Causality Relationships Between Urbanization, Renewable Energy, and Innovation with Economic Growth and Ecological Footprint: The Case of Very High Human Development Countries

Abstract

The main objective of the study is to investigate the causal relationships between selected 15 countries from the top 25 countries in the 2021 Human Development Index ranking, which provide very high human development, in two essentially two groups between 1990 and 2019. Dumitrescu and Hurlin panel causality test is used as the method in the study. Two different models were constructed in the study. Firstly, the causal relationship between economic growth (GDP) and urbanization (URBAN), renewable energy consumption (REN), and technological innovation (PATENT) was examined. Secondly, the causal relationship between ecological footprint (ECO) and economic growth, urbanization, renewable energy consumption, and technological innovation was investigated. According to the findings obtained from the analysis results, there is a bidirectional causal relationship between urbanization and economic growth, technological innovation and economic growth, urbanization and ecological footprint, and technological innovation and ecological footprint; while there is a unidirectional causal relationship from renewable energy consumption to economic growth, from economic growth to ecological footprint, and from ecological footprint to renewable energy consumption. Based on these results, policy recommendations are proposed to policymakers.

Keywords

• Urbanization
• Renewable Energy Consumption
• Technological Innovation
• Economic Growth
• Ecological Footprint

Kentleşme, Yenilenebilir Enerji ve İnovasyon ile Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkileri: Çok Yüksek İnsani Gelişme Düzeyindeki Ülkeler Örneği

Abstract

Çalışmanın temel amacı İnsani Gelişme Endeksine göre 2021 yılı sıralamasında çok yüksek insani gelişim sağlayan ülke grubunda yer alan ilk 25 ülkeden seçilen 15 ülkenin 1990-2019 yılları arasında temelde iki grupta nedensellik ilişkilerini araştırmaktır. Çalışmada yöntem olarak Dumitrescu ve Hurlin panel nedensellik testi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada iki farklı model kurgulanmıştır. İlk olarak ekonomik büyüme (GDP) ile kentleşme (URBAN), yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi (REN) ve teknolojik inovasyon (PATENT) arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi incelenmiştir. İkincil olarak ekolojik ayak izi (ECO) ile ekonomik büyüme, kentleşme, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve teknolojik inovasyon arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarından elde edilen bulgulara göre kentleşme ile ekonomik büyüme, teknolojik inovasyon ile ekonomik büyüme, kentleşme ile ekolojik ayak izi, teknolojik inovasyon ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi mevcut iken; yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminden ekonomik büyümeye, ekonomik büyümeden ekolojik ayak izine ve ekolojik ayak izinden yenilenebilir enerji tüketimine doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu sonuçlara dayanarak politika yapıcılara yönelik politika önerileri ortaya konulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kentleşme
• Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi
• Teknolojik İnovasyon
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi

References

1. Adedoyin, F. F., Alola, A. A. and Bekun, F. V. (2020). An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: the role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 713, 136726.
2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z. and 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.
3. Ahmed, Z. and Wang, Z. (2019). Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 26782-26796.
4. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z. and Ali, S. (2019). Investigating the non-linear relationship between urbanization and CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 12, 945-953.
5. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W. and Ali, S. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: an empirical analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102064.
6. Apergis, N. and Payne, J. E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1392-1397.
7. Arif, M., Gill, A. R. and Ali, M. (2023). Analyzing the non-linear association between urbanization and ecological footprint: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(50), 109063-109076.
8. Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. and 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.

