D8 Ülkelerinde Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım ve Çevresel Etkiler: Kirlilik Cenneti, Kirlilik Halesi ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezlerinin Analizi

Abstract

Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar küresel ekonomik entegrasyonun önemli bir bileşeni olarak gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik büyümeyi teşvik etmektedir. Ancak bu yatırımlar çevresel bozulmaya yol açabilmekte ve özellikle çevre mevzuatının yetersiz olduğu ülkelerde ekolojik ayak izinin artmasına neden olabilmektedir. Bu durum sanayileşme ve artan kaynak tüketimiyle birlikte çevresel sürdürülebilirliği tehdit eden bir faktör haline gelebilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Kirlilik Cenneti, Kirlilik Halesi ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezlerini test etmektir. Bunun için D8 ülkelerinde 1995-2022 yılları arası verileri baz alınarak FMOLS uzun dönem katsayı tahmincisi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre Kirlilik Cenneti hipotezinin geçerli olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılırken, Kirlilik Halesi ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezlerinin geçerli olmadığı bulgularına ulaşılmıştır. Bu bulgular D8 ülkelerinde doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevresel bozulmayı artırabileceğini ve bu ülkelerin daha katı çevre politikalarına ihtiyaç duyduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Kirlilik Cenneti
• Kirlilik Halesi
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• EKC

Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Impacts in D8 Countries: Analysis of the Pollution Haven, Pollution Halo and Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypotheses

Abstract

Foreign direct investments are an important component of global economic integration and promote economic growth in developing countries. However, these investments can lead to environmental degradation and increase the ecological footprint, especially in countries with inadequate environmental legislation. This situation can become a factor that threatens environmental sustainability with industrialization and increasing resource consumption. The aim of this study is to test the Pollution Haven, Pollution Halo and Environmental Kuznets Curve hypotheses. For this purpose, the FMOLS long-term coefficient estimator was used based on the data from 1995 to 2022 in D8 countries. According to the results obtained, it was found that the Pollution Haven hypothesis is valid, while the Pollution Halo and Environmental Kuznets Curve hypotheses are not valid. These findings show that foreign direct investments in D8 countries can increase environmental degradation and that these countries need stricter environmental policies.

Keywords

• Pollution Haven
• Pollution Halo
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Ecological Footprint
• EKC

References

1. Abid, A., Mehmood, U., Tariq, S., and Haq, Z. U. (2022). The effect of technological innovation, FDI, and financial development on CO2 emission: evidence from the G8 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-9.
2. Abid, M., and Sekrafi, H. (2021). Pollution haven or halo effect? A comparative analysis of developing and developed countries. Energy Reports, 7, 4862-4871.
3. Adjei-Mantey, K., and Adams, S. (2023). Renewable energy, foreign direct investment and carbon dioxide emissions: do sectoral value additions and policy uncertainty matter?. Energy Nexus, 10, 100193.
4. Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., and Wu, Y. (2021). Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124898.
5. Apergis, N., Pinar, M., and Unlu, E. (2023). How do foreign direct investment flows affect carbon emissions in BRICS countries? Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis using bilateral FDI flows from OECD to BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 14680-14692.
6. Atici, C. (2012). Carbon emissions, trade liberalization, and the Japan–ASEAN interaction: A group-wise examination. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 26(1), 167-178.
7. Baek, J. (2016). A new look at the FDI–income–energy–environment nexus: dynamic panel data analysis of ASEAN. Energy Policy, 91, 22-27.
8. Balsalobre‐Lorente, D., Driha, O. M., Halkos, G., and Mishra, S. (2022). Influence of growth and urbanization on CO2 emissions: The moderating effect of foreign direct investment on energy use in BRICS. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 227-240.

9. Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., and Apergis, N. (2019). The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Latin American Economic Review, 28(1), 1-19.
10. Birdsall, N., and Wheeler, D. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are the pollution havens?. The Journal of Environment and Development, 2(1), 137-149.
11. Chandran, V. G. R., and Tang, C. F. (2013). The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 445-453.
12. Chen, Z., Paudel, K. P., and Zheng, R. (2022). Pollution halo or pollution haven: assessing the role of foreign direct investment on energy conservation and emission reduction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65(2), 311-336.
13. Christmann, P., and Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of international business studies, 32, 439-458.
14. Copeland, B. R. (2008). The pollution haven hypothesis. Handbook on Trade and the Environment, 2(7), 60-70.
15. Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., and Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387-29396.
16. Duan, Y., and Jiang, X. (2021). Pollution haven or pollution halo? A Re-evaluation on the role of multinational enterprises in global CO2 emissions. Energy Economics, 97, 105181.
17. Essandoh, O. K., Islam, M., and Kakinaka, M. (2020). Linking international trade and foreign direct investment to CO2 emissions: any differences between developed and developing countries?. Science of the Total Environment, 712, 136437.
18. Gao, L., Pei, T., Zhang, J., and Tian, Y. (2022). The “Pollution Halo” effect of fdi:evidence from the Chinese Sichuan–Chongqing urban agglomeration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 11903.
19. Gill, A. R., Viswanathan, K. K., and Hassan, S. (2018). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 81, 1636-1642
20. Global Footprint Network. (2025). https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/.
21. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research. (No. w3914).
22. Holtbrügge, D., and Raghavan, N. (2025). Environmental effects of foreign direct investment in India: pollution haven or pollution halo?. Critical Perspectives on International Business.
23. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
24. Islam, M. M., Khan, M. K., Tareque, M., Jehan, N., and Dagar, V. (2021). Impact of globalization, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: Does institutional quality matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48851-48871.
25. Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Shah, M., and Javed, A. (2023). Nexus between energy consumption, foreign direct investment, oil prices, economic growth, and carbon emissions in Italy: fresh evidence from autoregressive distributed lag and wavelet coherence approach. Energies, 16(16), 5885.
26. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
27. Khalil, S., and Inam, Z. (2006). Is trade good for environment? A unit root cointegration analysis. The Pakistan Development Review, 1187-1196.
28. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income ınequality, The American Economic Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.1–28.
29. Levin, Andrew; Chien-Fu LIN and Chia-Shang James CHU (2002), "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties." Journal of econometrics, Vol.108, No.1 1-24.
30. Liu, J. and Ran, M. (2014). Effect of the intensity of environmental regulation on production technology progress in 17 industries: Evidence from China. Pol J Environ Stud, 23(6), 2071-2081.
31. Liu, S. J., and Xu, X. L. (2021). The pollution halo effect of technology spillover and pollution haven effect of economic growth in agricultural foreign trade: two sides of the same coin?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 20157-20173.
32. Liu, X., Wahab, S., Hussain, M., Sun, Y., and Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). China carbon neutrality target: revisiting FDI-trade-innovation nexus with carbon emissions. Journal of Environmental Management, 294, 113043.
33. Manderson, E., and Kneller, R. (2012). Environmental regulations, outward FDI and heterogeneous firms: are countries used as pollution havens?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51, 317-352.
34. Panigrahi, S. K., Kumaraswamy, S., Tripathy, S., and Ebrahim, R. H. (2025). Does Environmental Innovation, Foreign Direct Investment and Renewable Energy Consumption Curb Environmental Quality Issues? Evidence from PMG-ARDL Approach. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(1), 213-220.
35. Pao, H. T., and Tsai, C. M. (2011). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC
36. Pedroni, Peter (1999), “Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors.”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics,61(S1), 653-670.
37. Pesaran, M. Hashem; Yongcheol SHIN; Ron P. SMITH (1999), “Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels.”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.94, No.446, 621-634.
38. Phillips, P.C.B. and B.E. Hansen. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variable regression with I (1) process. Revievv of Economic Studies 57 : 99 125.
39. Rafindadi, A. A., Muye, I. M., and Kaita, R. A. (2018). The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 25, 126-137.
40. Rehman, M. U. and Rashid, M. (2017). Energy consumption to environmental degradation, the growth appetite in SAARC nations. Renewable energy, 111, 284-294.
41. Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X., and Chen, X. (2014). International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: A case study of Chinas industrial sectors. China economic review, 28, 123-134.
42. Salahodjaev, R., and Isaeva, A. (2024). Post-Soviet states and CO2 emissions: The role of foreign direct investment. In Strategies and Challenges of Sustainable Development in Eurasia (pp. 110-131). Routledge.
43. Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., Ozturk, I., and Sohag, K. (2018). The effects of electricity consumption, economic growth, financial development and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Kuwait. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 81, 2002-2010.
44. Sarkodie, S. A., and Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of the total environment, 646, 862-871.
45. Shaari, M. S., Hussain, N. E., Abdullah, H., and Kamil, S. (2014). Relationship among foreign direct investment, economic growth and CO2 emission: a panel data analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(4), 706-715.
46. Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., and Sinha, A. (2019). Foreign direct Investment–CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption. Journal of cleaner production, 217, 603-614.
47. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., and Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?. Energy Economics, 51, 275-287.
48. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., and Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719.
49. Sung, B., Song, W. Y., and Park, S. D. (2018). How foreign direct investment affects CO2 emission levels in the Chinese manufacturing industry: evidence from panel data. Economic Systems, 42(2), 320-331.
50. Walter, I., and Ugelow, J. L. (1979). Environmental policies in developing countries. Ambio, 102-109.
51. Wencong, L., Kasimov, I., and Saydaliev, H. B. (2023). Foreign direct investment and renewable energy: examining the environmental Kuznets curve in resource-rich transition economies. Renewable Energy, 208, 301-310.
52. Xiang, X., Liu, R., and Luo, W. (2024). Pollution haven or pollution halo? Testing direct and spillover effects of FDI. China Economic Review, 88, 102254.
53. Xie, Q., Wang, X., and Cong, X. (2020). How does foreign direct investment affect CO2 emissions in emerging countries? New findings from a nonlinear panel analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119422.
54. Yi, J., Hou, Y., and Zhang, Z. Z. (2023). The impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on China's manufacturing carbon emissions. Innovation and Green Development, 2(4), 100086.
55. Yoon, H., and Heshmati, A. (2021). Do environmental regulations affect FDI decisions? The pollution haven hypothesis revisited. Science and Public Policy, 48(1), 122-131.
56. Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, halos and spaghetti: untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. Foreign direct Investment and the Environment, 13(8), 47-74.
57. Zhang, C., and Zhou, X. (2016). Does foreign direct investment lead to lower CO2 emissions? Evidence from a regional analysis in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 943-951.
58. Zheng, J., Assad, U., Kamal, M. A., and Wang, H. (2024). Foreign direct investment and carbon emissions in China:“Pollution Haven” or “Pollution Halo”? Evidence from the NARDL model. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 67(3), 662-687.