DOES GLOBALIZATION AFFECT THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN TURKEY? EVIDENCE FROM ARDL TESTING

Öz

Globalization is a phenomenon that connects countries in terms of trade flows, opening of capital markets, technological innovations, cultural and political decisions. The negative impact of globalization on biodiversity for rapid economic growth and development can easily be ignored. In this regard, it can be said that globalization has a direct impact on economic growth and an indirect impact on the environment. The study aimed to examine the real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for Turkey between 1980-2019 and the impact of economic, political and social globalization on the ecological footprint obtained from the globalization Swiss Institute of Economic Research (KOF) database. Distributed lag autoregressive bound test (ARDL) suggested by Pesaran et al. (2001) was used as the econometric method. According to ARDL short-term and long-term findings, while real GDP per capita and social globalization increase the ecological footprint, no effect of economic and political globalization was found.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Globalization
• Ecological Footprint
• ARDL Test

KÜRESELLEŞME TÜRKİYE’DEKİ EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİNİ ETKİLİYOR MU? ARDL TESTİNDEN KANITLAR

Öz

Küreselleşme, ülkeleri ticaret akışları, sermaye piyasalarının açılması, teknolojik yenilikler, kültürel ve politik kararlar açısından birbirine bağlayan bir olgudur. Hızlı ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınma için küreselleşmenin biyolojik çeşitlilik üzerindeki olumsuz etkisi kolaylıkla göz ardı edilebilmektedir. Bu bakımdan küreselleşmenin ekonomik büyüme üzerinde doğrudan çevre üzerinde ise dolaylı bir etkisinin söz konusu olduğu söylenebilir. Çalışma, Türkiye için 1980-2019 yılları arasında kişi başına reel gayri safi yurt içi hasıla (GSYH) ile küreselleşme İsviçre Ekonomi Araştırmaları Enstitüsü (KOF) veri tabanından elde edilen ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Ekonometrik yöntem olarak Pesaran vd. (2001) tarafından önerilen gecikmesi dağıtılmış otoregresif sınır testi (ARDL) kullanılmıştır. ARDL kısa dönem ve uzun dönem bulgularına göre kişi başına reel GSYH ve sosyal küreselleşme ekolojik ayak izini artırmakta iken, ekonomik ve politik küreselleşmenin herhangi bir etkisi bulunamamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küreselleşme
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• ARDL Testi

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., & 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.
2. Aksu, H., & Başar, S. (2016). Türkiye ekonomisinde hasılanın işsizlik üzerindeki dinamik etkileri. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 20(1), 275-286.
3. Aluko, O. A., Opoku, E. E. O., & Ibrahim, M. (2021). Investigating the environmental effect of globalization: Insights from selected industrialized countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111892.
4. Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23-42.
5. Apaydin, Ş., Ursavaş, U., & Koç, Ü. (2021). The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: Do convergence clubs matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53379-53393.
6. Çeliköz, Y. S., Yildiz, T., Arslan, Ü., & Kirmizioğlu, H. (2022). The relationship between economic globalization and ecological footprint: Empirical evidence for developed and developing countries. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, 8(4), 109-133.
7. Destek, M. A. (2020). Investigation on the role of economic, social, and political globalization on environment: Evidence from CEECs. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(27), 33601-33614.
8. Ersoy, E., & Ugurlu, A. (2020). The potential of Turkey's province-based livestock sector to mitigate GHG emissions through biogas production. Journal of Environmental Management, 255, 109858.

