Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırma, 1980-2021 dönemi yıllık verilerini kullanarak Türkiye’ye gelen doğrudan yabancı yatırımların (DYY) karbondioksit emisyonu (CO₂) üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmektedir. Değişkenlerin durağanlıkları genişletilmiş Dickey-Fuller (ADF) ve Phillips-Perron (PP) testleri ile değerlendirilmiş, Johansen eşbütünleşme testi uzun dönemli ilişkilerin varlığını ortaya koymuştur. Vektör Hata Düzeltme Modeli (VECM) ile kısa ve uzun dönem dinamikleri incelenmiş, nedensellik testi değişkenler arasındaki etkileşimlerin yönünü belirlemiştir. Sonuçlar, kısa dönemde enerji tüketiminin CO₂ emisyonlarını etkileyen tek faktör olduğunu, uzun dönemde ise DYY, gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla (GSYİH) ve enerji tüketiminin CO₂ emisyonları üzerinde anlamlı etkiler yarattığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, Türkiye’de DYY’nin çevresel maliyetlerini vurgulamakta ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezini destekleyerek sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikalarına yönelik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevresel etkileri üzerine yapılan bu çalışma, ülkenin sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine ulaşabilmesi için çevre dostu politikaların hayata geçirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel sürdürülebilirlik arasında güçlü bir denge kurulması, yalnızca doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevreye olan etkilerini azaltmakla kalmayacak, aynı zamanda Türkiye’nin küresel çevre sorumluluklarını yerine getirmesine de katkı sağlayacaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar
• Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• CO₂ Emisyonu.

Pollution Haven Hypothesis: The Example of Türkiye

Öz

:This study analyzes the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in Turkey using annual data from the 1980-2021 period. The stationarity of the variables was assessed using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) tests, while the Johansen cointegration test revealed the existence of long-term relationships. The short- and long-term dynamics were examined through the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), and the direction of interactions among the variables was determined using the causality test. The findings indicate that in the short term, energy consumption is the only factor influencing CO₂ emissions. However, in the long term, FDI, gross domestic product (GDP), and energy consumption have significant effects on CO₂ emissions. These results highlight the environmental costs of FDI in Turkey, supporting the pollution haven hypothesis and offering insights for sustainable development policies. In conclusion, this study on the environmental impacts of foreign direct investments in Turkey reveals that environmentally friendly policies must be implemented in order for the country to achieve its sustainable development goals. Establishing a strong balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability will not only reduce the environmental impacts of foreign direct investments, but will also contribute to Turkey fulfilling its global environmental responsibilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Direct Investment
• Pollution Haven Hypothesis
• Economic Growth
• CO₂ Emission

Kaynakça

1. Addis, A., & Cheng, S. (2023). The nexus between renewable energy, environmental pollution, and economic growth across BRICS and OECD countries: A comparative empirical study. Energy Reports, 10, 3800–3813.
2. Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., & Wu, Y. (2021). Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124898.
3. Akbulut Bekar, S. (2018). The relationship between CO₂ emission and economic growth in Turkey: 1977–2011. Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 193–206.
4. Akçay, S., & Karasoy, A. (2018). The relationship between foreign direct investment and carbon dioxide emissions: The case of Turkey. Ankara University Journal of Political Sciences, 73(2), 501–526.
5. Akel, V. (2015). Cointegration analysis between stock markets of the Fragile Five countries. International Journal of Management, Economics and Business, 11(24), 75–96.
6. Akkaya, F., & Atalay Çetin, M. (2024). Are the Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Haven Hypotheses valid for developing countries? Journal of Social Sciences, Çankırı Karatekin University, 29–60.
7. Aliyu, M. (2005). Foreign direct investment and the environment: Pollution haven hypothesis revisited. (pp. 1–35). Germany: School of Economic, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK & Department of Economics, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.
8. Arslan, İ., Şengül, O., & Soner, K. (2021). Evaluation of the relationship between foreign trade and environmental pollution in Turkey in the context of the pollution haven hypothesis. The Journal of Social Sciences, 54(54), 347–365.

