Ekonomik Büyüme Çevresel Tahribata Etki Eder Mi: OECD Ülkelerinden Panel Dinamik Eşik Modeli İle Kanıtlar

Abstract

Ülkelerin ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınmasında önemli bir yer tutan üretim sürecinin çevreye duyarlı olarak yürütülmesi için özellikle gelişmiş ülkelerin başını çektiği ülkelerce çeşitli çalışmalar ve araştırmalar yürütülmektedir. Bu bağlamda literatürde Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezi olarak adlandırılan gelir düzeyiyle çevresel tahribatlar arasındaki ilişkileri araştıran teori günümüzde birçok araştırmacı tarafından da sınanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı da, OECD üyesi ülkelerde gelir düzeyleri ile çevresel tahribatlar arasındaki ilişkilerin araştırılmasıyla Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezi’nin varlığının sınanmasıdır. Bu amaçla 1965-2020 dönemine ait veriler panel veri analizine dayalı dinamik eşik model kullanılarak incelenmektedir. Analiz sonucunda gelir eşik değeri 3.204 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Analiz bulguları Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezi’nin geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte ekonomik büyümenin gelir eşik düzeyine ulaşıncaya kadar çevreye olumsuz etkilerde bulunduğunu ve çevreyi tahrip ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak hipoteze uygun olacak şekilde gelir eşik gelir düzeyinin aşılmasından sonra ekonomik büyümenin çevresel tahribatlar üzerindeki olumsuz etkisinin giderek azaldığını da ortaya koymuştur. Tüm sonuçlar birlikte değerlendirildiğinde gelir düzeyi ile çevresel ilişkilerin ters-U şeklinde olduğu net bir şekilde ortaya konulmuştur

Keywords

• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Çevresel Tahribat
• Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezi
• Gelir Düzeyi
• Panel Dinamik Eşik Modeli.

Does Economic Growth Impact Environmental Degradation? Evidence from OECD Countries Using the Panel Dynamic Threshold Model

Abstract

Various studies and research were carried out, particularly by developed countries, to ensure that the production process, a fundamental part of economic growth and development, is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner. In this context, the theory known as the Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis (EKH), which addresses the association between income levels and environmental damage, has been widely tested by researchers. This study investigates the relationship between income levels and environmental damage in OECD member countries and tests the validity of the EKH. For this purpose, data covering the period 1965-2020 were analyzed using a panel data-based dynamic threshold model. The analysis results suggest that the income threshold value is calculated as 3,204. The findings confirm the validity of the EKH. Additionally, the results reveal that economic growth negatively impacts the environment and leads to environmental degradation until the income threshold level is reached. However, in line with the hypothesis, once the income threshold level is exceeded, the adverse effects of economic growth on environmental degradation gradually diminish. When all findings are considered together, it is clearly demonstrated that the association between income level and environmental damage exhibits an inverted U-shape pattern

Keywords

• Economic Growth
• Environmental Damage
• Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis
• Income Level
• Panel Dynamic Threshold Model.

References

1. Acar Y., Gürdal T. and Ekeryılmaz, Ş. (2018). Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: An Analysis for Developing, Middle East, OECD and OPEC Countries. Environ Socio-econ Stud, 6(4), 48-58.
2. Acaroğlu, H., Kartal, H.M. and Marquez, F.P.G. (2023). Testing The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis İn Terms of Ecological Footprint and CO2 Emissions Through Energy Diversifcation for Turkey, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 63289–63304.
3. Akbulut, H. (2022). Effectiveness of Environmental Policies on Carbon Emissions: A Panel Threshold Analysis, Economics and Business Review, 8(22), 82-108.
4. Akıncı, M., Sevinç, H. and Yılmaz, Ö. (2018). A Switching Regression Analysis on the Validity of Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency in Turkish Economy. Wirth, E., Şimşek, O. and Apaydın, Ş. (Eds.). In Economic and Management Issues in Retrospect and Prospect (pp. 193-208). London: IJOPEC Publication.
5. Akıncı, M. and Şahin, Ç. E. (2022). Finans Kapitalizminin Görünen Eli: Türkiye Ekonomisinde Kredi Genişlemesi, Borçluluk ve Grevler Arasındaki İlişkiler. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1479-1508.
6. Alshehry A. S. and Belloumi, M. (2017). Study of The Environmental Kuznets Curve for Transport Carbon Dioxide Emissions İn Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 75, 1339-1347.
7. Amin, A., Altinoz, B. and Dogan, E. (2020). Analyzing The Determinants of Carbon Emissions from Transportation in European Countries: The Role of Renewable Energy and Urbanization. Clean Technol Environ Policy, 22, 1725-1734.
8. Aminata, J., Nugroho, S.B.M., Atmanti, H.D., Agustin, E.S.A.S., Wibowo, A., Smida, A. (2022). Economic Growth, Population, and Policy Strategies: Its Effects on CO2 Emissions. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy, 12, 67–71.

