THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ECONOMIC GROWT, EXPORT AND C02: BRICS AND TURKEY SAMPLE

Abstract

In the economic literature, the relationship between economic growth, exports and CO2 is a matter of importance The purpose of this study is to investigate the long-run relationship among economic growth, export and CO2 emissions in Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Turkey for the period 1960-2013 by using panel cointegration tests. The causality relationship between the variables was analyzed using the Konya 2006 test. In the study real GDP per capita, export GDP % and CO2 emisisions metric tones variables are used. As a result of the study, there was no long relationship between the variables. According to the results of causality, mixed results were obtained according to the countries. For S.Africa and Turkey uni-direction Granger relationship from export to CO2 was found. However, for Brazil, China and India there was no causality relationship between export and CO2. The results support the view that the export sectors of G. Africa and Turkey are predominantly based on polluting industries

Keywords

• Economic Growth,Export,CO2 Emissions,Panel Cointegration Test,Bootstrap Panel

EKONOMİK BÜYÜME, İHRACAT VE C02 ARASINDAKİ EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME İLİŞKİSİ: BRICS VE TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

İktisat literatüründe ekonomik büyüme, ihracat ve CO2 arasındaki ilişki önemini koruyan bir konudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye’nin 1960-2013 dönemi için ekonomik büyüme, ihracat ve CO2 emisyonu arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkiyi panel eşbütünleşme testleri kullanılarak incelemektir. Değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi Konya 2006 testi kullanarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada kişi başına reel gayri safi yurtiçi hâsıla, ihracat %GSYİH ve kişi başına CO2 emisyonu metrik ton değişkenleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişki bulunamamıştır. Nedensellik sonuçlarına göre ise ülkelere göre karma sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. G. Afrika ve Türkiye için ihracattan CO2 emisyonuna doğru tek yönlü Granger nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Ancak Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan için ise ihracat ve CO2 arasında nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilememiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar G. Afrika ve Türkiye’nin ihracat sektörlerinin ağırlıklı olarak kirlilik yaratan endüstrilere dayandığı görüşünü destekler niteliktedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Büyüme,İhracat,CO2 Emisyonu,Panel Eşbütünleşme Testi,Bootstrap

Kaynakça

1. ACARAVCI, A. ve ÖZTÜRK, İ. (2010). “On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe”, Energy, 35, 5412-5420.
2. AHMAD, N. vd. (2017). “Modelling the CO2 emissions and economic growth in Croatia: Is there any environmental Kuznets curve?”, Energ,123, 164-172.
3. AHMAD, N. ve DU, L. (2017). “Effects of energy production and CO2 emissions on economic growth in Iran: ARDL approach”, Energy, 123, 521-537.
4. ALAM, M. vd. (2016). “Relationship among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumpton and population growth: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia”, Ecological Indıcators, 70, 466-479.
5. ANTONAKAKİS, N., CHATZİANTONİOU, I. ve FİLİS, G. (2017). “Energy Consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: An ethical dilemma”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 808-824.
6. APERGİS, N. ve PAYNE, J.E. (2009). “CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America”. Energy Policy, 37, 3282-3286.
7. APERGİS, N. ve PAYNE, J.E. (2010). “The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states”. Energy Policy, 38, 650-655. COONDOO, D. ve DİNDA, Soumyananda. (2002). “Causality between income and emissions: a country group specific econometric analysis”. Ecological Economics, 40, 351- 367.
8. COWAN, W. N. vd. (2014). “The nexus of electricity consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries”, Energy Policy, 66, 359-368.

