IN PURSUIT OF A GREEN WORLD: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE FRAGILE FIVE COUNTRIES

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 21 - 50, 31.12.2024

Şeyma Bozkaya

https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1448240

Öz

This study analyses the environmental quality of the countries known as the Fragile Five within the framework of green economy. Ecological footprint variable is used as an indicator of environmental quality. FGLS estimator was utilised in the study covering the period 1992-2019. The empirical findings show that renewable energy supply and energy efficiency have a reducing effect on ecological footprint in these countries. However, economic growth variable has an increasing effect on ecological footprint. On the other hand, no statistically significant relationship was observed between the environmental policy stringency index and green technology variables and the ecological footprint variable. In line with these results, the importance of renewable energy, energy efficiency, green technology and effective environmental policies in the transition process of the Fragile Five countries to a green economy is emphasised. Taking these policy recommendations into consideration will be able to take important steps in terms of environmental sustainability. Therefore, it will be able to bring the Fragile Five countries to a more advanced level within the framework of sustainable development goals and contribute to a more sustainable economy-environment relationship within the scope of green economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sustainable Development, Green Growth, Ecological Footprint, Green Innovation, Panel Data Analysis

YEŞİL BİR DÜNYA HEDEFİNDE: KIRILGAN BEŞLİ ÜLKELERİNİN ÇEVRESEL KALİTESİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Çalışmada Kırılgan Beşli (Hindistan, Türkiye, Brezilya, Endonezya ve Güney Afrika) ülkelerinin yeşil ekonomi çerçevesinde çevresel kaliteleri üzerine bir inceleme yapılmıştır. Çevresel kalite göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmıştır. 1992-2019 dönemlerini kapsayan çalışmada FGLS (Feasible Generalized Least Squares) tahmincisinden faydalanılmıştır. Elde edilen ampirik bulgular, bu ülkelerde yenilenebilir enerji arzı ve enerji verimliliğinin ekolojik ayak izini azaltıcı yönde bir etkide bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Ancak ekonomik büyüme değişkeninin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde artırıcı bir etkide bulunduğu sonucu elde edilmiştir. Buna karşın çevresel politika katılığı indeksi ve yeşil teknoloji değişkenlerinin ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni ile aralarında istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmemiştir. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerinin yeşil ekonomiye geçiş sürecinde, yenilenebilir enerji, enerji verimliliği, yeşil teknoloji ve etkin çevresel politikaların önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Söz konusu bu politika önerilerinin dikkate alınması, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından önemli adımlar atılmasını sağlayabilecektir. Dolayısıyla Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerini sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri çerçevesinde daha ileri bir seviyeye ulaştırabilecektir ve yeşil ekonomi kapsamında daha sürdürülebilir bir ekonomi-çevre ilişkisine katkı yapabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma, Yeşil Büyüme, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Yeşil İnovasyon, Panel Veri Analizi

