Ekonomide Yapısal Dönüşüm Ekolojik Ayak İzini Azaltabilir Mi? E7 Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Analiz / Can Structural Transformation in the Economy Reduce Ecological Footprint? An Analysis on E7 Countries

Öz

Küresel iklim değişikliğinin ve artan çevresel bozulmanın büyük bir bölümü insan faaliyetlerinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Dolaysıyla insanoğlunun küresel geleceği ve toplumsal refahının korunup geliştirilebilmesi için ekolojik ayak izinin küçültülmesi gerekmektedir. Ekonomik yapılarda meydana gelen dönüşümün çevresel kalite üzerinde etkileri bulunuyor olsa da bu konu yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Bu amaçla E7 ülkelerinin ekonomik yapılarında meydana gelen yapısal dönüşümün ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Çalışmada 1992-2017 yıllarını içeren panel veri kullanılmıştır. Veriler arasındaki ilişkinin test edilmesi için sırasıyla homojenlik testi Durbin-Hausman eş bütünleşme testi, yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme testi yapılmıştır. Uzun dönem eş bütünleşme katsayıları AMG tahmincisi ve CCE-MG tahmincisi ile tahmin edilmiştir. Yapılan eşbütünleşme testleri serilerin birlikte hareket ettiklerini yani uzun dönemde eşbütünleşik olduklarını göstermiştir. Elde edilen uzun dönem katsayıları ise E7 ülkelerinde meydana gelen yapısal dönüşümün ekolojik ayak izini küçülterek sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı desteklediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Yapısal Dönüşüm
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• E7 ülkeleri
• Panel Eşbütünleşme Testi

Can Structural Transformation in the Economy Reduce Ecological Footprint? An Analysis on E7 Countries / Ekonomide Yapısal Dönüşüm Ekolojik Ayak İzini Azaltabilir Mi? E7 Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Analiz

Abstract

Human activities are responsible for a major portion of global climate change and environmental degradation. As a result, in order to maintain and promote the global future and social welfare of humans, it is vital to lessen the ecological footprint. Despite changes in economic structures having an impact on environmental quality, this issue has received insufficient attention. For this purpose, the effects of the structural transformation in the economic models of the E7 countries on the ecological footprint were examined. Panel data from 1992 to 2017 were used in this study. The homogeneity test, Durbin-Hausman cointegration test, and cointegration test with structural break were used to test the relationship between the data. The AMG estimator and CCE-MG method were used to calculate long-run cointegration coefficients. The cointegration tests revealed that the series behave in harmony, indicating that they are cointegrated over time. The long-term coefficients show that structural change in E7 countries promotes sustainable development by reducing the ecological footprint

Keywords

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Yapısal Dönüşüm
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• E7 ülkeleri
• Panel Eşbütünleşme Testi

References

1. Adebayo, T. S., Oladipupo, S. D., Rjoub, H., Kirikkaleli, D. and Adeshola, I. (2022). Asymmetric Effect Of Structural Change And Renewable Energy Consumption On Carbon Emissions: Designing An SDG Framework For Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–29.
2. 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(26), 26782–26796.
3. Al-Mulali, U. and Ozturk, I. (2015). The Effect Of Energy Consumption, Urbanization, Trade Openness, Industrial Output, And The Political Stability On The Environmental Degradation In The MENA (Middle East And North African) Region. Energy, 84, 382–389.
4. Ali, W., Rahman, I. U., Zahid, M., Khan, M. A. and Kumail, T. (2020). Do Technology And Structural Changes Favour Environment In Malaysia: An ARDL-Based Evidence For Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(8), 7927–7950.
5. Apaydin, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin Ekolojik Ayakizi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Türkiye Örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23–42.
6. Apaydin, Ş., Ursavaş, U. and Koç, Ü. (2021). The Impact Of Globalization On The Ecological Footprint: Do Convergence Clubs Matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53379–53393.
7. Aydin, C., Esen, Ö. and 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, 543–555.
8. Aye, G. C. and Edoja, P. E. (2017). Effect Of Economic Growth On CO2 Emission In Developing Countries: Evidence From A Dynamic Panel Threshold Model. Cogent Economics & Finance, 5(1), 1379239.

