Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Smooth Quantile Evidence from BRICS

Abstract

Pollution, like everything else, can be carried along with globalization. This approach, which refers to the pollution carried by the capital, is the pollution haven hypothesis. This study investigates the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) on carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions in the BRICS countries from 1992 to 2020. We employed the instrumental variables smooth quantile regression (SIV-QR) method, which is novel in panel econometry. We found that per capita income has an increasing effect on carbon emissions in all estimators with all quantiles. In addition, our findings indicate that FDI flows have a decreasing effect on Co2 in high quantiles. However, the FDI plot estimates of the simultaneous quantile regression show that this has an increasing effect in low quantiles. This means that, at low quantiles, the pollution hypothesis is valid. This can help uncover possible relationships between the routes of money and carbon dioxide emissions.

Keywords

• Pollution Haven
• Carbon Dioxide Emission
• Smooth Quantile Regression

Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi: BRICS’ten Düzleştirilmiş Kantil Kanıtlar

Öz

Her şey gibi kirlilik de küreselleşmeyle birlikte taşınabilir. Sermayenin taşıdığı kirliliği ifade eden bu yaklaşım, kirlilik cenneti hipotezidir. Bu çalışma, 1992-2020 dönemi için BRICS ülkelerindeki doğrudan yabancı yatırımın (DYY) karbondioksit (Co2) emisyonları üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktadır. Çalışmamızda panel ekonometrisinde yeni olan araçsal değişkenli düzleştirilmiş kantil regresyon (SIV-QR) yöntemini kullandık. Kişi başına düşen gelirin, tüm tahmincilerde ve kantillerde karbon emisyonları üzerinde artırıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu bulduk. Ayrıca bulgularımız doğrudan yabancı yatırım akışlarının yüksek oranlarda Co2 üzerinde azaltıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak eş zamanlı kantil regresyonun DYY grafiği tahminleri, bunun düşük kantil dilimlerde artan bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu, düşük kantillerde kirlilik cenneti hipotezinin geçerli olduğu anlamına gelir. Bu bulgular, paranın rotası ile karbondioksit emisyonları arasındaki olası ilişkilerin ortaya çıkarılmasında yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kirlilik Cenneti
• Carbon Dioksit Emisyonları
• Düzleştirilmiş Kantil Regresyon

References

1. Abdilabekov, S., & Kaleci, F. (2020). Türkiye ve Şangay beşlisinde makroekonomik kırılganlığın karşılaştırmalı analizi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 48-58.
2. Adom, P. K., & Amuakwa-Mensah, F. (2016). What drives the energy saving role of fdı and industrialization in East Africa? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 925-942.
3. Ali, W., Abdullah, A., & Azam, M. (2017). Re-visiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis for Malaysia: fresh evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 990-1000.
4. Aslan, A., Altinoz, B., & Atay Polat, M. (2021). The nexus among climate change, economic growth, foreign direct investments, and financial development: new evidence from N-11 countries, Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 40, 13585.
5. Awan, A., Abbasi, K. R., Rej, S., Bandyopadhyay, A., & Lv, K. (2022). The impact of renewable energy, internet use and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions: a method of moments quantile analysis. Renewable Energy, 189, 454-466.
6. Balsalobre‐Lorente, D., Driha, O. M., Halkos, G., & 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.
7. Bakhsh, K., Rose, S., Ali, M. F., Ahmad, N., & Shahbaz, M. (2017). Economic growth, co2 emissions, renewable waste and fdi relation in Pakistan: new evidences from 3sls. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 627-632.
8. Behera, S. R., & Dash, D. P. (2017). The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emission in the SSEA (South and Southeast Asian) region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 96-106.