Kaynakça

• Adebayo, T. S., & Rjoub, H. (2021). Assessment of the role of trade and renewable energy consumption on consumption-based carbon emissions: evidence from the MINT economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(41), 58271-58283.
• Adebayo, T. S., Awosusi, A. A., Rjoub, H., Agyekum, E. B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). The influence of renewable energy usage on consumption-based carbon emissions in MINT economies. Heliyon, 8(2).
• Ahmad, M., Ahmed, Z., Khan, S. A., & Alvarado, R. (2023). Towards environmental sustainability in E− 7 countries: Assessing the roles of natural resources, economic growth, country risk, and energy transition. Resources Policy, 82.
• Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605.
• Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., & Ali, S. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55.
• Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: method and models (1. baskı). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Oxford.
• 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.
• Appiah, M., Li, M., Naeem, M. A., & Karim, S. (2023). Greening the globe: Uncovering the impact of environmental policy, renewable energy, and innovation on ecological footprint. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192.
• Bai, D., Jain, V., Tripathi, M., Ali, S. A., Shabbir, M. S., Mohamed, M. A., & Ramos-Meza, C. S. (2022). Performance of biogas plant analysis and policy implications: Evidence from the commercial sources. Energy Policy, 169, 113173.
• Balogh J. M., & Jámbor, A. (2017). Determinants of CO. International Journal of Energy Econ Policy, 7(5), 217–226
• Baltagi, B.H. (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data (3. baskı). John Wiley & Sons Gmbh: West Sussex.
• Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101-110.
• Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634-647. doi: 10.2307/2082979.
• Bhat, J. A. (2018). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption – Impact on economic growth and CO2 emissions in five emerging market economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 25(35), 35515–35530.
• Bhattacharya, S. (2021). Renewable energy in India's sustainability transition. Journal of Environmental Policy.
• Botta, E. & T. Kozluk (2014). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: a composite index approach. (OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1177). OECD Publishing: Paris.
• Bowen, A., & Fankhauser, S. (2011). The green growth narrative: Paradigm shift or just spin? Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1157-1159.
• Bozkaya, Ş. Duran, M. S., & Awan, A. (2023). Technological innovations in environmental sustainability: A quantitative exploration of their impact on carbon dioxide emissions. Naturel Resources Forum, 48(4), 1169–1185. doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.12354.
• Breusch, T. S., & 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.
• Brown, J., & Malan, R. (2020). The path to renewable energy in South Africa. South African Journal of Environmental Policy, 193, 1032-1040.
• Bucak, Ç., & Saygılı, F. (2022). Türkiye’de Ve G7 Ülkelerinde Dışa Açıklık Ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Veri Analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 346-365.
• Cheng, C., Ren, X., Wang, Z., & Yan, C. (2019). Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission-Evidence from the BRIICS. Science of The Total Environment, 668, 1328-1338.
• Çakmak, E. E., & Acar, S. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352.
• da Silva, J. (2020). Sustainable agriculture in Brazil: Balancing growth with environmental protection. Agricultural Economics Review.
• Danish, Ulucak, R., Khan, S. U. D., Baloch, M. A., & Li, N. (2020). Mitigation pathways toward sustainable development: Is there any trade‐off between environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction?. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 813-822.
• Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537.
• Ding, Q., Khattak, S. I., & Ahmad, M. (2021). Towards sustainable production and consumption: assessing the impact of energy productivity and eco-innovation on consumptionbased carbon dioxide emissions (CCO2) in G-7 nations. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27(2021) 254–268.
• Dong, K., Sun, R., & Hochman, G .(2017). Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy 141, 1466– 1478. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092
• Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The Stata Journal 3(2), 1-10.
• Eğilmez, M. (2016). Kırılgan beşli. www.mahfieğilmez.com adresinden erişildi.
• Farhani, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2014). What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 80-90.
• Ferreira, L. G. (2019). Deforestation and Conservation in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Sustainability Journal.
• Ganda, F. (2019). The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon emissions in selected organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 469–483.
• Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7. baskı). Boston: Prentice Hall.
• Gujarati D. N. & Porter, D. C. (2012). Temel ekonometri (Çev: Ü. Şenesen ve G. Günlük Şenesen) (4. baskı). İstanbul: Ezgi Matbaacılık
• Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E., & Karakaş, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine etkileri: G7 ülkeleri için panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5(2), 329-342.
• Gürbüz, E., & Güneş, M. (2020). Çevresel kalite ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(2), 45-58.
• Harahap, R., & Purnomo, E. (2019). Transition to renewable energy in Indonesia. Energy and Environmental Perspectives.
• Harris, R.D.F. & E. Tzavalis (1999). Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed, Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201-226.
• Ibrahim, R. L., & Ajide, K. B. (2021). Nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, trade openness, and environmental quality in G-7 countries: the conditional role of technological progress. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 45212-45229.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Ito, K. (2017). CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from panel data for developing countries. International Economics, 151, 1–6.
• Kaya, C., & Akbaba, M. (2020). Low-Carbon Industry Transition in Turkey. Sustainable Economic Development Journal.
• Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M., ul Haq, Z., Shaofu, G., & Hang, J. (2022). On the goals of sustainable production and the conditions of environmental sustainability: Does cyclical innovation in green and sustainable technologies determine carbon dioxide emissions in G-7 economies. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 406-420.
• Kılınç, E. C. (2021). Ekolojik ayak izi-enerji ar-ge harcamaları ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 527-541.
• Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., Margaret, Q., Rudel, R., Schettler, T. & Stoto, M. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9), 871-876.
• Kruse, T., Dechezleprêtre, A., Saffar, R., & L. Robert. (2022). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries – An update of the OECD composite EPS indicator (OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1703). OECD Publishing: Paris.