9. Baloch, M. A., Zhang, J., Iqbal, K. and Iqbal, Z. (2019). The Effect Of Financial Development On Ecological Footprint In BRI Countries: Evidence From Panel Data Estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(6), 6199–6208.
10. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D. and Farhani, S. (2018). How Economic Growth, Renewable Electricity And Natural Resources Contribute To CO2 Emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356–367.
11. Bano, S., Zhao, Y., Ahmad, A., Wang, S. and Liu, Y. (2018). Identifying The Impacts Of Human Capital On Carbon Emissions In Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1082–1092.
12. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Onifade, S. T. and Agboola, M. O. (2021). Beyond The Environmental Kuznets Curve In E7 Economies: Accounting For The Combined Impacts Of Institutional Quality And Renewables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127924.
13. Biswas, S. S., Ahad, M. A., Nafis, M. T., Alam, M. A. and Biswas, R. (2021). Introducing “Α-Sustainable Development” For Transforming Our World: A Proposal For The 2030 Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 321, 129030.
14. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test And Its Applications To Model Specification İn Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253.
15. Bucak, Ç. (2021). G8 Ülkelerinde Ve Türkiye’de Ekonomik Karmaşıklık Ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: Toda-Yamamoto Nedensellik Testi Analizi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 22(1), 1–16.
16. Can, M. and Doğan, B. (2020). The Effect of Knowledge and Skill-Based Production on Agricultural Employment: An Empirical Analysis in the Sample of South Korea. In Role of IT-ITES in Economic Development of Asia (pp. 223–234). Springer.
17. Can, M. and Gozgor, G. (2017). The Impact Of Economic Complexity On Carbon Emissions: Evidence From France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(19), 16364–16370.
18. Can, M., Oluc, I., Sturm, B., Guzel, I., Gavurova, B. and Popp, J. (2022). Nexus Between Trading Non-Green Products and Environment: Introducing Non-Green Trade Openness Index. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, Access adress: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.950453/full
19. Charfeddine, L. (2017). The Impact Of Energy Consumption And Economic Development On Ecological Footprint And CO2 Emissions: Evidence From A Markov Switching Equilibrium Correction Model. Energy Economics, 65, 355–374.
20. Chiu, C.-L. and Chang, T.-H. (2009). What Proportion Of Renewable Energy Supplies Is Needed To Initially Mitigate CO2 Emissions In OECD Member Countries? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6), 1669–1674.
21. Cui, L., Weng, S., Nadeem, A. M., Rafique, M. Z. and Shahzad, U. (2022). Exploring The Role Of Renewable Energy, Urbanization And Structural Change For Environmental Sustainability: Comparative Analysis For Practical Implications. Renewable Energy, 184, 215–224.
22. Danish, Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. and Zhang, J. (2019). Linking Economic Growth And Ecological Footprint Through Human Capital And Biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101516.
23. Danish, 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.
24. Danish Wang, Z. (2019). Investigation Of The Ecological Footprint’s Driving Factors: What We Learn From The Experience Of Emerging Economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, 101626.
25. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, Reindustrialization And Environmental Degradation: Evidence From Ecological Footprint Of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612.
26. Destek, M. A. and Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation Of Environmental Kuznets Curve For Ecological Footprint: The Role Of Energy And Financial Development. Science of The Total Environment, 650, 2483–2489.
27. Doğan, B., Ghosh, S., Hoang, D. P. and Chu, L. K. (2022). Are Economic Complexity And Eco-Innovation Mutually Exclusive To Control Energy Demand And Environmental Quality In E7 And G7 Countries? Technology in Society, 68, 101867.
28. Earth Overshoot Day 2021 Home - #MoveTheDate. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://www.overshootday.org/
29. Eberhardt, M. and Bond, S. (2009). Cross-Section Dependence In Nonstationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator. Access adress: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/1/ MPRA_paper_17692.pdf
30. Farhani, S. and Shahbaz, M. (2014). What Role Of Renewable And Non-Renewable Electricity Consumption And Output Is Needed To Initially Mitigate CO2 Emissions In MENA Region? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 80–90.
31. Global Footprint Network. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
32. Göçer, İ. and Peker, O. (2014). Yabancı Doğrudan Yatırımların Verimlilik Etkisi: Türkiye, Çin Ve Hindistan Örnekleminde Karşılaştırmalı Çoklu Yapısal Kırılmalı Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, (1), 7–40.
33. Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Afshan, S., Yousuf, A. and Khan, S. A. R. (2020). The Asymmetric Role Of Freight And Passenger Transportation In Testing EKC In The US Economy: Evidence From QARDL Approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30108–30117.
34. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts Of A North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau Of Economic Research. Access address: https://www.nber.org/ papers/w3914
35. Güzel, İ. and Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat Ürün Çeşitlendirmesinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 14(26), 47–58.
36. Gyamfi, B. A., Adedoyin, F. F., Bein, M. A. and Bekun, F. V. (2021). Environmental Implications Of N-Shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve For E7 Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–11, Access address: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33635458/
37. Hawksworth, J. and Cookson, G. (2006). The World In 2050. How Big Will The Major Emerging Market Economies Get And How Can The OECD Compete, Access address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242109301_How_big_will_the_major_emerging_market_economies_get_and_how_can_the_OECD_compete
38. Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M. and Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic Association Between ICT, Renewable Energy, Economic Complexity And Ecological Footprint: Is There Any Difference Between E-7 (Developing) And G-7 (Developed) Countries? Technology in Society, 68, 101853.
39. Husnain, M. I. ul, Syed, Q. R., Bashir, A. and Khan, M. A. (2022). Do Geopolitical Risk And Energy Consumption Contribute To Environmental Degradation? Evidence From E7 Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 41640–41652.
40. Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, Sanayileşme Ve Şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkisinin Genişletilmiş ARDL Yöntemiyle İncelenmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 208–231.
41. Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M., Haq, Z. ul, Shaofu, G. and Hang, J. (2022). On The Goals Of Sustainable Production And The Conditions Of Environmental Sustainability: Does Cyclical Innovation In Green And Sustainable Technologies Determine Carbon Dioxide Emissions İn G-7 Economies. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 406–420.
42. Li, Kaodui, Zu, J., Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Kong, Y., Owusu-Akomeah, M., … Agyemang, J. K. (2021). The Link Between Urbanization, Energy Consumption, Foreign Direct Investments And CO2 Emanations: An Empirical Evidence From The Emerging Seven (E7) Countries. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 40(2), 477–500.
43. Li, Ke and Lin, B. (2015). Impacts Of Urbanization And Industrialization On Energy Consumption/CO2 Emissions: Does The Level Of Development Matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 1107–1122.
44. Liddle, B. (2012). The Importance Of Energy Quality In Energy Intensive Manufacturing: Evidence From Panel Cointegration And Panel FMOLS. Energy Economics, 34(6), 1819–1825.
45. Liu, H., Kim, H., Liang, S. and Kwon, O.-S. (2018). Export Diversification And Ecological Footprint: A Comparative Study On EKC Theory Among Korea, Japan, And China. Sustainability, 10, 3657.
46. Liu, X. and Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization And Industrialization Impact Of CO2 Emissions In China. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 172, 178–186.
47. López, R. E., Anríquez, G. and Gulati, S. (2007). Structural Change And Sustainable Development. Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management, 53(3), 307–322.
48. Marrero, G. A. (2010). Greenhouse Gases Emissions, Growth And The Energy Mix In Europe. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1356–1363.
49. Neagu, O. and Teodoru, M. C. (2019). The Relationship Between Economic Complexity, Energy Consumption Structure And Greenhouse Gas Emission: Heterogeneous Panel Evidence From The EU Countries. Sustainability, 11, 497.
50. Oluç, İ. (2022). Üretken Kapasite Ve Küreselleşmenin Oecdülkelerinde Karbon Emisyonları Üzerindeki Etkileri. In Ekonomi ve Finans Alanındaki Uygulamaların Ampirik Sonuçları (pp. 265–274). Ekin Yayınevi.
51. Oluc, I., Ben Jebli, M., Can, M., Guzel, I., Brusselaers, J. (2022). The productive capacity and environment: evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Access address: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35945325/
52. O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. and Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A Good Life For All Within Planetary Boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88–95.
53. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical Tests And Policy Analysis Of Environmental Degradation At Different Stages Of Economic Development. International Labour Organization, Access adress: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ilo/ilowps/992927783402676.html
54. Paramati, S. R. and Roca, E. (2019). Does Tourism Drive House Prices In The OECD Economies? Evidence From Augmented Mean Group Estimator. Tourism Management, 74, 392–395.