9. Boly, M., Combes, J. L., Menuet, M., Minea, A., Motel, P. C., & Villieu, P. (2022). Can public debt mitigate environmental debt? theory and empirical evidence. Energy Economics, 111, 105895.
10. Chang, S. C., & Li, M. H. (2019). Impacts of foreign direct investment and economic development on carbon dioxide emissions across different population regimes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72(2), 583-607.
11. Chatterjee, M., & Naka, I. (2022). Twenty years of BRICS: political and economic transformations through the lens of land. Oxford Development Studies, 50 (1), 2-13.
12. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48, 71-81.
13. Çetin, M., Sarıgül, S. S., Topcu, B. A., Alvarado, R., & Karataser, B. (2023). Does globalization mitigate environmental degradation in selected Emerging economies? assessment of the role of financial development, economic growth, renewable energy consumption and urbanization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(45), 100340-100359.
14. Dhrifi, A., Jaziri, R., & Alnahdi, S. (2020). Does foreign direct investment and environmental degradation matter for poverty? evidence from developing countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 13-21.
15. Dean, J. M., Lovely, M. E., & Wang, H. (2009). Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? evaluating the evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 90, 1-13.
16. Essandoh, O. K., Islam, M., & 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.
17. French, H. (1998) Capital flows and the environment. Foreign Policy in Focus, https://fpif.org/capital_flows_and_the_environment/ [Retrieved date: 04.24.2023].
18. Haug, A. A., & Ucal, M. (2019). The role of trade and fdi for co2 emissions in Turkey: nonlinear relationships. Energy Economics, 81, 297-307.
19. Kander, A., & Lindmark, M. (2006). Foreign trade and declining pollution in Sweden: a decomposition analysis of long-term structural and technological effects. Energy Policy, 34, 1590-1599.
20. Kaplan, D. M., & Sun, Y. (2017). Smoothed estimating equations for instrumental variables quantile regression. Econometric Theory, 33, 105-157.
21. Keho, Y. (2015). Is foreign direct investment good or bad for the environment? times series evidence from ECOWAS countries. Economics Bulletin, 35(3), 1916-1927.
22. Khan, M. A., & Ozturk, I. (2020). Examining foreign direct investment and environmental pollution linkage in Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 7244-7255.
23. Koç, Ş., & Özcan, G. (2023). Endüstri 4.0’ın ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi: G7 ülkeleri için panel veri analizi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 1-16.
24. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on co2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804.
25. Kong, Z., Du, J., Kong, Y., & Cui, X. (2024). Financial development, environmental regulation, and corporate green technology innovation: evidence from Chinese listed companies. Finance Research Letters, 105122.
26. Li, M., Du, W., & Wang, Z. (2023). Export globalization and pollution localization: multivariate heterogeneous data based on Chinese enterprises. Energy Reports, 9, 472–483.
27. Liu, P., Rahman, Z. U., Jóźwik, B., & Doğan, M. (2024). Determining the environmental effect of Chinese fdi on the Belt and Road countries co2. Environmental Sciences Europe, 36(48), 1-12.
28. Marques, A. C., & Caetano, R. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on emission reduction targets: evidence from high-and middle-income countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 55, 107-118.
29. Mohsin, M., Naseem, S., Sarfraz, M., & Azam, T. (2022). Assessing the effects of fuel energy consumption, foreign direct investment and gdp on co2 emission: new data science evidence from Europe & Central Asia. Fuel, 314, 123098.
30. Muhammad, B., & Khan, S. (2019). Effect of bilateral fdi, energy consumption, co2 emission and capital on economic growth of Asia countries. Energy Reports, 5, 1305-1315.
31. Muhammad, B. (2019). Energy consumption, co2 emissions and economic growth in developed, emerging and middle East and North Africa countries. Energy, 179, 232-245.
32. Nasir, I. M., Buluş, A., & Gömleksiz, M. (2022). Trade openness and fdi from Turkey: does it matter for economic growth in African countries? Medeniyet ve Toplum Dergisi, 6(1), 21-37.
33. Oanh, T. T. K. (2024). Digital financial inclusion in the context of financial development: environmental destruction or the driving force for technological advancement. Borsa Istanbul Review, 24 (2), 292-303.
34. O’ Neill, J. (2001). Building better global economic BRICS. Global Economics Paper Series (No. 66), 30th November 2001, Goldman Sachs Global Research Centers.
35. Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K., & Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between co2 emissions, fdi, and economic growth: evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382-389.
36. OWD, Our World in Data (2023a). https://ourworldindata.org/Co2-emissions. [Retrieved date: 04.20.2023]. OWD, Our World in Data (2023b). https://ourworldindata.org/energy. [Retrieved date: 04.20.2023].
37. Pao, H. T., & 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 (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 36, 685-693.
38. Peng, H., Tan, X., Li, Y., & Hu, L. (2016). Economic growth, foreign direct investment and co2 emissions in China: a panel Granger causality analysis. Sustainability, 8(233),1-13.
39. Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., Ozturk, I., & 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(2), 2002-2010.
40. Sapkota, P., & Bastola, U. (2017). Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics, 64, 206-212.
41. Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & 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.
42. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 73518-73533.
43. Tang, C. F., & Tan, B. W. (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447-454.
44. Topcu, B. A. (2016). The relationship between foreign direct investment and industrialization in developing countries: panel data analysis. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 4(35), 390-400.
45. Topcu, B. A. (2022). Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir çevre: finansal gelişme, yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve doğal kaynak gelirlerinin rolü. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 129(129), 43-60.
46. Voumik, L. C., & Ridwan, M. (2023). Impact of fdi, industrialization, and education on the environment in Argentina: ardl approach. Heliyon, 9(1), e12872.
47. WDI, Word development indicators (2023). https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=World-Development-Indicators#. [Retrieved date: 04.20.2023].
48. Xiong, J., & Xu, D. (2021). Relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollution in China. Environmental Research, 194, 110718.
49. Xie, Q., Wang, X., & 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.