Ticari Serbestliğin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerine Etkisi: OECD Ülkeleri İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3, 560 - 577, 29.01.2019

Faruk Mike

Öz

Bu
çalışma, ticari serbestliğin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisini, altı farklı
kirlilik göstergesi için, statik ve dinamik panel veri analizleri ile araştırmaktadır.
Statik analizlere yönelik olarak sabit ve rassal etkiler modelleri, dinamik
analizlere yönelik olarak ise, Arellano ve Bond (1991) tarafından geliştirilen
Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu (GMM) uygulanmıştır. Çalışmaya dahil edilen
kirlilik göstergelerinden dört tanesi için (sülfür oksit-SO_x,
nitrojen oksit-NO_x, karbon oksit-CO_x ve metan içermeyen
uçucu organik bileşik-VOC) analizler, 31 OECD ülkesi ve 1995-2015 yıllık
dönemleri kapsamaktadır. Diğer taraftan, geriye kalan iki kirlilik göstergesi
için (partiküller madde-PM10 ve 2.5 mikrondan küçük partiküller madde-PM2.5)
analizler ise, 26 OECD ülkesi ve 2000-2015 yıllık dönemleri kapsamaktadır. Üç
farklı test yönteminden elde edilen analiz sonuçları, OECD ülkelerinde ticari
serbestliğin çevre kirliliği üzerinde negatif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı
sonuçlara sahip olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu durum, gelir seviyesi nispi
olarak yüksek olan OECD ülke vatandaşlarının, çevresel kalite ve düzenlemelere verdikleri
önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ticari Serbestlik, Çevre Kirliliği, Sabit ve Rassal Etkiler Model, Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu, OECD Ülkeleri

The Effect of Trade Liberalization on Environmental Pollution: The Panel Data Analysis for OECD Countries

Öz

This study investigates the impact of trade liberalization
on environmental pollution through static and dynamic panel data analyses for
six pollution indicators. Fixed and random effect models were applied for
static analyses, while the Generalized Moments Method (GMM), which was developed
by Arellano and Bond (1991), was applied for dynamic analysis. The analyses for
four pollution indicators (include sulfur oxides-SOx, nitrogen oxides-NOx,
carbon oxides-COx and non-methane volatile organic compounds-VOCs) cover the
years of 1995-2015 for 31 OECD countries. On the other hand, the analyses for
the remaining two pollution indicators (particulates-PM10 and particulates-PM2.5)
cover the years of 2000-2015 for 26 OECD countries. The results indicate that
trade liberalization in OECD countries has negative and statistically
significant effects on environmental pollution. This demonstrates the
importance of environmental quality and regulations for OECD citizens whose
income level is relatively high.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Trade Liberalization, Environmental Pollution, Fixed and Random Effects Model, Generalized Moments Method, OECD Countries

Kaynakça

• Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R. ve Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is Free trade good for the environment?, The American Economic Review, 91(4): 877-908.
• Arellano, M. ve Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2): 277-297.
• Asteriou, D. ve Hall, S. G. (2011). Applied econometrics (2nd ed.). UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Baek, J., Cho, Y. ve Koo, W. K. (2009). The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis, Ecological Economics, 68: 2255–2264.
• Birdsall, N. ve Wheeler, D. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in latin america: Where are the pollution havens?, Journal of Environment & Development 2: 137-149.
• Brack, D., Grubb, M. ve Windram, C. (2000). International trade and climate change policies. Earthscan Publication: London.
• Cherniwchan, J. (2017). Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing, Journal of International Economics, 105: 130–149.
• Chintrakarn, P. ve Millimet, D. L. (2006). The environmental consequences of trade: Evidence from subnational trade flows, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52: 430–453.
• Cole, M. A. ve R. J. R., Elliot (2003), Determining the trade-environment composition effect: The role of capital, labor and environmental regulations, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46: 363–383.
• Copeland, B. R. (2008). The pollution haven hypothesis. K. P. Gallangher (Ed.), Handbook on trade and the environment (ss.60-70). UK: Edward Elgar.
• Dauvergne, P. (2011). Globalization and the environment. J. Ravenhill (Ed.), Global political economy, Third Edition (ss. 371-393). USA: Oxford University Press
• Dean, J. M. (2002). Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 35(4): 819-842.
• Frankel, J. (2009). Environmental effects of ınternational trade, Expert Report No:31, Sweden’s Globalisation Council, 1-88.
• Frankel, J. A. ve Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1): 85-91.
• Fredriksson, P. G. (1999). Trade, global policy, and the environment: New evidence and ıssues. P. G. Fredriksson (Ed.), Trade, global policy, and the environment (ss. 1-12). World Bank Discussion Paper No: 402, USA.
• Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a north american free trade agreement, NBER Working Papers Series, No: 3914: 1-39.
• Hadri, K. ve Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor, Economics Letters, 115: 31–34.
• Kellenberg, D. K. (2008). A reexamination of the role of ıncome for the trade and environment debate, Ecological Economics, 68: 106-115.
• Lin, F. (2017). Trade openness and air pollution: City-level empirical evidence from china, China Economic Review, 45: 78–88. Managi, S., Hibiki, A. ve Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade opennes improve environmental quality?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58: 346–363.
• McAusland, C. (2008). Globalisation’s direct and indirect effects on the environment, Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World, OECD Internatonal Transport Forum, 1-27.
• McAusland, C. ve Millimet, D. L. (2013). Do national borders matter? Intranational trade, international trade, and the environment, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65: 411–437.
• McCarney, G. ve Adamowicz, V. (2005). The effects of trade liberalization on the environment: An empirical study, Conference Paper in Canadian Agricultural Economics Society Annual Meeting, 1-33.
• Panayotou, T. (2000). Globalization and environment, Environment and Development Paper No. 1, Center for International Development at Harvard University, 1-48.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004), General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, CWPE 0435, Working Paper, 1-39.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007) “A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22: 265–312.
• Porter, M. E. ve Lind, C. V. D. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4): 97-118.
• Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels, Energy Economics, 61: 221–232.
• Shen, J. (2008). Trade liberalization and environmental degradation in china, Applied Economics, 40: 997–1004.