55. Pata, U. K. and Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi, Nüfus Yoğunluğu Ve Finansal Gelişmenin CO2 Salımına Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Harun Terzi Özel Sayısı, 303–318.
56. Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully Modified OLS For Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels. In Advances İn Econometrics (Vol. 15, Pp. 93–130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
57. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests For Cross-Sectional Dependence In Panels. University Of Cambridge, Access address: https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
58. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Pesaran, M. H. And Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity In Large Panels. Journal Of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
62. Rashid, A., Irum, A., Malik, I. A., Ashraf, A., Rongqiong, L., Liu, G., … Yousaf, B. (2018). Ecological Footprint Of Rawalpindi; Pakistan’s First Footprint Analysis From Urbanization Perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 362–368.
63. Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B. and Tukker, A. (2018). Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 90, 65–72.
64. Shahbaz, M., Lean, H. H. and Shabbir, M. S. (2012). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger causality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 2947–2953.
65. 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.
66. Shirinov, A. Q. (2021). Earth Overshoot Day And The Case Of Central Asian Countries (Human Development Vs. Running Out Of Resources). Science and Education, 2(2), 28-33.
67. Srivastava, A. (2018). Standardizing Evaluation Process: Necessary For Achieving Sdgs–A Case Study Of India. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 118–124.
68. Tillaguango, B., Alvarado, R., Dagar, V., Murshed, M., Pinzón, Y. and Méndez, P. (2021). Convergence Of The Ecological Footprint In Latin America: The Role Of The Productive Structure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(42), 59771–59783.
69. Tong, T., Ortiz, J., Xu, C. and Li, F. (2020). Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, And Carbon Dioxide Emissions in The E7 Countries: A Bootstrap ARDL Bound Test. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 10(1), 1-23.
70. Topcu, B. A. (2021). The Impact Of Export, Import, And Renewable Energy Consumption On Turkey S Ecological Footprint. Pressacademia, 8(1), 31–38.
71. Tsurumi, T. and Managi, S. (2010). Decomposition Of The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Scale, Technique, And Composition Effects. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 11(1–4), 19–36.
72. UN DESA. (2016). THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals
73. United Nations. (1987). 1987: Brundtland Report. Access address: https://www.are.admin.ch/ are/en/home/media/publications/sustainable-development/brundtland-report.html
74. Ursavaş, N. (2021). Türkiye’de Demokrasinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi. 3. Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 56(4), 2745–2757.
75. Uzar, U. (2021). The Relationship Between Institutional Quality And Ecological Footprint: Is There A Connection? Natural Resources Forum, 45(4), 380–396.
76. Vanham, D., Leip, A., Galli, A., Kastner, T., Bruckner, M., Uwizeye, A., … Hoekstra, A. Y. (2019). Environmental Footprint Family To Address Local To Planetary Sustainability And Deliver On The Sdgs. Science of The Total Environment, 693, 133642.
77. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1998). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact On The Earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers. Access address: https://escholarship.org/ content/qt7730w81q/qt7730w81q.pdf?t=q9ns62
78. Wang, Z., Rasool, Y., Zhang, B., Ahmed, Z. and Wang, B. (2020). Dynamic Linkage Among Industrialisation, Urbanisation, And CO2 Emissions In APEC Realms: Evidence Based On DSUR Estimation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 382–389.
79. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests Of The Fisher Effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193–233.
80. Westerlund, J. and Edgerton, D. L. (2008). A Simple Test For Cointegration In Dependent Panels With Structural Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(5), 665–704.
81. Yilanci, V. and 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.
82. Yıldız, B. (2019). E7 Ülkelerinde CO2 Emisyonu, Enerji Tüketimi, Ekonomik Büyüme Ve Kentleşme Arasındaki İlişki. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 8(3), 283–297.
83. Zaidi, S. A. H., Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M. And Hou, F. (2019). Dynamic Linkages Between Globalization, Financial Development And Carbon Emissions: Evidence From Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Countries. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 228, 533–543.
84. Zoundi, Z. (2017). CO2 Emissions, Renewable Energy And The Environmental Kuznets Curve, A Panel Cointegration Approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 1067–1075.