EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: E7 ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada E7 ülkelerinde (Brezilya, Çin, Endonezya, Hindistan, Meksika, Rusya ve Türkiye) 1992-2018 döneminde ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi panel veri yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Ekonomik büyüme göstergesi olarak kişi başına düşen GSYH ve ekolojik ayak izi ölçütü olarak kişi başına küresel (ha) cinsinden ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmış olup, kontrol değişkeni olarak birincil enerji tüketimi ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığı Gengenbach vd. (2016) ikinci nesil eşbütünleşme testi ile araştırılmış olup, eşbütünleşme katsayıları AMG tahmincisiyle hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca, değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin tespitinde Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) nedensellik testinden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında, E7 ülkelerinde 1992-2018 döneminde değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşik ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. E7 ülkelerinde enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izi ile pozitif ve istatistiki olarak anlamlı ilişkiye sahiptir. Bu ülkelerde enerji tüketimindeki %1’lik artış, ekolojik ayak izini ortalama % 0.78 oranında arttırmaktadır ve ekonomik büyümede %1’lik artış ekolojik ayak izini ortalama 0.12 oranında arttırmaktadır. Ayrıca, ekonomik büyümeden ekolojik ayak izine doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi varken; ekolojik ayak izi ile enerji tüketimi arasında karşılıklı nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik büyüme
• ekolojik ayak izi
• panel veri analizi.
• Economic growth
• ecological footprint
• panel data analysis.

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT RELATIONSHIP: THE CASE OF E7 COUNTRİES

Öz

In this study, the relationship between economic growth and ecological footprint in E7 countries (Brazil, China, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Russia and Turkey) in the period 1992-2018 was examined by panel data method. GDP per capita as an indicator of economic growth and ecological footprint in terms of global (ha) per capita variable were used as a measure of ecological footprint, and primary energy consumption was considered as a control variable. The existence of cointegration relationship in the study Gengenbach et al. (2016) was investigated with the second generation cointegration test and the cointegration coefficients were calculated with the AMG estimator. In addition, Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) causality test was used to determine the causality relationship between the variables. In the light of the findings, it has been determined that there is a cointegrated relationship between the variables in the E7 countries during the 1992-2018 period. It has a positive and statistically significant relationship with the ecological footprint of energy consumption and economic growth in E7 countries. In these countries, a 1% increase in energy consumption increases the ecological footprint by 0.78% on average, and a 1% increase in economic growth increases the ecological footprint by an average of 0.12. In addition, while there is a one-way causality relationship from economic growth to ecological footprint; a mutual causality relationship has been determined between ecological footprint and energy consumption.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik büyüme
• ekolojik ayak izi
• panel veri analizi.
• Economic growth
• ecological footprint
• panel data analysis.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, S., and Aşıcı, A. A. (2015). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint. In Economic Research Forum Working Papers (No. 938).
2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., and Khan, Z. (2021). Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: does financial globalization matter?. Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102881.
3. Akıllı, H., Kemahlı, F., Okudan, F. ve Polat, F. (2008). Ekolojik Ayak İzinin Kavramsal İçeriği ve Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi’nde Bireysel Ekolojik Ayak İzi Hesaplaması. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 15, 1-25.
4. Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., and Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological indicators, 48, 315-323.
5. Aşıcı, A. A., and Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714.
6. Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., and Dalmazzone, S. (2008). A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650-661.
7. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K. and Larson, J. E. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
8. Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., & Kahn, J. R. (2009). Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1149-1159.

9. 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.
10. Charfeddine, L., and Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 76, 138-154.
11. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A., and Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? New evidence from the panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(12), 14372-14385.
12. Collins, A., and Flynn, A. (2015). The ecological footprint: New developments in policy and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
13. 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.
14. Dumitrescu, E., Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460 . Emirmahmutoğlu, F. and Köse, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels, Economic Modelling, 28, 870-876.
15. Gengenbach, C., Urbain, J-P. & Westerlund, J. (2016). Error Correction Testing in Panels with Common Stochastic Trends. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31 (6): 982-1004.
16. Ghita, S. I., Saseanu, A. S., Gogonea, R. M., and Huidumac-Petrescu, C. E. (2018). Perspectives of ecological footprint in European context under the impact of information society and sustainable development. Sustainability, 10(9), 3224.
17. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A.B (1991). Environmental impacts of North American free trade agreement, NBER Working Paper Series, No: 3914.
18. Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E., ve Türkseven, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme, Ticari Açıklık ve Enerji Tüketiminin Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkileri: G7 Ülkeleri İçin Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5(2), 329-342.