OECD Ülkelerinde Yeşil Ticari Açıklığın Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Üzerine Etkisi: Malzeme Ayak İzine Dayalı Kanıtlar

Year 2025, Volume: 59 Issue: 4, 955 - 970, 08.10.2025

Gizem Mukiyen Avcı

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1722288

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, dış ticaretin çevresel etkilerini dikkate alarak, yeşil ticari açıklığın çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkilerini OECD ülkeleri özelinde incelemektir. Yeşil ticaretin, ekonomik büyüme ve doğal kaynakların korunması arasındaki dengeye katkı sağlayıp sağlamadığı araştırılmaktadır.
Yöntem: 1999-2021 dönemine ait 32 OECD ülkesini kapsayan panel veri seti kullanılmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkileri belirlemek amacıyla Westerlund (2005) ve GUW (2015) panel eşbütünleşme testleri uygulanmış ve ayrıca değişkenlerin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkilerini tahmin etmek için de AMG tahmin yöntemi tercih edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Elde edilen sonuçlar, malzeme ayak izi, gelir düzeyi ve yeşil ticari açıklık değişkenlerinin uzun dönemde birlikte hareket ettiğini göstermektedir. AMG tahmin yöntemiyle yapılan analizler, gelir düzeyindeki artışın malzeme ayak izini artırdığını, yeşil ticari açıklık düzeyindeki artışın ise malzeme ayak izini azalttığını ortaya koymuştur. Ülkelere özgü AMG katsayıları ise, gelir düzeyindeki iyileşmenin tüm ülkelerde malzeme ayak izini artırdığını, ancak yeşil ticari açıklığın etkisinin ülkelere göre farklılık arz ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır.
Özgünlük: Çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliği temsil eden malzeme ayak izi değişkenini merkeze alarak yeşil ticaret açıklığı ile ilişkisini inceleyen nadir araştırmalardandır. Ayrıca, IMF tarafından sunulan güncel yeşil ticari açıklık verilerinin kullanılması, çalışmayı mevcut literatürden ayıran önemli bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik , Yeşil Ticari Açıklık , Malzeme Ayak İzi , Ekonomik Büyüme , OECD

The Impact of Green Trade Openness on Environmental Sustainability in OECD Countries: Evidence Based on Material Footprint

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine the impact of green trade openness on environmental sustainability, taking into account the environmental effects of foreign trade, with a specific focus on OECD countries. It investigates whether green trade contributes to balancing economic growth and the preservation of natural resources.
Methodology: A panel data set covering 32 OECD countries for the period of 1999-2021 is used in this study. To determine the long-term relationships among the variables, Westerlund (2005) and GUW (2015) panel cointegration tests are employed. Additionally, the AMG (Augmented Mean Group) estimation method is used to assess the effects of the variables on environmental sustainability.
Findings: The results indicate that material footprint, income level, and green trade openness move together in the long run. Analyses conducted using the AMG estimation method reveal that an increase in income level raises the material footprint, while an increase in green trade openness reduces it. Country-specific AMG coefficients show that higher income levels increase the material footprint in all countries; however, the impact of green trade openness varies across countries.
Originality: This study is one of the few that focuses on the relationship between green trade openness and environmental sustainability by using the material footprint as a central indicator. Moreover, the use of up-to-date green trade openness data provided by the IMF offers a significant contribution that distinguishes this research from the existing literature.

Keywords

Environmental Sustainability , Green Trade Openness , Material Footprint , Economic Growth , OECD

