Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi Geçerli mi? CIVETS Ülkelerinden Ampirik Kanıtlar

Year 2023, Issue: 52, 336 - 351, 27.12.2023

Gizem Mukiyen Avcı

https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1351678

Abstract

Ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel bozulma ilişkisi literatürde genellikle Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezi ile araştırılırken son yıllarda malzeme kullanımını merkezine alan Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi (MKC) hipotezine dayalı çalışmalara da ilginin arttığı görülmektedir. Bu ilginin odağındaki temel gerekçe çevresel bozulmayı ölçmede malzeme kullanımının CO2 emisyonlarına kıyasla daha kapsamlı veri içermesidir. EKC hipotezinden türetilen MKC hipotezi de ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkinin kuadratik formda olduğunu ve ekonomik büyüme ile malzeme kullanımı arasında önce pozitif daha sonra ise negatif yönlü bir ilişkinin bulunduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Bu çalışmada son yıllarda büyüme performanslarıyla gelişen piyasalar olarak öne çıkan CIVETS ülkelerinde MKC hipotezinin geçerliliğinin test edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaçla diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak malzeme kullanımını temsilen malzeme ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmıştır. 1975-2019 dönemi için panel eşbütünleşme analizinin gerçekleştirildiği çalışmada elde edilen bulgulara göre i) panel için MKC hipotezi geçerlidir; ii) ülkeler bazında Kolombiya haricinde Endonezya, Güney Afrika, Mısır, Türkiye ve Vietnam’da MKC hipotezi geçerlidir. Ayrıca çalışmada malzeme ayak izini maksimum yapan kişi başı gelir düzeyleri de hesaplanmıştır.

Keywords

Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi, Malzeme Ayak İzi, CIVETS Ülkeleri, Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Is the Material Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Valid? Empirical Evidence from CIVETS Countries

Abstract

The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis is generally employed in the literature to examine the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, however there is also growing attraction to studies based on the Material Kuznets Curve (MKC) hypothesis, which focuses on material use. This interest is mainly driven by the fact that considering environmental degradation with more comprehensive information by material use instead of CO2 emissions. The MKC hypothesis, which was derived from the EKC hypothesis, also claims a quadratic relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, suggesting that there is initially a positive and then a negative link between economic growth and material use. This study aims to examine the MKC hypothesis' validity for CIVETS countries, which are known as emerging markets thanks to their recent growth performances. Unlike earlier research, this study measures material usage via the material footprint variable. By employing panel cointegration analysis for the period 1975-2019, findings show that i) the MKC hypothesis is valid for the panel; ii) individual basis of countries, the MKC hypothesis is valid for Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt, Turkey, and Vietnam, except for Colombia. Additionally, the study assessed the per capita income levels that maximize the material footprint.

Keywords

Material Kuznets Curve, Material Footprint, CIVETS Countries, Panel Cointegration Analysis

References

• Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115(106416), 1-14.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data,. England.: John Wiley&Sons Ltd. West Sussex.
• Breusch, T. S., & 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.
• Bringezu, S., Schütz, H., Steger, S., & Baudisch, J. (2004). International comparison of resource use and its relation to economic growth: The development of total material requirement, direct material inputs and hidden flows and the structure of TMR. Ecological Economics, 51, 97-124.
• Canas, A., Ferrao, P., & Conceicao, P. (2003). A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: Evidence from industrialised countries. Ecological Economics, 46(2), 217-229.
• Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Oxford, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper Series (515).
• Fernström, E., & Järvinen, P. (2022). A European Material Kuznets Curve. Stockholm University.
• Focacci, A. (2005). Empirical relationship between total consumption-GDP ratio and per capita income for different metals of a series of industrialised nations. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 5(4), 347-377.
• Focacci, A. (2007). Empirical analysis of the relationship between total consumption‐GDP ratio and per capita income for different metals: The cases of Brazil, China and India. International Journal of Social Economics, 34(9), 612-636.
• Gengenbach, C., Urbain, J. P., & Westerlund, J. (2016). Error correction testing in panels with common stochastic trends. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 982-1004.
• Global Footprint Network. (2023). Earth Overshoot Day. https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/press-release-june-2023-english/.
• Grossman, G. M. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
• Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper no. 3914).
• Guzman, J. I., Nishiyama, T., & Tilton, J. E. (2005). Trends in the intensity of copper use in Japan since 1960. Resources Policy, 30 (1), 21-27.
• IPCC. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.
• Jaunky, V. C. (2012). Is there a material Kuznets curve for aluminium? Evidence from rich countries. Resources Policy, 37, 296-307.
• Jaunky, V. C. (2014). Does a material Kuznets curve exist for copper? Economic Paper, 33(4), 374-390.
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
• Lohani, P. R., & Tilton, J. E. (1993). A cross-section analysis of metal intensity of use in the less developed countries. Resources Policy, 19(2), 145-154.
• Malenbaum, W., Cichowski, C., Mirzabagheri, F., & Riordan, J. (1973). Materials requirements in the United States and abroad in the year 2000. (No. PB-219675).
• McCoskey, S., & Kao, C. (1998). A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric reviews,, 17(1), 57-84.
• Pesaran, H. A. (2003). Simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics (DAE). Cambridge Working Papers.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=572504 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
• Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74, 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
• Pothen, F., & Welsch, H. (2019). Economic development and material use. Evidence from international panel data. World Development, 115, 107-119.
• Rogich, D. G. (1996). Material use, economic growth, and the environment. Nonrenewable Resources, 5, 197-210.
• Sahoo, M., Saini, S., & Villanthenkodath, M. A. (2021). Determinants of material footprint in BRICS countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 37689-37704.
• SDG. (2023). Sustainable Development Goals,. https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
• Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 311-323.
• The Sustainable Development Goals. (2023). Special Edition, United Nations,. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf.
• Turgut, E., & Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2022). Malzeme Kuznets eğrisi malzeme ayak izi için geçerli mi? G7 ülkeleri örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 823-841.
• Vehmas, J., Luukkanen, J., & Kaivo-Oja, J. (2007). Linking analyses and environmental Kuznets curves for aggregated material flows in the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(17), 1662-1673.
• Wårell, L., & Olsson, A. (2009). Trends and developments in the intensity of steel use: An econometric analysis. In Securing the Future and 8th ICARD: 23-26/06/2009. Sweden: A.Curran Associates, Inc.
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of applied econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
• Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics letters, 97(3), 185-190.
• Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., & West, J. &. (2015). The Material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271-6276.
• Yandle, B., Vijayaraghavan, M., & Bhattarai, M. (2002). The environmental Kuznets curve. A primer. PERC Research Study, 2(1), 1-38.