9. Bayraktutan, Y. ve Alancıoğlu, E. (2019). Kentleşme-büyüme ilişkisi: BRICS-T için bir analiz. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(72), 1824-1831.
10. Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A. and Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 1023-1029.
11. Bélaïd, F. and Youssef, M. (2017). Environmental degradation, renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth: Assessing the evidence from Algeria. Energy policy, 102, 277-287.
12. Chen, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W. and Zhang, W. (2014). The global pattern of urbanization and economic growth: evidence from the last three decades. PloS one, 9(8), e103799.
13. Chen, Y., Lee, C.-C. and Chen, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization. Energy & Environment, 33(3), 487-510.
14. Cramer, W., Guiot, J., Fader, M., Garrabou, J., Gattuso, J.-P., Iglesias, A., Lange, M. A., Lionello, P., Llasat, M. C. and Paz, S. (2018). Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nature Climate Change, 8(11), 972-980.
15. Çakmak, E. E. and Acar, S. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 131548.
16. Çalışkan, H. & Öztürk, S. (2019). Kentleşme gelişiminin ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (17), 677-694.
17. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M., Boamah, K. B., Ampon-Wireko, S. and Dogbe, C. S. K. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125143.
18. Dittmar, J. E. (2011). Information technology and economic change: the impact of the printing press. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1133-1172.
19. Dong, K., Hochman, G., Zhang, Y., Sun, R., Li, H. and Liao, H. (2018). CO2 emissions, economic and population growth, and renewable energy: empirical evidence across regions. Energy Economics, 75, 180-192.
20. Dumitrescu, E.-I. and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
21. Eden, S. and Hwang, B.-K. (1984). The relationship between energy and GNP: further results. Energy Economics, 6(3), 186-190.
22. Genç, M. C. and Atasoy, Y. (2010). Ar&Ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: panel veri analizi. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(2).
23. Goel, R. K. and Ram, R. (1994). Research and development expenditures and economic growth: A cross-country study. Economic development and cultural change, 42(2), 403-411.
24. Gu, W., Zhao, X., Yan, X., Wang, C. and Li, Q. (2019). Energy technological progress, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117666.
25. Güriş, S., Yılgör, M., & Kömüryakan, F. (2019). Üçüz Açıklar Hipotezinin Geçerliliğinin Analizi: Panel Veri Yaklaşımı. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 8(3), 91-101.
26. Hasan, I. and Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation–economic growth nexus: Global evidence. Research policy, 39(10), 1264-1276.
27. Hasanov, F., Bulut, C. and Suleymanov, E. (2017). Review of energy-growth nexus: A panel analysis for ten Eurasian oil exporting countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 369-386.
28. Hwang, D. B. and Gum, B. (1991). The causal relationship between energy and GNP: the case of Taiwan. The Journal of Energy and Development, 219-226.
29. Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2016). The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A panel data application. Energy Economics, 53, 58-63.
30. Işık, N. ve Kılınç, E. C. (2016). İnovasyon-temelli ekonomi: seçilmiş ülkeler üzerine bir uygulama. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 13-27.
31. Khan, Y., Khan, M. A. and Zafar, S. (2023). Dynamic linkages among energy consumption, urbanization and ecological footprint: empirical evidence from NARDL approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 34(6), 1534-1554.
32. Kihombo, S., Ahmed, Z., Chen, S., Adebayo, T. S. and Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61235-61245.
33. Kılınç, E. C. (2021). Ekolojik ayak izi-enerji ar-ge harcamaları ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 527-541.
34. Köseoğlu, M. and Ünal, H. (2019). The impact of agriculture, urbanization and renewable energy on sustainable economic growth in Turkey: ARDL bounds testing approach. Hitit University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 12(2), 400-415.
35. Kraft, J. and Kraft, A. (1978). On the relationship between energy and GNP. The Journal of Energy and Development, 401-403.
36. Li, R., Wang, X. and Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131207.
37. Liang, W. and Yang, M. (2019). Urbanization, economic growth and environmental pollution: Evidence from China. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 21, 1-9.
38. Liddle, B. and Messinis, G. (2015). Which comes first–urbanization or economic growth? Evidence from heterogeneous panel causality tests. Applied Economics Letters, 22(5), 349-355.
39. Menegaki, A. N. (2011). Growth and renewable energy in Europe: A random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Economics, 33(2), 257-263.
40. Nathaniel, S., Anyanwu, O. and Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 14601-14613.
41. Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M. and Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168-27179.
42. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86, 2057-2070.
