Türkiye’de Küreselleşmenin Ekolojik Bilanço Üzerine Etkisi: Maki Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Year 2022, Volume: 29 Issue: 4, 741 - 758, 29.12.2022

Sevginaz Işık

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1175988

Abstract

ÖZ
Neoliberal paradigmanın bir getirisi olarak artan küreselleşme hızı ile refahın yolunun doğanın sınırlarını gözetmeksizin ekonomik büyümeden geçtiği yönündeki varsayım ekonomilerin üretim ve tüketim desenini değiştirmiştir. Bu durum doğal kaynakların fütursuzca kullanılması nedeniyle çevre üzerinde ciddi olumsuz sonuçlar doğurmuş ve ülkelerin ekolojik bilançoları açık vermeye başlamıştır. Bu çalışmada amaç küreselleşme ile ekolojik bilanço arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye için 1970 ile 2018 yıllarını kapsayan dönemde küreselleşme hızı endeksi, ekonomik büyüme ile ekolojik bilanço arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişki çoklu yapısal kırılmaya izin veren Maki eşbütünleşme testiyle incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, küreselleşme hızı, büyüme ve ekolojik bilanço arasında uzun dönemli bir ilişkinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Aralarında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi saptanan değişkenlerin uzun dönem katsayı tahmini için DOLS tekniği kullanılmıştır. Buna göre, küreselleşme hızı ve büyümenin ekolojik bilanço üzerinde negatif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi bulunduğu ortaya konmuştur. Diğer bir ifadeyle, teorik beklentiler doğrulanmıştır: Neoliberalizmin bir getirisi olarak küreselleşme hızı ile büyüme arttıkça Türkiye’nin ekolojik bilançosu açık vermekte ve her geçen yıl ekolojik açık derinleşmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ekolojik Bilanço, Ekolojik Açık, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Biyokapasite, Küreselleşme, Maki Eşbütünleşme.
JEL Sınıflandırması: O44, Q56, Q57

Keywords

Ekolojik Bilanço, Ekolojik Açık, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Biyokapasite, Küreselleşme, Maki Eşbütünleşme

The Effect of Globalization on Ecological Balance in Turkey: Maki Cointegration Analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACT
As a result of the neoliberal paradigm, the increasing rate of globalization led to the production and consumption patterns of the economies have changed with the assumption that the way of prosperity is through economic growth, regardless of the limits of nature. It has had crucial negative consequences on nations’ ecological balance by using these natural resources unconcernedly. This study aims to investigate the relationship between globalization and ecological balance. In this context, the probable long-term relationship between the globalization rate index, economic growth and ecological balance sheet for the period covering 1970 to 2018 for Turkey was examined with the Maki cointegration test, which allows multiple structural breaks. According to the findings, it has been determined that there is a long-term relationship between the rate of globalization, growth rate, and ecological balance. DOLS technique was used for the long-term coefficient estimation of the variables with cointegration relationship. Accordingly, it has been revealed that the rate of globalization and growth have a negative and statistically significant effect on the ecological balance. In other words, the theoretical expectations have been confirmed: As an outcome of neoliberalism, as the pace of globalization and growth increase, Turkey's ecological balance sheet gives a deficit, and the ecological deficit gets deeper every year.
Key Words: Ecological Balance, Ecological Deficit, Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, Globalization, Maki Cointegration.
JEL Classification: O44, Q56, Q57.

Keywords

Ecological Balance, Ecological Deficit, Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, Globalization, Maki Cointegration

References

• Acar, S., ve Aşıcı, A. A. (2017). Nature and economic growth in Turkey: What does ecological footprint imply?. Middle East Development Journal, 9(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2017.1288475
• Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., ve Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(18), 18565–18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
• Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.695836
• Aydin, C., Esen, Ö., ve Aydin, R. (2022). Analyzing the economic development-driven ecological deficit in the EU-15 countries: New evidence from PSTR approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 15188–15204.
• Boratav, K. (2006). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi. 10. Basım. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
• Dickey, D. A., ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.
• Erdem, T. K., ve Hopoğlu, S. (2019). Küreselleşme ve karbon dioksit salınımı ilişkisi: Türkiye için bir analiz (1970-2017). Fiscaoeconomia International Congress on Social Sciences, 20 December.
• Figge, L., Oebels, K., ve Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9769-8
• Fred (2022). Real GDP at constant national prices for Turkey and population for Turkey. 10 Ocak 2022 tarihinde https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ adresinden alınmıştır.
• Global Footprint Network (2022a). Ecological footprint and biocapacity. 13 Ocak 2022 tarihinde https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=223&type=BCpc,EFCpc adresinden alınmıştır.
• Global Footprint Network (2022b). Ecological deficit. 13 Ocak 2022 tarihinde https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/ adresinden alınmıştır.
• Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., ve Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF globalisation Index – revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
• Haseeb, A., Xia, E., Danish, Baloch, M. A., ve Abbas, K. (2018). Financial development, globalization, and CO2 emission in the presence of EKC: evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 31283–31296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3034-7
• Khan, D., ve Ullah, A. (2019). Testing the relationship between globalization and carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan: does environmental Kuznets curve exist? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 15208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04913-9
• Kılıç, S. (2008). Küreselleşme sürecinde ekonomik, ekolojik ve toplumsal riskler. Akademik İncelemeler, 3(1), 31–54.
• Maki, D. (2012). Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks. Economic Modelling, 29(5), 2011–2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.04.022
• Modarress, B., Ansari, A., ve Ansari, A. (2020). Sustainable development and ecological deficit in the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability, 12(6180), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156180
• Nazlioglu, S. (2021). TSPDLIB: GAUSS time series and panel data methods (Version 2.0). Source Code. 22 Mart 2022 tarihinde https://github.com/aptech/tspdlib adresinden alınmıştır.
• Nye, J. S., ve Donahue, J. D. (2000). Governance in a globalizing world. In Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200039883
• Özatay, Fatih. (2009). Finansal Krizler ve Türkiye. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
• Phillips, P. C. B., ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
• Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.
• Rees, W. E., ve Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 16, 223–248.
• Rudolph, A., ve Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of Ecological Footprints: What is the role of globalization? Ecological Indicators, 81, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.060
• Saikkonen, P. (1991). Asymptotically efficient estimation of cointegration regressions. Econometric Theory, 7(1), 1–21.
• Schütz, H., Bringezu, S., ve Moll, S. (2004). Globalisation and the shifting environmental burden. Material trade flows of the European Union. Wuppertal Papers, 134e(134), 62. https://d-nb.info/1049946405/34
• Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T., ve Ali, A. (2013). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021
• Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., ve Kumar, M. (2017). Is globalization detrimental to CO2 emissions in Japan? new threshold analysis. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, October(82413).
• Steger, M. B. (2009). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (Second Edi). Oxford University Press.
• Stock, J. H., ve Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61(4), 783-820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763
• Telatar, O. M., ve Başoğlu, A. (2020). Is the EKC hypothesis valid for the ecological deficit/surplus? An empirical study for Turkey. In Y. A. Unvan (Ed.), Studies on Economics Sciences. Livre de Lyon.
• Thorlacius, M. Ö. (2018). Drivers of an ecological deficit analysis of the OECD countries’ ecological deficit. University of Iceland.
• Ünal, H. ve Aktuğ, H. (2022). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi kapsamında Türkiye’de çevre kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. İnsan & Toplum, 12(1), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.12658/M0647
• Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D., ve Murray, M. (2005). National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: the underlying calculation method. Global Footprint Network.
• Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., García, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S., ve Guerrero, M. G. S. (1997). Ecological footprints of nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+5 Forum.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904