References

• Ahmad, M., Ahmed, Z., Bai, Y., Qiao, G., Popp, J. ve Oláh, J. (2022). “Financial Inclusion, Technological Innovations and Environmental Quality: Analyzing the Role of Green Openness”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10(851263), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.851263
• Al-Mulali, U. ve Ozturk, I. (2015). “The Effect of Energy Consumption, Urbanization, Trade Openness, Industrial Output, and the Political Stability on the Environmental Degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) Region”, Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
• Alvi, S., Ahmad, I. ve Rehman, A. (2023). “Trade of Environmental Versus Non‑Environmental Goods and Carbon Emissions in High and Middle-Income Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 65283-65295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26972-9
• Ansari, M.A., Haider, S. ve Khan, N.A. (2020). “Enviromental Kuznets Curve Revisited: An Analysis Using Ecological and Material Footprint”, Ecological Indicators, 115(106416), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106416
• Antweiler, W., Copeland, B.R. ve Taylor, S.T. (2001). “Is Free Trade Good for the Enviroment”, The American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.877
• Bai, J., Han, Z., Rizvi, S.K.A. ve Naqvi, B. (2023). “Green Trade or Green Technology? The Way Forward for G-7 Economies to Achieve COP 26 Targets While Making Competing Policy Choices”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 191(122477), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122477
• Baltagi, B.H. (2005). “Econometric Analysis of Panel Data”, England: John Wiley&Sons Ltd. West Sussex.
• Boz, A., Ünalan, G. ve Çaşkurlu, E. (2025). “The Effectiveness of Redistribution in Carbon Inequality: What About the Top 1%?”, Sustainability, 17(11), 4960, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114960
• 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
• Can, M., Jebli, B. ve Brusselaers, J. (2021). “Exploring the Impact of Trading Green Products on the Environment: Introducing the Green Openness Index”, MPRA, 106730, 1-21.
• Can, M., Jebli, B. ve Brusselaers, J. (2022). “Can Green Trade Save the Environment? Introducing the Green (Trade) Openness Index”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 44091-44102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18920-w
• Chavda, P. ve Mehta, D. (2024). “Impact of Green Trade, Technological Innovation and Renewable Energy on India’s Ecological Footprint”, https://ssrn.com/abstract=5057184.
• Dada, J.T. ve Al-Faryan, M.A.S. (2024). “Linking Per Capita Income, Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, Trade, and Urbanisation to Material Footprint: Insights from Saudi Arabia”, Energy Nexus, 13(100269), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100269
• Daly, S. ve Abdouli, M. (2023). “The Nexus Between Environmental Quality, Economic Growth, and Trade Openness in Saudi Arabia (1990-2017)”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(4), 579-598. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14119
• Dünya Bankası. (2008). “International Trade and Climate Change - Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives, Opportunities for Win-Win-Win: Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods and Services”, 73-95, Washington, DC.
• Dünya Bankası. (2023). “Toward a Clean Green Resilient World for All”, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/publication/environment-strategy-toward-clean-green-resilient-world, Erişim tarihi: 05.01.2025.
• Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F. (2010). “Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production, Oxford, Department of Economics”, Discussion Paper Series (515).
• Farhani, S., Shahbaz, M. ve Arouri, M.E.H. (2013). “Panel Analysis of CO2 Emissions, GDP, Energy Consumption, Trade Openness and Urbanization for MENA Countries”, MPRA, 49258, 1-19.
• Galli, A., Kitzes, J, Niccolucci, V., Wackernagel, M., Wada, Y. ve Marchettini, W. (2012). “Assessing the Global Environmental Consequences of Economic Growth through the Ecological Footprint: A Focus on China and India”, Ecological Indicators, 17, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.022
• Gao, X., ve Zheng, H. (2017). “Environmental Concerns, Environmental Policy and Green Investment”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1570. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121570
• Ganda, F. (2024). “Investigating the Relationship and Impact of Environmental Governance, Green Goods, Non-Green Goods and Eco-Innovation on Material Footprint and Renewable Energy in the BRICS Group”, Sustainability, 16(1602), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041602
• Gengenbach, C., Urbain, J.P., ve Westerlund, J. (2016). “Error Correction Testing in Panels with Common Stochastic Trends”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 982-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2475
• Güzel, I. ve Oluç, I. (2023), “Yeşil Açıklığın Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisinin İncelenmesi”, İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1068476
• Hajian, M. ve Kashani, S.J. (2021). “Evolution of the Concept of Sustainability from Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals”, Sustainable Resource Management, (s. 1-24), Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00018-3
• Hinsberg, N. ve Can, M. (2024). “The Impact of Green Trade Openness on Air Quality”, Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, 2(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.60084/eje.v2i2.198
• Hu, Y., Li, B. ve Ahmad, M. (2024). “Green Trading and Ecological Sustainability Under Macroeconomic Policy Framework”, Geoscience Frontiers, 15(101776), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101776
• IMF (2021). “Trade in Environmental Goods. Climate Change Indicators Dashboard”, https://climatedata.imf.org/datasets/8636ce866c8a404b8d9baeaffa2c6cb3_0/explore, Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2024.
• Jin, J.C. (2002). “Exports and Growth: Is the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis Valid for Provincial Economies?”, Applied Economics, 34(1), 63- 76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840010025632
• Maji, I.K., Saari, M.Y. ve Bello, U.A. (2023). “Institutional Quality, Green Trade and Carbon Emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Cleaner Energy Systems, 6(100086), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2023.100086
• Managi, S., Hibiki, A. ve Tsurumi, T. (2009). “Does Trade Openness İmprove Environmental Quality?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.008
• Mukiyen Avcı, G. (2023a). “Environmental Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey: Does the Quality of Institutions Matter? Evidence from Time Series Analysis Using the Fourier Extension”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 107841-107853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29964-x
• Mukiyen Avcı, G. (2023b). “Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi Geçerli mi? CIVETS Ülkelerinden Ampirik Kanıtlar”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 52, 336-351. https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1351678
• Omri, A., Daly, S., Rault, C. ve Chaibi, A. (2015). “Financial Development, Environmental Quality, Trade and Economic Growth: What Causes What in MENA Countries?”, Energy Economics, 48, 242-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.008
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004). “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
• Sahoo, M., Saini, S. ve Villanthenkodath, M.A. (2021). “Determinants of Material Footprint in BRICS Countries: An Empirical Analysis”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 37689-37704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13309-7
• Sdrolia, E. ve Zarotiadis, G. (2019). “A Comprehensive Review for Green Product Term: From Definition to Evaluation”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1), 150-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12268
• SDG (2023). “Sustainable Development Goal”, https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Shahbaz, M., Lean, H.H. ve Shabbir, M.S. (2012). “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger Causality”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 2947-2953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.015
• Shahsavani, M. ve Basavaraju, C. (2016). “International Trade Benefits and Disadvantages, and Problems”, International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(1).
• Tariq M., Xu Y., Ullah K. ve Dong B. (2024). “Toward Low-Carbon Emissions and Green Growth for Sustainable Development in Emerging Economies: Do Green Trade Openness, Eco-Innovation, and Carbon Price Matter?”, Sustainable Development, 32, 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2711
• Udeagha, M.C. ve Muchapondwa, E. (2022). “Environmental Sustainability in South Africa: Understanding the Criticality of Economic Policy Uncertainty, Fiscal Decentralization, and Green Innovation”, Sustainable Development, 31, 1638-1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2473
• UN (1987). “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future”, https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/6f/85/6f854236-56ab-4b42-810f- 606d215c0499/cd_9127_extract_from_our_common_future_brundtland_report_1987_foreword_chpt_2.pdf.
• Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). “Our ecological footprint”. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Westerlund, J. (2005). “New Simple Test for Panel Cointegration”, Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019
• Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S. ve West, J. (2015). “The Material Footprint of Nations”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271-6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110
• Zhang, S., Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2017). “Does Trade Openness Affect CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Ten Newly Industrialized Countries?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 17616-17625. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-017-9392-8