43. Nathaniel, S. P., Adeleye, N. and Adedoyin, F. F. (2021). Natural resource abundance, renewable energy, and ecological footprint linkage in MENA countries. Estudios de economía aplicada, 39(2).
44. Njoh, A. J. (2003). Urbanization and development in sub-Saharan Africa. Cities, 20(3), 167-174.
45. Ocal, O. and Aslan, A. (2013). Renewable energy consumption–economic growth nexus in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 494-499.
46. Oğul, B. (2022). Türkiye’de Çevresel Teknolojik İnovasyonlar Ekolojik Ayak İzini Azaltıyor mu? Ardl Sınır Testi Analizi. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (INIJOSS), 11(2).
47. Oğuztürk, B.S, & Koç, R. (2023), Bölgesel Kalkınmada Sosyal Sermaye ve İnovasyon: TR42 Doğu Marmara Kalkınma Bölgesi Üzerine Mekansal Bir İnceleme. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi
48. Ozcan, B., Tzeremes, P. G. and Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 84, 203-213.
49. Özarslan Doğan, B. (2023). Ekolojik Sürdürülebilirlikte Finansal Gelişme ve Teknolojik İnovasyon Etkisi: Türkiye’den Kanıtlar. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 10(23), 200-217.
50. Pao, H.-T. and Fu, H.-C. (2013). Renewable energy, non-renewable energy and economic growth in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 381-392.
51. Pesaran, M. H. (2003). Estimation and inference in large heterogenous panels with cross section dependence.
52. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. and Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The econometrics journal, 11(1), 105-127.
53. Poumanyvong, P. and Kaneko, S. (2010). Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecological economics, 70(2), 434-444.
54. Rahman, M. M. (2017). Do population density, economic growth, energy use and exports adversely affect environmental quality in Asian populous countries? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 506-514.
55. Rahman, M. M. and Velayutham, E. (2020). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus: new evidence from South Asia. Renewable Energy, 147, 399-408.
56. Sahoo, M. and Sethi, N. (2021). The intermittent effects of renewable energy on ecological footprint: evidence from developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(40), 56401-56417.
57. Sancar, C. and Sancar, C. (2017). The Econometrical analysis of the relationship between urbanisation and economic growth (the case of EU countries and Turkey). Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi (19), 1-24.
58. Sebri, M. and Ben-Salha, O. (2014). On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: Fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 14-23.
59. Sharma, R., Sinha, A. and Kautish, P. (2021). Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124867.
60. Sohag, K., Mariev, O. and Davidson, N. (2021). Revising environmental Kuznets curve in Russian regions: role of environmental policy stringency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 52873-52886.
61. Song, M., Fisher, R. and Kwoh, Y. (2019). Technological challenges of green innovation and sustainable resource management with large scale data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 361-368.
62. Sylwester, K. (2001). R&D and economic growth. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 13(4), 71-84.
63. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 311-323.
64. Şimşek, T. ve Yiğit, E. (2017). BRICT ülkelerinde yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, petrol fiyatları, CO2 emisyonu, kentleşme ve ekonomik büyüme üzerine nedensellik analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 12(3), 117-136.
65. Şit, A., Karadağ, H. ve Şit, M. (2021). Finansal Gelişme, Kentleşme ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Asimetrik İlişkinin Ampirik Analizi: Türkiye Örneği. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(2), 389-402.
66. Tandoğan, D. (2017). Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Kentleşme ve Hizmet Sektörü İlişkisi: 1968-2016 Nedensellik Yaklaşımı. ICPESS (International Congress on Politic, Economic and Social Studies),
67. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., and Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
68. Ulucak, R. and Khan, S. U.-D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996.
69. Usman, O., Akadiri, S. S. and Adeshola, I. (2020). Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30681-30693.
70. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N. and Norgaard, R. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266-9271.
71. Wang, S., Fang, C., Wang, Y., Huang, Y. and Ma, H. (2015). Quantifying the relationship between urban development intensity and carbon dioxide emissions using a panel data analysis. Ecological Indicators, 49, 121-131.
72. Yıldız, G. (2018). Teknolojik inovasyonun ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye-AB (15) ülkeleri örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 41-58.
73. Zachariadis, M. (2003). R&D, innovation, and technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(3), 566-586.
74. Zhao, Y. and Wang, S. (2015). The relationship between urbanization, economic growth and energy consumption in China: an econometric perspective analysis. Sustainability, 7(5), 5609-5627.
75. Zhou, N., Levine, M. D. and Price, L. (2010). Overview of current energy-efficiency policies in China. Energy policy, 38(11), 6439-6452.