9. DEĞER, M. K. ve PATA, U. K. (2017). “Türkiye’de Dış Ticaret ve Karbondioksit Salınımı Arasındaki İlişkilerin Simetrik ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Testleriyle Analizi”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 18(1), 31-44.
10. DİNDA, S. (2004). “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey.” Ecological Economics, 49, 431-455.
11. DİNDA, S. ve COONDOO, D. (2006). “Income and emissions: a panel data-based cointegration anaylsis.” Ecological Economics, 57, 167-181.
12. FARHANİ, S. vd. (2014). “The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis”, Energy Policy, 71, 189-198.
13. GHOUALİ, Y. Z. vd. (2015). “Factors Affecting CO2 Emissions in the BRICS Countries: A Panel Data Analysis”, Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 114-125.
14. HAMİT-HAGAR, M. (2012). “Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective”. Energy Economics, 34, 358-364.
15. IEA, 2016, “Key CO2 Emissions Trends Excerpt from: CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustions”,(http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyCO2Emissio
16. nsTrends.pdf 14.04.2017)
17. KAR, M., NAZLIOGLU, Ş. ve AĞIR, H. (2011). “Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: Boostrap panel granger causality analysis”. Economic Modelling, 28, 685-693.
18. KESKİNGÖZ, H. ve KARAMELİKLİ, H. (2015). “Dış Ticaret-Enerji Tüketimi ve Ekonomik Büyümenin CO2 Emisyonu Üzerine Etkisi”, Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9, 7-17.
19. KONYA, L. (2004) “Export-Led Growth, Growth-Driven Export, Both Or None? Granger Causality Analysıs On OECD Countries”, Applied Econometrics and International Development. AEEADE, 4(1): 73-94.
20. KONYA, L. (2006). “Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach” Economic Modelling, 23, 978-992.
21. LE, T., CHANG, Y. ve DONGHYUN, P. (2016). “Trade openness and environmental quality: International evidence”, Energy Policy, 92, 45-55.
22. LEAN, H. H. ve SMYTH, R. (2010). “CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and output in Asean”, Applied Energy, 87, 1858-1864.
23. MENSAH, J T. (2014). “Carbon emissions, energy consumption and output: threshold analysis on the causal dynamics in emerging African economies”, Energy Policy, 70, 172- 182.
24. MİCHELİS, L. ve Zestos, G.K. (2004) “Exports, Imports, And Gdp Growth: Causal Relations İn Six European Union Countires”, The Journal Of Economic Asymmetries, 1(2): 71-85.
25. ÖZTÜRK, İ. ve ACARAVCI A. (2010).” CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 3220-3225.
26. PESARAN, M. H. (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test In The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312
27. PESARAN, M. H., ULLAH, A. ve YAMAGATA, T. (2008). “A Bias-adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence”, Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127.
28. PESARAN, M. H. Ve YAMAGATA, T. (2008).” Testing Slope Homogenity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
29. RAFİNDADİ, A. A. (2016). “Does the need for economic growth influence energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Nigeria? Evidence from the innovation accounting test”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 1209-1225.
30. SHIRAZİ, N.S., ve ABDUL-MANAP, T.A. (2005) “Export-Led Growth Hypothesis: Further Econometric Evidence From South Asia”, The Developing Economies, XLIII(4): 472-488.
31. SOYTAŞ, U., SARI, R. ve EWİNG, B. T. (2007).“Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States”, Ecological Economics, 62, 482-489.
32. SOYTAŞ, U. ve SARI, R. (2009). “Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member”, Ecological Economics, 68, 1667- 1675.
33. STERN, D. I. ve BARBİER E. B. (1996). “Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development”, World Development, 24(7), 1151-1160.
34. THORNTON, J. (1996) “Cointegration, Causality and Export-led Growth in Mexico, 1895- 1992”, Economics Letters, 50: 413-416.
35. WANG, S. vd. (2016). “CO2, economic growth, and energy consumption in China’s provinces: Investing the spatiotemporal and econometric characteristics of China’s CO2 emissions”, Ecological Indicators, 69, 184-195.
36. WESTERLUND, J. (2007). “Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
37. WESTERLUND, J. ve EDGERTON, D. L. (2007). “A Panel Bootstrap Cointegration Test”, Economic Letters, 97, 185-190.
38. WESTERLUND, J. (2008). “Panel Cointegration test of The Fisher Effect”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, 193-233.