• Kuepper, J. (2022). What are the Fragile Five? https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-are-the-fragile-five-1978880 adresinden erişildi.
• Mahalik, M. K., Mallick, H., & Padhan, H. (2021). Do educational levels influence the environmental quality? The role of renewable and non-renewable energy demand in selected BRICS countries with a new policy perspective. Renewable Energy, 164, 419-432.
• Menyah, K., Nazlıoğlu, Ş. & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: New Insights from a panel causality approach, Economic Modelling, 37, 386-394.
• Mioara, C. (2019). Environmental regulation stringency, compliance and competitiveness in OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(4), 339-353.
• Moundigbaye, M., Rea, W. S., & Reed, W. R. (2018). Which panel data estimator should I use? A corrigendum and extension. Economics, 12(1).
• Nassani, A. A., Aldakhil, A. M., Abro, M. M. Q., & Zaman, K. (2017). Environmental Kuznets curve among BRICS countries: spot lightening finance, transport, energy and growth factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 474-487.
• Nathaniel, S. (2020). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86, 1–14. doi: 10. 1007/s10708-020-10175-7.
• Nathaniel, S., Anyanwu, O., & Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 14601-14613.
• Özbek, S. (2023). Ekonomik büyüme, küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(37), 123-138.
• Özçağ, M. (2019). Kırılgan beşli ülkelerinde Co2 emisyonu ve GSYİH ilişkileri: Panel bootstrap nedensellik analizi. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 17(3), 374-388.
• Parks, R. (1967). Efficient estimation of a system of regression equations when disturbances are both serially and contemporaneously correlated. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 500–509.
• Pesaran, Ullah & Yamagata (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105–127.
• Pociovălișteanu, D. M., Novo-Corti, I., Aceleanu, M. I., Șerban, A. C., & Grecu, E. (2015). Employment policies for a green economy at the european union level, Sustainability 7, 9231-9250. doi:10.3390/su7079231
• Radmehr, R., Shayanmehr, S., Ali, E. B., Ofori, E. K., Jasińska, E., & Jasiński, M. (2022). Exploring the nexus of renewable energy, ecological footprint, and economic growth through globalization and human capital in g7 economics. Sustainability, 14(19).
• Rao, P & Griliches, Z. (1969). Small-sample properties of several two-stage regression methods in the context of auto-correlated errors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64(325), 253-272.
• Reed, W. R., & Ye, H. (2011). Which panel data estimator should I use? Applied Economics, 43(8), 985-1000, doi: 10.1080/00036840802600087.
• Saidi, K., & Omri, A. (2020). The impact of renewable energy on carbon emissions and economic growth in 15 major renewable energy-consuming countries. Environmental Research, 186.
• Salahuddin, M., Habib, M. A., Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., Marshall, M., & Ali, M. I. (2020). Renewable energy and environmental quality: A second-generation panel evidence from the Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) countries. Environmental Research, 191.
• Saqib, N. (2022). Green energy, non-renewable energy, financial development and economic growth with carbon footprint: heterogeneous panel evidence from cross-country. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 6945-6964.
• Setiawan, D. (2021). Forest degradation and palm oil production in Indonesia. Environmental and Development Studies.
• Sharma, A., & Gupta, R. (2020). Energy efficiency policies in India’s industrial sector. International Energy Studies.
• Sherif, M., Ibrahiem, D. M., & El-Aasar, K. M. (2022). Investigating the potential role of innovation and clean energy in mitigating the ecological footprint in N11 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 32813-32831.
• Smith, P. (2019). Water resource management in South Africa’s mining industry. Journal of Water Resources and Sustainability.
• Sökmen, F. Ş. (2021). Kırılgan beşli ülkelerinde kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin test edilmesi. Turkish Studies-Economics, Finance, Politics, 16(1).
• Spangenberg, J. H., (2002). Labour, growth and sustainable development from ideology disputes towards operational criteria. Sustainable Europe Research Institute.
• Spangenberg, J.H., & Kuhndt, M. (1996). Ökobilanz für geschirrsysteme im cateringbereich. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute.
• Su, C. W., Xie, Y., Shahab, S., Faisal, C., Nadeem, M., Hafeez, M. & Qamri,, G. M. (2021). Towards achieving sustainable development: Role of technology innovation, technology adoption and CO2 emission for BRICS. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1):277. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010277
• Taylor, W. E. (1977). Small sample properties of a class of two stage aitken estimators. Econometrica, 45(2), 497-508.
• Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54.
• Umar, M., Ji, X., Kirikkaleli, D., & Xu, Q. (2020). COP21 Roadmap: Do innovation, financial development, and transportation infrastructure matter for environmental sustainability in China? Journal of Environmental Management, 271.
• UNEP (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. UNEP: A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.
• UNEP (2011). Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. UNEP: St-Martin-Bellevue.
• UNEP (t.y.). Green economy. https://www.unep.org/regions/asia-and-pacific/regional-initiatives/supporting-resource-efficiency/green-economy adresinden erişildi.
• Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Akadiri, S., S. (2023). Effects of domestic material consumption, renewable energy, and financial development on environmental sustainability in the EU-28: Evidence from a GMM panel-VAR. Renewable Energy, 184, 239-251.
• Wackernagel, M., & Beyers, B. (Ed.). (2019). Ecological footpring: Managing our biocapacity budget. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (1. baskı) Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
• Yağlikara, A. (2022). Ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 656-676.
• Yalçın, A.Z. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma için yeşil ekonomi düşüncesi ve mali politikalar. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 749-775.
• Yang, B., Jahanger, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 23482-23500.
• Yaqub, M. S., Mehmood, B., Hassan, N., Zohaib, M., & Bukhari, M. H. S. (2015). Is EVA a better performance measure than accounting measures? Evidence from Pakistani listed companies, Science International (Lahore), 27(2),1425-1432.
• Yılmaz, A. (2022). Ticari açıklığın ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin çevresel etkilerinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinden değerlendirilmesi; yükselen piyasa ekonomileri örneği. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18(2), 32-57.
• Yildirim, S., & Ozturk, M. (2021). Energy efficiency policies in Turkey. Journal of Renewable Energy Economics.
• Zhang, M., Jain, V., Qian, X., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Ali, S. A., Sharma, P., ... & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). The dynamic relationship among technological innovation, international trade, and energy production. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10.