Ecological Footprint Convergence in N11 Countries: Fresh Evidence from Fourier Stationarity Test

Abstract

Keywords

• Ecological Footprint,Fourier Stationary Test,N11

N11 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: Fourier Durağanlık Testinden Yeni Kanıtlar

Öz

Çevresel kirlilik çalışmalarında kullanılan durağanlık testleri çevresel politikalar belirlemede yardımcı olmaktadır. Çevresel kirlilik göstergesi olarak belli başlı değişkenler bulunmaktadır. Bu değişkenlerden bir tanesi de kapsamlı bir gösterge olan ekolojik ayak izidir. Bu çalışma 1971-2016 döneminde N11 olarak da bilinen yeni endüstrileşen ülkelerde kişi başına düşen ekolojik ayak izinin yakınsamasını test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla panel Yatay Kesitsel Genişletilmiş Dickey-Fuller birim kök testi ve yeni geliştirilen panel Fourier durağanlık testi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre Endonezya, Pakistan ve Filipinler’de ekolojik ayak izi göstergesi durağan olmaktadır. Bu durum bu ülkelerde yakınsama olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye, Bangladeş, Mısır, İran, Meksika, Nijerya, Güney Kore ve Vietnam’da ise çevresel kirlilikte meydana gelen şokların etkisi kalıcı olmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu sekiz ülkede politika yapıcıların çevresel politikaları yeniden düzenlemeleri önem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi,Fourier Durağanlık Testi,N11

References

1. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T. ve Wu, T. (2014). Revisiting Purchasing Power Parity in African Countries: Panel Stationary Test with Sharp and Smooth Breaks. Applied Financial Economics, 24(22), 1429-1438.
2. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T. ve Wu, T. P. (2015). Purchasing Power Parity in Transition Countries: Panel Stationary Test with Smooth and Sharp Breaks. International Journal of Financial Studies, 3(2), 153-161. doi: 10.3390/ijfs3020153.
3. Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2006). A Stationarity Test in the Presence of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
4. Bilgili, F., ve Ulucak, R. (2018). Is There Deterministic, Stochastic, and/or Club Convergence in Ecological Footprint Indicator among G20 Countries?” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(35), 35404-35419.
5. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., ve Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of Environmental Convergence: Continental Evidence Based on Ecological Footprint. In Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization. Springer, Cham, 133-165.
6. Breusch, T. S. ve 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.
7. Bu, M., Liu, Z., Wagner, M., ve Yu, X. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Evidence from Multinationals’ Investment Decision in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 20(1), 85-99.
8. Cai, Y., Chang, T., ve Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2018). Asymmetric Persistence in Convergence for Carbon Dioxide Emissions Based on Quantile Unit Root Test with Fourier Function. Energy, 161, 470-481.

9. Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J. L., Del Barrio‐Castro, T. ve López‐Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the Panels: An Application to the GDP Per Capita. The Econometrics Journal, 8(2), 159-175.
10. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Kim, D., ve Perron, P. (2009). GLS-Based Unit Root Tests with Multiple Structural Breaks under both the Null and the Alternative Hypotheses. Econometric Theory, 25(6), 1754-1792.
11. Cucek, L., Klemes, J. J., ve Kravanja, Z. (2012). A Review of Footprint Analysis Tools for Monitoring Impacts on Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20.
12. DaMatta, F. M., Rahn, E., Läderach, P., Ghini, R., ve Ramalho, J. C. (2019). Why could the Coffee Crop Endure Climate Change and Global Warming to a Greater Extent than Previously Estimated?. Climatic Change, 152(1), 167-178.
13. Destek, M. A., ve 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.
14. Dickey, D.A. ve Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), 1057-1072.
15. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T.J. ve Stock, J.H. (1996). Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root. Econometrica, 64, 813-836.
16. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012). The Flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
17. Gallant, A. R. (1981). On the Bias in Flexible Functional Forms and an Essentially Unbiased form: The Fourier Flexible Form. Journal of Econometrics, 15(2), 211-245.
18. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., ve Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water Footprint into a “Footprint Family” of Indicators: Definition and Role in Tracking Human Pressure on the Planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112.
19. Gil-Alana, L.A., Cunado, J., ve Gupta, R., 2017. Persistence, Mean-Reversion and Nonlinearities in CO2 Emissions: Evidence from the BRICS and G7 Countries. Environmental Resource Economics. 67(4), 869-883.
20. Gil-Alana, L. A., ve Solarin, S. A. (2018). Have US Environmental Policies been Effective in the Reduction of US Emissions? A new Approach Using Fractional Integration. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 9(1), 53-60.
21. Heil, M. T., ve Selden, T. M. (1999). Panel Stationarity with Structural Breaks: Carbon Emissions and GDP. Applied Economics Letters, 6(4), 223-225.
22. Jalil, A., ve Mahmud, S.F. (2009). Environment Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: A Cointegration Analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172.
23. Javid, M., ve Sharif, F. (2016). Environmental Kuznets Curve and Financial Development in Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 406-414.
24. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C., Schmidt, P. ve Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a Unit Root: How Sure are We that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159-178.
25. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M.C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
26. Lee, C. C., ve Chang, C. P. (2009). Stochastic Convergence of Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Multiple Structural Breaks in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 26(6), 1375-1381.
27. List, J. A. (1999). Have Air Pollutant Emissions Converged among US regions? Evidence from Unit Root Tests. Southern Economic Journal, 144-155.
28. List, J., ve Strazicich, M. (2003). Are CO2 Emission Levels Converging among Industrial Countries?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 263-271.
29. Lumsdaine, R.L. ve Papell, D.H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
30. Onater-Isberk, E. (2016). Environmental Kuznets Curve under Noncarbohydrate Energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64, 338-347.
31. Ozcan, B. ve Ozturk, I. (2016). A New Approach to Energy Consumption Per Capita Stationarity: Evidence from OECD Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 332-344.
32. Ozcan, B., Ulucak, R., ve Dogan, E. (2019). Analyzing Long Lasting Effects of Environmental Policies: Evidence from Low, Middle and High Income Economies”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 130-143.
33. Panopoulou, E. ve T. Pantelidis (2007). Club Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions. The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp235, IIIS.E.
34. Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy Consumption, Urbanization, Financial Development, Income and CO2 Emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC Hypothesis with Structural Breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770-779.
35. Pata, U. K. (2019). Environmental Kuznets Curve and Trade Openness in Turkey: Bootstrap ARDL Approach with a Structural Break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20264-20276.
36. Pata, U. K., ve 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.
37. Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
38. Pesaran, M. H. 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 435, University of Cambridge, and CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229.
39. 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.
40. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias‐Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross‐Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
41. Phillips, P. C. ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75, 335-345.
42. Rees, William E. (1992). Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out. Environmental Urbanization. 4(2), 121-130.
43. Salahuddin, M., Gow, J., ve Ozturk, I. (2015). Is the Long-Run relationship between Economic Growth, Electricity Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Financial Development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 317-326.
44. Shafiei, S., ve Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-Renewable and Renewable Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547-556.
45. Shen, J., Wang, S., Liu, W., ve Chu, J. (2019). Does Migration of Pollution-Intensive Industries Impact Environmental Efficiency? Evidence Supporting “Pollution Haven Hypothesis”. Journal of Environmental Management, 242, 142-152.
46. Sidneva, N., ve Zivot, E. (2014). Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Policy on the Trend Behavior of US Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds. Natural Resource Modeling, 27(3), 311-337.
47. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in CO2 Emissions, Carbon Footprint and Ecological Footprint: Evidence from OECD Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(6), 6167-6181.
48. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., ve Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Ghana: An Empirical Investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719.
49. Solarin, S. A., ve Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of Policy Shocks to an Environmental Degradation Index: The Case of Ecological Footprint in 128 Developed and Developing Countries. Ecological Indicators, 89, 35-44.
50. Solarin, S. A., Tiwari, A. K., ve Bello, M. O. (2019). A Multi-Country Convergence Analysis of Ecological Footprint and Its Components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101422.
51. Stegman, A. (2005). Convergence in Carbon Emissions Per Capita. Macquarie: Department of Economics, Macquarie University.
52. Tiwari, A. K., Kyophilavong, P., ve Albulescu, C. T. (2016). Testing the Stationarity of CO2 Emissions Series in Sub-Saharan African Countries by Incorporating Nonlinearity and Smooth Breaks. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 527-540.
53. Ulucak, R., ve Apergis, N. (2018), Does Convergence Really Matter for the Environment? An Application based on Club Convergence and on the Ecological Footprint Concept for the EU Countries, Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 21-27.
54. Ulucak, R., ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A Reinvestigation of EKC Model by Ecological Footprint Measurement for High, Middle and Low Income Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157.
55. Wachernagel, Mathis, Rees, William, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. The New Catalyst Bioregional Series. New Society Publishers.
56. Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., ve Zhou, C. (2016). The Relationship between Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, and CO2 Emissions: Empirical Evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 542, 360-371.
57. Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S., ve Aydin, M. (2019). Are Shocks to Ecological Footprint in OECD Countries Permanent or Temporary?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 270-301.
58. Yurtkuran, S., ve Terzi, H. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin Ampirik Olarak Analizi: Meksika Örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 20, 267-284.
59. Zheng, D., ve Shi, M. (2017). Multiple Environmental Policies and Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Evidence from China’s Polluting Industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 295-304.
60. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D.W.K. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.