9. Asghari, M. (2013). Does FDI promote MENA region’s environmental quality? Pollution halo or pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(6), 92–100.
10. Atılgan, D. (2024). Testing the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses: A comparative analysis of E7 and G7 countries. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(2), 581–593.
11. Baek, J., & Choi, Y. (2017). Does foreign direct investment harm the environment in developing countries? Dynamic panel analysis of Latin American countries. Economies, 5(4), 39.
12. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71–81.
13. Çoban, M., & Özkan, O. (2022). Energy consumption, trade openness, CO₂ emissions and the pollution haven hypothesis in Turkey: Evidence from new dynamic ARDL simulations. Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kırklareli University, 11(2), 480–507.
14. Demir, Y. (2022). Empirical findings on the relationship between foreign direct investment, energy consumption, per capita GDP and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in Turkey. Journal of Management Sciences, 20(44), 279–297.
15. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427–431.
16. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057–1072.
17. Dinda, S., & Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and emission: A panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 167–181.
18. Enders, W. (2010). Applied econometric time series (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276.
20. Frutos-Bencze, D., Bukkavesa, K., & Kulvanich, N. (2017). Impact of FDI and trade on environmental quality in the CAFTA-DR region. Journal of International Trade, 24(19), 1393–1398.
21. Glynn, J., Perera, N., & Verma, R. (2007). Unit root tests and structural breaks: A survey with applications. Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 63–79.
22. Gökalp, M., & Yıldırım, A. (2004). Foreign trade and environment: The pollution haven hypothesis – Turkey application. Journal of Management and Economics, 11(2), 99–114.
23. Granger, C. W. J. (1986). Developments in the study of cointegrated economic variables. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 213–228.
24. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3914.
25. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156–1164.
26. Hamza, Ç., & Tatar, H. (2023). Is there cointegration between foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption in Turkey? International Journal of Economic and Administrative Research, (39), 138.
27. Han, M., & Öztürk, İ. (2020). Examining foreign direct investment and environmental pollution linkage in Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 7244–7255.
28. Hanif, I., Raza, S., & Gago-de-Santos, P. (2019). Fossil fuels, foreign direct investment, and economic growth have triggered CO₂ emissions in emerging Asian economies: Some empirical evidence. Energy, 176, 493–501.
29. Harris, R., & Sollis, R. (2003). Applied time series modelling and forecasting. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
30. He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 228–245.
31. Hendry, D. F. (1986). Econometric modelling with cointegrated variables: An overview. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 201–212.
32. Hewood, A. (2016). Global Politics. Adres Publishing.
33. Hyder, K. (2002). Crowding out hypothesis in a vector error correction framework: A case study of Pakistan. In 17th Annual Conference of the Pakistan Society of Development Economists (pp. 1–21). Islamabad.
34. Jiang, L., Zhou, H.-F., Bai, L., & Zhou, P. (2018). Does foreign direct investment drive environmental degradation in China? An empirical study based on air quality index from a spatial perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 864–872.
35. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2–3), 231–254.
36. Johansen, S. (1992). Determination of cointegration rank in the presence of a linear trend. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54(3), 383–397.
37. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration – With applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169–210.
38. Jorgenson, A. K., Dick, C., & Mahutga, M. C. (2007). Foreign investment dependence and the environment: An ecostructural approach. Social Problems, 54(3), 371–394.
39. Karaca, C. (2012). The effects of environmental policies applied by countries on international foreign direct investment: Testing the pollution haven hypothesis. Istanbul University Journal of Political Sciences, 181–200.
40. Kırıkçı, M. B. (2025). Investigation of the relationship between institutional quality and ecological footprint in Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 33(63).
41. Kırıkçı, M. (2023). Examining the effect of institutional structure and foreign direct investment on carbon emissions: Evidence from E7 countries. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 191–206.
42. Kisswani, K. M., & Zaitouni, M. (2023). Does FDI affect environmental degradation? Examining pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses using ARDL modelling. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 28(4), 1406-1432.
43. Köksal, C., & Çetin, G. (2021). An analysis of the foreign trade of pollution-generating sectors in Turkey. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 8(2), 257–275.
44. Kömürcüoğlu, Ö., & Değer, M. (2022, July). Relationship between foreign direct investment and environmental pollution: Panel data analyses on selected country groups. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 371–381.
45. Kurt, Ü., Kılıç, C., & Özekicioğlu, H. (2019). The effect of foreign direct investment on CO₂ emissions: ARDL bounds testing approach for Turkey. Selçuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 22(1), 213–224.
46. Kübra, S. (2021). Testing the extended Kuznets curve hypothesis in developed and emerging economies [Master’s thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Graduate School of Social Sciences].