9. Apergis, N. and Payne, J. E. (2010). The Emissions, Energy Consumption, and Growth Nexus: Evidence from The Commonwealth of Independent States. Energy Policy, 38(1), 650-655.
10. Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995). Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.
11. Arouri, M.E.H., Youssef, A.B., Mhenni, H. and Rault, C. (2012). Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions in Middle East and North African Countries, Energy Policy, 45, 342-349.
12. Awan, A., Alnour, M., Jahanger, A. and Onwe, J.C. (2022). Do Technological İnnovation and Urbanization Mitigate Carbon Dioxide Emissions from The Transport Sector? Technol Soc, 71.
13. Balaguer, J. and Cantavella, M. (2016). Estimating The Environmental Kuznets Curve for Spain by Considering Fuel Oil Prices (1874–2011). Ecol. Indic., 60, 853-859.
14. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D. and Fahrani, S. (2018). How Economic Growth, Renewable Electricity and Natural Resources Contribute to CO2 Emissions? Energy Pol., 113, 356-367.
15. Bao, Z. and Lu, W. (2023). Applicability of The Environmental Kuznets Curve to Construction Waste Management: A Panel Analysis of 27 European Economies, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 188.
16. Beck, K.A. and Joshi, P. (2015). An Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence for OECD and Non-OECD Countries. Eur J Sustain Dev, 4(3), 33-45.
17. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E. and Bulut, Ü. (2016). The Dynamic İmpact of Renewable Energy Consumption on CO2 Emissions: A Revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve Approach, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 54, 838-845.
18. Bresuch, T. and Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification Tests in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
19. Caner, M. and Hansen, B. E. (2004). Instrumental Variable Estimation of a Threshold Model. Econometric Theory, 20(5), 813-843.
20. Chen, H., Rehman, M.A., Luo, J., Ali, M. (2022). Dynamic İnfluence of Natural Resources, Financial İntegration and Eco-İnnovation On Ecological Sustainability İn EKC Framework: Fresh İnsights from China, Resour. Policy, 79.
21. Chen, C., Pinar, M. and Stengos, T. (2022). Renewable Energy and CO2 Emissions: New Evidence with The Panel Threshold Model. Renewable Energy, 194, 117-128.
22. Cheng C., Ren, X. and Wang, Z. (2019). The İmpact of Renewable Energy and İnnovation on Carbon Emission: An Empirical Analysis for OECD Countries. Energy Procedia, 158, 3506-3512.
23. Cho, C.H., Chu, Y.P. and Yang, H.Y., (2014). An Environment Kuznets Curve for GHG Emissions: A Panel Cointegration Analysis. Energy Sourc. Part B: Econ. Plann. Policy, 9(2), 120-129.
24. Çatık, A.N., İlhan, A. and Akdeniz, C. (2023). Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in The Transport Sector for OECD Countries: Evidence from A Panel Threshold Model. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3333424/v1.
25. Danish, Baloch, M.A. and Suad, S. (2018). Modeling the İmpact of Transport Energy Consumption on CO2 Emission İn Pakistan: Evidence from ARDL Approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 25, 9461-9473.
26. Danish, 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. Sci. Total Environ, 678, 632-638.
27. Dijkgraaf, E. and Vollebergh, H.R.J. (2001). A Note on Testing for Environmental Kuznets Curves with Panel Data. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Nota Di Lavoro, 63.
28. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-55.
29. Dong, K., Sun, R. and Dong, X. (2018). CO2 Emissions, Natural Gas and Renewables, Economic Growth: Assessing The Evidence from China, Sci Total Environ, 293-302.
30. Egli, H. (2001). The Environmental Kuznets Curve Evidence from Time Series Data for Germany. ETH Institute of Economic Research Working paper, 03-28.
31. Farhani, S. and Ben Rejeb, J. (2012). Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Panel Data for MENA Region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(2), 71-81.
32. Fosten, J., Morley, B. and Taylor, T. (2012). Dynamic Misspecification in The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from CO2 and SO2 Emissions in The United Kingdom, Ecol. Econ. 76, 25-33.
