Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Çevresel Etkileri: Kirlilik Sığınağı-Kirlilik Halesi İkilemi

Öz

Sermaye hareketlerinin serbestleşmeye başladığı 1980’li yıllardan itibaren doğrudan yabancı yatırımların (DYY) ekonomik etkilerinin yanında sosyoekonomik etkilerinin de tartışılmaya başlandığı görülmektedir. NAFTA sonrası Kuzey-Güney eşitsizliği tartışmaları çevresel kalite bağlamında genişlemektedir. Kuzeyden güneye doğru DYY’lerin kuzeyde istihdam güneyde ise çevre kirliliği problemlerine yol açacağı yönündeki eleştiriler ilgili literatürü kirlilik sığınakları hipotezi ile zenginleştirmiştir. Sermaye serbestisi yanlısı görüştekiler ise gelişmiş ülkelerdeki verimlilik odaklı ve yeşil teknolojik üretiminin yayılımının çevresel kaliteyi arttıracağı iddiası ile kirlilik halesi hipotezini savunmaktadır. DYY’lerin çevresel etkilerine odaklanan literatürde her iki görüşe dair kanıtların tartışmalı ve bulguların örnek ekonomi ve örneklem dönemine bağlı olarak değiştiği görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin sınanması amacıyla DYY’lerin karbon salınımı üzerindeki asimetrik etkileri modellenerek 99 ülke için 1992 ile 2021 yıllarını kapsayan örneklemde panel ARDL model tahminleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular gelişmemiş ülkelerde kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin geçerliliği yönündeyken orta düzeyde gelişmiş ülkelerde yatırım çıkışlarının çevresel kaliteyi artırdığı yönündedir. Gelişmiş ülkeler için ise kirlilik hale hipotezini destekleyen bulgular elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kirlilik Sığınakları Hipotezi
• Kirlilik Halesi Hipotezi
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar (DYY)
• Çevre Kirliliği
• Asimetrik Panel ARDL

Environmental Impacts of Foreign Direct Investments: Pollution Haven or Pollution Halo?

Öz

Since the liberalization of capital movements in the 1980s, discussions have emerged regarding the economic and socioeconomic impacts of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). Post-NAFTA debates on North-South inequality have expanded in the context of environmental quality. Critiques suggest that FDI from the north to the south may lead to unemployment in the north while causing environmental pollution in the south, enriching the literature with the pollution haven hypothesis. Conversely, proponents argue that spreading efficiency-oriented and green technologies in developed countries will enhance environmental quality, supporting the pollution halo hypothesis. The literature focusing on the environmental impacts of FDI shows that evidence for both perspectives is contentious, with findings varying based on the economy and sample period examined. This study tests the pollution haven hypothesis by modeling the asymmetric effects of FDI on carbon emissions, using panel ARDL estimations for 99 countries from 1992 to 2021. The results support the pollution haven hypothesis in underdeveloped countries, while investment outflows in moderately developed countries improve environmental quality. For developed countries, findings support the pollution halo hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pollution Haven Hypothesis
• Pollution Halo Hypothesis
• Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)
• Environmental Pollution
• Asymmetric Panel ARDL

Kaynakça

1. Arslan, İ., Şengül, O. ve Künç, S. (2021). Türkiye'de dış ticaret ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisinin kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (8), 347-365.https://doi.org/10.29228/SOBIDER.52511
2. Ayyıldız, F. V. ve Üzümcü, A. (2023). Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları-iktisadi büyüme ilişkisi: Yapay sinir ağları ile 2053 yılı tahmini. F. V. Ayyıldız, & A. Üzümcü içinde, İktisat Ve Finans Uygulamalarının Ampirik Analizi (s. 13-22).
3. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data. New Delhi: Springer Texts in Business and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
4. Becker, R. A. (2003). Pollution abatement expenditure by u.s. manufacturing plants: Do community characteristics matter? Contributions in Economic Analysis &Amp; Policy, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035305308.00012
5. Birleşmiş Milletler Ekonomik ve Sosyal İşler Departmanı [BMESİD]. (2022). Dünya ekonomik durumu ve beklentileri 2022. https://www.un.org
6. Birleşmiş Milletler Ticaret ve Kalkınma Konferansı [UNCTAD-TR]. (2022). Dünya yatirim raporu 2022: Uluslararası Vergi Reformları ve Sürdürülebilir Yatırım. https://unctad.org
7. Blackburne, E. F., & Frank, M. W. (2007). Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 7(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
8. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.09.007

9. Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. (2005). FDI and the capitalintensity of “dirty” sectors: a missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00292.x
10. Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (1994). Environment, North-South trade and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 755-787. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118421
11. Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (1997). A simple model of trade, capital mobility, and the environment. NBER Working Paper Series, 5898. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5898
12. Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Free trade and global warming: A trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol. Journal of Enviromental Economics and Management, 49(2), 205-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.04.006
13. Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. (1995). Trade and transboundary pollution. American Economic Review, 85(4), 716-737. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315201986-28
14. David, A. G., & Regibeau, P. (2004). Managed trade, trade liberalisation and local pollut. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy , 4(2). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1331
15. Demena, B. A., & Afesorgbor, S. K. (2020). The effect of FDI on environmental emissions: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Energy Policy, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111192
16. Doytch, N., & Uctum, M. (2016). Globalization and the environmental impact of sectoral FDI. Economic Systems, Elsevier, 40(4), 582-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.02.005
17. Elbers, C., & Withager, C. (2004). Environmental policy, population dynamics and agglomeration. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2).
18. Fredriksson, P. G., & Mani, M. (2004). Trade integration and political turbulence: environmental policy conseqnences. Advances in Economic Analysis & Amp; Policy, 2. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451856965.001
19. Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., ... & Zheng, B. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811-4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022
20. Garsous, G., & Koźluk, T. (2017). Foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis – evidence from listed firms. OECD Economivs Department Working Papers, 1379, https://doi.org/10.1787/1e8c0031-en
21. Granger, C. W., & Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden cointegration. University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9qn5f61j
22. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2, 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
23. Güvercin, D. (2019). The benefits and costs of foreign direct investment for sustainability in emerging market economies. R. C. Das içinde, Handbook of Research on Economic and Political Implications of Green Trading and Energy Use (s. 39-40). Pennsylvania: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8547-3.ch003
24. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. .Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4076(03)00092-7
25. Im, K., & Pesaran, M. (2003). On the panel unit roots testin using nonlinear ınstrumental variables. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0347. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.482463
26. Levin, A., Lin, C., & Chu. (2002). Unit root test in panel data: Asympotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 1(24), s. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
27. Li, W., Qiao, Y., X. L., & Wang, Y. (2021). Energy consumption, pollution haven hypothesis, and environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the environment- economy link in belt and road initiative countries. Energy, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122559
28. McAusland, C. (2004). Environmental regulation as export promotion: Product standards for dirty intermediate goods. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1367
29. Pesaran, M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 69(7), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
30. Pesaran, M. (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
31. Pesaran, M. H., & Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-F
32. Pesaran, M. H., Y.Shin, & R.P.Smith. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2670182
33. Pesaran, M., & Y.Shin. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Studies in Empirical Macroeconometrics, 16(3), s. 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
34. Sadik Zada, E. R., & Ferrari, M. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, technical progress and pollution haven hypothesis. Sustainability, 12(9), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093880
35. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., & Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Economics, 51, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.014
36. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. SSRN Electronic Journal, s. 281-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9
37. Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2019). Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111002
38. Taylor, M. S. (2004). Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1408
39. U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA]. (2022). International Energy Statistics. https://www.eia.gov/international/
40. UNCTAD. (2006). World Investment Report 2006: FDI from developing countries and transition economies: Implications for development. New York: United Nations. https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2006
41. Ursavaş, N. (2024). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımın çevresel kirlilik üzerine etkisi: Kirlilik cenneti hipotezinin Türkiye için yeniden değerlendirilmesi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.30586/1403506
42. Wu, X. (2003). Pollution havens and the regulation of multinationals with asymmetric information. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1265
43. Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, halos and spaghetti: untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment, 13(8), 47-74.
44. Zheng, H., Zhang, L., Song, W., & Mu, H. (2021). Pollution heaven or pollution halo? assessing the role of heterogeneous environmental regulation in the impact of foreign direct investment on green economic efficiency. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 30(8), 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1882965
45. Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.003