803–810.

9. Bankası, D. (2020). GDP (current US$) | Data. The World Bank. 14 Nisan 2021 tarihinde https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD adresinden erişildi.
10. Buysse, J., Can, M. ve Gozgor, G. (2018). Globalisation outcomes and the real output in the sub-Saharan Africa LICs: a cointegration analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 338–351. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2018.1426471
11. Can, M., Ahmad, M. ve Khan, Z. (2021). The impact of export composition on environment and energy demand: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13084-5
12. Can, M. ve Gozgor, G. (2017). The impact of economic complexity on carbon emissions: evidence from France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(19), 16364–16370. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9219-7
13. Chen, Y., Wang, Z. ve Zhong, Z. (2019). CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy production and foreign trade in China. Renewable Energy, 131, 208–216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.047
14. Chow, G. C. ve Li, J. (2014). Environmental Kuznets curve: conclusive econometric evidence for CO2. Pacific Economic Review, 19(1), 1–7.
15. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecological economics, 48(1), 71–81.
16. Copeland, B. R. ve Taylor, M. S. (1995). Trade and the environment: a partial synthesis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(3), 765–771.
17. Costantini, V. ve Martini, C. (2010). A modified environmental Kuznets curve for sustainable development assessment using panel data. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 10(1–2), 84–122.
18. Danesh Miah, M., Farhad Hossain Masum, M. ve Koike, M. (2010). Global observation of EKC hypothesis for CO2, SOx and NOx emission: A policy understanding for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4643–4651. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.022
19. Danish, Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. ve Zhang, J. W. (2019). Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Science of The Total Environment, 678, 632–638. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.028
20. Diler, H. G. (2018). Türkiye Ekonomisinin Makroekonomik Değişkenleri Üzerine Yapısal Kırılmalı ve Mevsimsel Birim Kök Analizi. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri, 4(7), 106–120.
21. Dogan, E. ve Seker, F. (2016). The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074–1085. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.006
22. Dong, K., Sun, R. ve Hochman, G. (2017). Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy, 141, 1466–1478. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092
23. Donlan, J., Skog, K. ve Byrne, K. A. (2012). Carbon storage in harvested wood products for Ireland 1961–2009. Biomass and Bioenergy, 46, 731–738. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.018
24. Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276. doi:10.2307/1913236
25. Farhani, S. ve Ozturk, I. (2015). Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(20), 15663–15676. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4767-1
26. Friedl, B. ve Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecological Economics, 45(1), 133–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00008-9
27. Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., … Sitch, S. (2020). Global carbon budget 2020. Earth System Science Data, 12(4), 3269–3340.
28. Gregory, A. W. ve Hansen, B. E. (1996). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of econometrics, 70(1), 99–126.
29. Güzel, İ. ve Oluç, İ. (2021). EKONOMİK BÜYÜME-FİNANSAL GELİŞME İLİŞKİSİNİN EK DEĞİŞKENLERLE ANALİZİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 12(1), 57–73.
30. 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
31. He, Z., Xu, S., Shen, W., Long, R. ve Chen, H. (2017). Impact of urbanization on energy related CO2 emission at different development levels: Regional difference in China based on panel estimation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1719–1730. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.155
32. Holtz-Eakin, D. ve Selden, T. M. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57(1), 85–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(94)01449-X
33. Hong, S., Kim, H. ve Hur, T. (2018). An economic analysis of the carbon benefits of sawmill residues’ use in South Korea. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 562–570. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.246
34. Jalil, A. ve Feridun, M. (2011). The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: A cointegration analysis. Energy Economics, 33(2), 284–291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.10.003
35. Kalaycı, S. ve Barbaros, M. (2019). Finansal Serbestleşmenin Türkiye Ekonomisine Etkileri: 1992 Q1-2002 Q4 ve 2003 Q2-2018 Q2 Dönemlerinin Analizi. Paradoks Ekonomi Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 15(2), 211–228.
36. Kibritçioğlu, A. (2001). Türkiyerde Ekonomik Krizler ve Hükümetler, 1969-2001. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, 2(41), 174–183.
37. Lan, J., Kakinaka, M. ve Huang, X. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment, Human Capital and Environmental Pollution in China. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(2), 255–275. doi:10.1007/s10640-011-9498-2
38. Lebe, F. (2016). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi: Türkiye için eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 17(2), 177–194.
39. Li, H. ve Xiaowen Lin, S. (2011). Do emerging markets matter in the world oil pricing system? Evidence of imported crude by China and India. Energy Policy, 39(8), 4624–4630. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.003
40. Mahdi Ziaei, S. (2015). Effects of financial development indicators on energy consumption and CO2 emission of European, East Asian and Oceania countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 752–759. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.085
41. Martı́nez-Zarzoso, I. ve Bengochea-Morancho, A. (2004). Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Economics Letters, 82(1), 121–126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2003.07.008
42. Nakano, K., Shibahara, N., Nakai, T., Shintani, K., Komata, H., Iwaoka, M. ve Hattori, N. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions from round wood production in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1654–1664. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.024
43. Nasrollahi, Z., Moradi, M. ve Rezaei, H. (2014). Pollution Haven Hypothesis And Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence From Selected Asian Countries (Hypotéza Ekologického Neokolonializmu A Priame Zahraničné Investície: Dôkazy Z Vybraných Ázijských Štátov). Medzinarodne vztahy (Journal of International Relations), 12(2), 111–124.
44. Nwani, C. (2021). Taking Venezuela back to the sustainability path: The role of financial development and economic integration in low‐carbon transition. Natural Resources Forum içinde (C. 45, ss. 37–62). Wiley Online Library.