33. Friedl, B. and Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 Emissions in A Small Open Economy. Ecological Economics, 45, 133-148.
34. Galeotti, M., Lanza, A. and Pauli, F. (2006). Reassessing the Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: A Robustness Exercise, Ecol Econ, 57, 152-163.
35. Galeotti, M., Manera, M. and Lanza, A. (2009). On the Robustness of Robustness Checks of the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis, Environ Resour, 42, 551-574.
36. Georgiev, E. and Mihaylov, E. (2015) Economic Growth and The Environment: Reassessing The Environmental Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions İn OECD Countries, Lett Spat Resour Sci, 8, 29-47.
37. Göçer, İ. (2013). Seçilmiş OECD Ülkelerinde Bütçe Açıklarının Sürdürülebildiği: Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Eş-Bütünleşme Analizi. Journal of Yasar University, 30(8), 5086-5104.
38. Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1991). Environmental İmpacts of A North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research.
39. Guo, M. Chen, S., Zhang, J. and Meng, J. (2022). Environment Kuznets Curve in Transport Sector’s Carbon Emission: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod. 371.
40. Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345-368.
41. Hansen, B. E. (2000). Sample Splitting and Threshold Estimation. Econometrica, 68(3), 575-603.
42. Heidari, H., Katircioğlu, S.T. and Saeidpour, L. (2015). Economic growth, CO2 Emissions, And Energy Consumption in The Five ASEAN Countries. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 64, 785-791.
43. Heil, M.T. and Selden, T.M. (2001). Carbon Emissions and Economic Development: Future Trajectories Based On Historical Experience, Environ. Dev. Econ. 6(1), 63-68.
44. Htike, M.M., Shrestha, A. and Kakinaka, M. (2022). Investigating Whether the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Holds for Sectoral CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Developed and Developing Countries. Environ Dev Sustain, 24, 12712-12739.
45. Jalil, A. and Mahmud. S.F. (2009). Environment Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: A Cointegration Analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37, 5167-5172.
46. Jaunky, V.C. (2011). The CO2 Emissions-İncome Nexus: Evidence from Rich Countries. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1228-1240.
47. Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B. and Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Trade in OECD Countries, Ecol. Indic. 60, 824-831.
48. Kharbach M. and Chfadi, T. (2017). CO2 Emissions in Moroccan Road Transport Sector: Divisia, Cointegration and EKC Analyses. Sustain Cities Soc, 35, 396-401.
49. Komen, M.H., Gerking, S. and Folmer, H. (1997). Income and Environmental R and D: Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries. Environ. Develop. Econ., 2(4), 505-515.
50. Kremer, S., Bick, A. and Nautz, D. (2013). Inflation and Growth: New Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Threshold Analysis. Empirical Economics, 44(2), 861-878.
51. Lau, L.S., Choong, C.K. and Eng, Y.K. (2014). Investigation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emissions in Malaysia: Do Foreign Direct İnvestment and Trade Matter? Energy Policy, 68, 490-497.
52. Mikayilov, J., Galeotti, M. and Hasanov, F.J. (2018). The İmpact of Economic Growth on CO2 Emissions in Azerbaijan. J. Clean. Prod., 197, 1558-1572.
53. Nawaz, M.A., Hussain, M.S., Kamran, H.W., Ehsanullah, S., Maheen, R. and Shair, F. (2021). Trilemma Association of Energy Consumption, Carbon Emission and Economic Growth of BRICS and OECD Regions: Quantile Regression Estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res., 28(1), 6014-6028.
54. Ouyang, X., Shao, Q., Zhu, X., He, H., Xiang, C., and Wei, G. (2019). Environmental Reg-Ulation, Economic Growth and Air Pollution: Panel Threshold Analysis for OECD Countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 234-241.
55. Örnek, İ. and Türkmen, S. (2019). Gelişmiş ve Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinde Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi’nin Analizi. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(3), 109-129.