47. Letchumanan, R., & Kodama, F. (2000). Reconciling the conflict between the 'pollution-haven' hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer. Research Policy, 29(1), 59–79.
48. Libanio, G. (2005). Unit roots in macroeconomic time series: Theory, implications, and evidence. Nova Economia, 145–176.
49. Lizondo, J. S. (1993). Foreign direct investment. Readings in international business: A decision approach, 85-114.
50. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601–618.
51. Mike, F. (2020). Is the pollution haven hypothesis valid for Turkey? Findings from the ARDL bounds testing approach. Doğuş University Journal, 21(2), 107–121.
52. Nejati, M., & Taleghani, F. (2022). Pollution halo or pollution haven? A CGE appraisal for Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 344, 131092.
53. Omri, A., Nguyen, D., & Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO₂ emissions, FDI, and economic growth: Evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382–389.
54. Osterwald-Lenum, M. (1992). A note with quantiles of the asymptotic distribution of the maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54(3), 461–472.
55. Pao, H.-T., & Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Modeling and forecasting the CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth. Energy, 36(5), 2450–2458.
56. Pehlivanoğlu, F., & Solmaz, A. (2020). Pollution haven hypothesis: BRIC and MIST countries. Bingöl University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 471–493.
57. Pesaran, M., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
58. Pethig, R. (1976). Pollution, welfare, and environmental policy in the theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2(3), 160–169.
59. Phillips, S., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
60. Repkine, A., & Min, D. (2020). Foreign-funded enterprises and pollution halo hypothesis: A spatial econometric analysis of thirty Chinese regions. Sustainability, 12(12), 5048.
61. Sevüktekin, M., & Nargeleçekenler, M. (2010). Econometric time series analysis. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
62. Singhania, M., & Saini, N. (2021). Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal of Business Research, 123, 516–528.
63. Solarin, S., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., & Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation. Energy, 706–719.
64. Şahin, G., Gökdemir, L., & Ayyıldız, F. (2019). An empirical investigation on the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses: The case of Turkey. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 2(33), 104–140.
65. Şahinöz, A., & Fotourehchi, Z. (2014). Pollution emission and foreign direct investment: Testing the “pollution haven hypothesis” for Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 2014(1).
66. Tamboğa, İ. (2019). The environmental impact of foreign direct investment in developing countries: An analysis within the framework of the pollution haven hypothesis [Master’s thesis, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University].
67. Thanh, N., Chin, K.-H., & Nguyen, V. (2022). Does the pollution halo hypothesis exist in this “better” world? Evidence from the STIRPAT model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(58), 87082–87096.
68. Topal, S. (2024). Testing pollution haven and halo hypotheses in Turkey within the framework of the LCC hypothesis. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 20(2), 418–436.
69. Usta, C. (2023). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental pollution: The case of N-11 countries. International Journal of Economy, Business and Politics, 7(1), 58–73.
70. Wagner, U., & Timmins, C. (2009). Agglomeration effects in foreign direct investment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(2), 231–256.
71. Xie, Q., Wang, X., & Kong, X. (2020). How does foreign direct investment affect CO₂ emissions in emerging countries? New findings from a nonlinear panel analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119422.
72. Yiadom, E., Mensah, L., & Bokpin, G. (2022). Environmental risk and foreign direct investment: The role of financial sector development. Environmental Challenges, 9, 100611.
73. Yilanci, V., Cutcu, I., Cayir, B., & Saglam, M. (2023). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 188, 114626.
74. Yılmaz, Ö., Kaya, V., & Akıncı, M. (2011). The effect of foreign direct investments on economic growth in Turkey (1980–2008). Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 25(3–4), 13–30.
75. Yılmazer, M., & Karabiber, B. (2020). The relationship between export, foreign direct investment, economy, and carbon emissions in Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 13(2), 199–200.
76. Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Is the pollution haven hypothesis valid in Turkey? Evidence from Fourier cointegration and causality methods. Journal of Academic Research and Studies, 61–77.
77. Zameer, H., Yasmen, H., Zafar, M. W., Vaheed, A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Analyzing the association between innovation, economic growth, and environment: Divulging the importance of FDI and trade openness in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 29539–29553.
78. Zeren, F. (2015). The effect of foreign direct investment on CO₂ emissions: Pollution halo or pollution haven hypothesis? Journal of Yaşar University, 10(37), 6381–6477.
79. Zheng, J., & Sheng, P. (2017). The impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the environment: Market perspectives and evidence from China. Economies, 5(1), 8.
80. Zheng, J., Assad, U., Kamal, M., & Wang, H. (2022). Foreign direct investment and carbon emissions in China: “Pollution haven” or “pollution halo”? Evidence from the NARDL model. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–26.
81. 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, 237–248.