9. Esen, E., Yıldırım, S., & Kostakoğlu, S. F. (2012). Feldstein-Horioka hipotezinin Türkiye ekonomisi için sınanması: ARDL modeli uygulaması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 251-267.
10. Figge, L., Oebels, K., & Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: An empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19, 863-876.
11. Global Footprint Network (2024). National foot print accounts. http://data.footprintnetwork.org (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2024).
12. Grossman, G., & Krueger, A. (1995). Economic environment and the economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
13. Jorgenson, A. K., & Burns, T. J. (2007). The political-economic causes of change in the ecological footprints of nations, 1991–2001: A quantitative investigation. Social Science Research, 36(2), 834-853.
14. Kalmaz, D. B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2019). Modeling CO2 emissions in an emerging market: Empirical finding from ARDL-based bounds and wavelet coherence approaches. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(5), 5210-5220.
15. Kandemir, M., & Kandemir, H. (2022). Avrupa yeşil mutakabatı ve iklim anlaşmalarının Türkiye orman ürünleri endüstrisi açısından içerik incelemesi. 21. Yüzyılda Fen ve Teknik, 9(18), 89-94.
16. Kar, M., & Ağır, H. (2006). Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Eşbütünleşme yaklaşımı ile nedensellik testi, 1926-1994. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(11), 50-68.
17. Kılınç ve Altıparmak (2020). Çevre vergilerinin CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi üzerine bir uygulama. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (1), 217-227.
18. Kırıkkaleli, D., Adebayo, T. S., Khan, Z., & Ali, S. (2021). Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(11), 14009-14017.
19. KOF (2024). KOF globalisation index. http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch, (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2024).
20. Pata, U. K., & Yilanci, V. (2020). Financial development, globalization and ecological footprint in G7: Further evidence from threshold cointegration and fractional frequency causality tests. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(4), 803-825.
21. Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1995). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis (Vol. 9514). Cambridge, UK: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.
22. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
23. Polat, M. A. (2017). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye’de enerji tüketiminin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 299-313.
24. Protocol, K. (1997). Kyoto protocol. UNFCCC Website. Available online: http://unfccc. int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830. php (accessed on 1 January 2011), 230-240.
25. Rahman, H. U., Zaman, U., & Górecki, J. (2021). The role of energy consumption, economic growth and globalization in environmental degradation: Empirical evidence from the BRICS region. Sustainability, 13(4), 1924.
26. Rudolph, A., & Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization?. Ecological Indicators, 81, 348-361.
27. Sakai, M., & Barrett, J. (2016). Border carbon adjustments: Addressing emissions embodied in trade. Energy Policy, 92, 102-110.
28. Saud, S., Chen, S., & Haseeb, A. (2020). The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: Accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119518.
29. Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M. K., & Loganathan, N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India?. Ecological Indicators, 52, 379-393.
30. Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., Mahalik, M. K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2018). Does globalisation worsen environmental quality in developed economies?. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 23, 141-156.
31. Sharif, A., Afshan, S., & Qureshi, M. A. (2019). Idolization and ramification between globalization and ecological footprints: Evidence from quantile-on-quantile approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 11191-11211.
32. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
33. Ulucak, Z. Ş., İlkay, S. Ç., Özcan, B., & Gedikli, A. (2020). Financial globalization and environmental degradation nexus: Evidence from emerging economies. Resources Policy, 67, 101698.
34. Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: Evidence from the US. Renewable Energy, 150, 266-277.
35. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New society publishers.
36. World Bank (2024). Databank, world development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2024).
37. Yağlıkara, A. (2022). Ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 656-676.
38. Yalta, A. T. (2011). Ekonometrik Modelleme Modellemeye İlişkin Konular. https://acikders.tuba.gov.tr, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.06.2024).
39. Yang, X., Li, N., Mu, H., Zhang, M., Pang, J., & Ahmad, M. (2021). Study on the long-term and short-term effects of globalization and population aging on ecological footprint in OECD countries. Ecological Complexity, 47, 100946.
40. Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a Fourier function. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(32), 40552-40562.
41. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2009). A tale of contrasting trends: Three measures of the ecological footprint in China, India, Japan, and the United States, 1961-2003. Journal of World-Systems Research, 134-146.
42. Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., & Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: Evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environmental science and pollution research, 26, 13246-13262.
43. Zaidi, S. A. H., Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M., & Hou, F. (2019). Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 533-543.
44. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 25-44.