56. Özkan, T., Yanginlar, G. and Kalayci, S. (2019). Testing the Transportation-induced Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: Evidence from Eight Developed and Developing Countries. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy, 9(1), 174-183.
57. Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning A Black Box into a Policy Tool. Environ. Dev. Econ., 2(4), 465-484.
58. Pao, H.T. and Tsai, C.M. (2010). CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth İn BRIC Countries. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7850-7860.
59. Perman, R. and Stern, D.I. (2003). Evidence from Panel Unit Root and Cointegration Tests That the Environmental Kuznets Curve Does Not Exist. Aust J Agric Resour Econ, 47, 325-347.
60. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 1240.
61. 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.
62. Phiri, A., Mhaka, S. and Taonevzi, L. (2023). Too Poor to Be Clean? A Quantile ARDL Assessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in SADC Countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03760-6.
63. Roberts, J.T. and Grimes, P.E. (1997). Carbon İntensity and Economic Development 1962/91: A Brief Exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Dev. 25(2), 191-198.
64. Roodman, D. (2009). A Note on the Theme of too Many Instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135-158.
65. Selden, T.M. and Song, D. (1994). Environmental Quality and Development: İs There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162.
66. Selden, T.M. and Song, D. (1995). Neoclassical Growth, The J Curve for Abatement and The İnverted U Curve for Pollution. J. Environ. Econ. Manage, 29(2), 162-168.
67. Sevinç, H., Akıncı, M. and Kırıkkaleli, D. (2022). Kentleşme ve Çevresel Gelişim: BRICS-T Ülkeleri Üzerine Dinamik Panel Eşik Modeli Analizi. Journal of Yasar University, 17(66), 351-366.
68. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Econ. Pap., 46, 757-773.
69. Shafik, N. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic Growth and Environmental Quality. Background Paper for The 1992 World Development Report, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
70. Shabani, Z.D. and Shahnazi, R. (2019). Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, İnformation and Communications Technology and Gross Domestic Product in Iranian Economic Sectors: A Panel Causality Analysis. Energy 169, 1064-1078.
71. Shahbaz, M., Shafiullah, M., Khalid, U. and Song, M. (2020). A Nonparametric Analysis of Energy Environmental Kuznets Curve in Chinese Provinces. Energy Econ., 89, 104-114.
72. Sinha, A. and Shahbaz, M. (2018). Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emission: Role of Renewable Energy Generation in India. Renew. Energy, 119, 703-711.
73. Sohag, K., Kalugina, O. and Samargandi, N. (2019). Re-Visiting Environmental Kuznets Curve: Role of Scale, Composite and Technology Factors in OECD Countries, Environ Sci. Pollut. Res., 26, 27726-27737.
74. Stern, D.I., Common, M.S. and Barbier, E.B. (1996). Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development. World Dev. 24(7), 1151-1160.
75. Stern, D.I. and Common, M.S. (2001). Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulphur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, 162-178.
76. Tucker, M. (1995). Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Global GDP. Ecological Economics, 15, 215-223. Uche, E., Das, N. and Bera P. (2023). Re‑Examining The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) For India Via the Multiple Threshold NARDL Procedure, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 11913-11925.
77. Wang, Q., Yang, T. and Li, R. (2023). Does İncome Inequality Reshape the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis? A Nonlinear Panel Data Analysis. Environmental Research, 216(2), 114575.
78. Vincent, J. R. (1997). Testing for Environmental Kuznets Curves within a Developing Country. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2(4), 417-431.
79. Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A., Carvajal-Lara, C. and Urgiles-Sanchez, R. (2018). Is There an Inverted U-Shaped Curve? Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Singapore. Asia-Pacific J. Account. Econ. 25(1-2), 145-162.