45. Özdemir, A. ve Dalkiliç, R. (2016). Finansal Serbestlesmenin Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerindeki Etkileri/The Effects of Financial Liberalization on Turkish Economy. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53(613), 53.
46. Paris Anlaşması / T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2018). 18 Nisan 2021 tarihinde https://www.mfa.gov.tr/paris-anlasmasi.tr.mfa adresinden erişildi.
47. Park, J. Y. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 119–143.
48. Pata, Ugur Korkut ve Caglar, A. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 216, 119220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119220
49. Pata, Uğur Korkut ve Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi, Nüfus Yoğunluğu Ve Finansal Gelişmenin CO2 Salımına Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 303–318.
50. Pham, N. M., Huynh, T. L. D. ve Nasir, M. A. (2020). Environmental consequences of population, affluence and technological progress for European countries: A Malthusian view. Journal of Environmental Management, 260, 110143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110143
51. Phillips, P. C. B. ve Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125.
52. Polat, M. A. (2015). TÜRKİYE’DE YABANCI SERMAYE YATIRIMLARI İLE CO 2 EMİSYONU ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI TESTLER İLE ANALİZİ. Journal of International Social Research, 8(41).
53. Pritchett, L. ve Summers, L. H. (1993). Wealthier is healthier (C. 1150). World Bank Publications.
54. Şahinöz, A. ve Fotourehchi, Z. (2014). Kirlilik Emisyonu ve Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları: Türkiye İçin" Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi" Testi. Sosyoekonomi, 21(21).
55. Sarkodie, S. A., Adams, S., Owusu, P. A., Leirvik, T. ve Ozturk, I. (2020). Mitigating degradation and emissions in China: The role of environmental sustainability, human capital and renewable energy. Science of The Total Environment, 719, 137530. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137530
56. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
57. Şentürk, H., Omay, T., Yildirim, J. ve Köse, N. (2020). Environmental Kuznets Curve: Non-Linear Panel Regression Analysis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 25(5), 633–651. doi:10.1007/s10666-020-09702-0
58. Shafiei, S. ve Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547–556. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.064
59. Shahbaz, M. (2013). Does financial instability increase environmental degradation? Fresh evidence from Pakistan. Economic Modelling, 33, 537–544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.04.035
60. Shahbaz, M., Bhattacharya, M. ve Ahmed, K. (2017). CO2 emissions in Australia: economic and non-economic drivers in the long-run. Applied Economics, 49(13), 1273–1286.
61. Shahbaz, M., Kumar Tiwari, A. ve Nasir, M. (2013). The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Policy, 61, 1452–1459. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.006
62. Sharif, A., Godil, D. I., Xu, B., Sinha, A., Rehman Khan, S. A. ve Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). Revisiting the role of tourism and globalization in environmental degradation in China: Fresh insights from the quantile ARDL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 122906. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122906
63. Sinha, Apra, Kumar, A. ve Gopalakrishnan, B. N. (2020). Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Haven Hypothesis.
64. Sinha, Avik ve Bhattacharya, J. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve estimation for NO2 emission: A case of Indian cities. Ecological Indicators, 67, 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.025
65. Stern, D. I. ve Common, M. S. (2001). Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 162–178.
66. Stock, J. H. ve Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 783–820.
67. Stock, J. H. ve Watson, M. W. (2011). Ekonometriye giriş. Efil.
68. Suki, N. M., Sharif, A., Afshan, S. ve Suki, N. M. (2020). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia: The role of globalization in sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121669.
69. Tamazian, A. ve Bhaskara Rao, B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004
70. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P. ve Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
71. Tenaw, D. ve Beyene, A. D. (2021). Environmental sustainability and economic development in sub-Saharan Africa: A modified EKC hypothesis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110897. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110897
72. Tursoy, T. (2011). Sermaye Hesabı Liberalizasyonu : Teorik Bir İnceleme. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9. doi:10.31671/dogus.2019.214
73. Ulucak, Z. Ş., İlkay, S. Ç., Özcan, B. ve Gedikli, A. (2020). Financial globalization and environmental degradation nexus: Evidence from emerging economies. Resources Policy, 67, 101698. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101698
74. Ural, M. (2003). Finansal Krizler ve Türkiye. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 11–29.
75. Vergil, H. ve Karaca, C. (2010). Gelismekte Olan Ülkelere Yönelik Uluslararasi Sermaye Hareketlerinin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi1/The Effects of International Capital Movements through Developing Countries on Economic Growth: The Panel Data Analysis. Ege Akademik Bakis, 10(4), 1207.
76. Wagner, M. (2015). The environmental Kuznets curve, cointegration and nonlinearity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(6), 948–967.
77. 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(9), 4870–4875. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.032
78. Wang, X., Zheng, H., Wang, Z., Shan, Y., Meng, J., Liang, X., … Guan, D. (2019). Kazakhstan’s CO2 emissions in the post-Kyoto Protocol era: Production- and consumption-based analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 249, 109393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109393
79. Yasmeen, H., Tan, Q., Zameer, H., Vo, X. V. ve Shahbaz, M. (2021). Discovering the relationship between natural resources, energy consumption, gross capital formation with economic growth: Can lower financial openness change the curse into blessing. Resources Policy, 71, 102013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102013
80. Yilanci, V. ve Gorus, M. S. (2020). Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a Fourier function. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(32), 40552–40562. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10092-9
81. YILANCI, V. ve Özcan, B. (2010). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye için savunma harcamaları ile GSMH arasındaki ilişkinin analizi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 21–33.
82. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32683–32694. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4
83. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251–270. doi:10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904