G7 ve BRICS-T Ülkelerinde Stokastik Çevresel Yakınsamasının Geçerliliği: Panel KPSS ile Keskin ve Yumuşak Kırılmalar

Öz

Bu çalışma, G7 ve BRICS-T ülkelerinin karbon emisyonları açısından çevresel yakınsamanın mı yoksa ıraksamanın mı geçerli olup olmadığını araştırmaktadır. Çalışmada, 1960-2022 yıllarına ait karbon emisyon verileri kullanılmış ve stokastik çevresel yakınsama metodolojisi kullanılmıştır. Veriler analiz yöntemindeki kısıtlılıkları aşmak için normalize edilmiş ve yatay kesit bağımlılığı testleriyle ülkeler arası bağımlılık analiz edilmiştir. Yapısal kırılmaların tespit edilmesi amacıyla Fourier fonksiyonları kullanılmış ve bu yöntemle ülkelerin veri yapısındaki kırılmalar da ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmada, G7 ülkelerinden Almanya'nın karbon emisyonlarının ortalamaya ıraksadığı tespit edilmiştir. Öte yandan diğer G7 ülkelerinden olan ABD, Fransa ve Birleşik Krallık için ise karbon emisyonu serilerinin uzun vadede ortalamaya yakınsadığı belirlenmiştir. BRICS-T ülkeleri arasında Brezilya, Türkiye, Çin ve Güney Afrika’nın karbon emisyonlarının ıraksadığı görülürken, Rusya ve Hindistan’ın karbon emisyonlarının yakınsama eğilimi gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Gruplar arası Barlett test istatistiklerinde G7 ve BRICS-T ülkeleri arasındaki karbon emisyon yakınsaması incelendiğinde, her iki grup arasında emisyon ortalamalarının birbirine tam anlamıyla yakınsama göstermediği tespit edilmiştir. Panel KPSS testleri, G7 ülkelerinin zamanla birbirine yakınsadığını, BRICS-T ülkelerinin ise emisyonlarında ıraksama yaşadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Hem homojen hem de heterojen serilerde G7 ülkelerinde yakınsama gözlenirken, BRICS-T ülkelerinde heterojen serilerde durağanlık gözlenmemiştir. Bu durum, G7 ülkelerinde karbon emisyonlarının ortak bir dengeye yöneldiğini, BRICS-T ülkelerinde ise bu dengenin henüz sağlanamadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Yakınsama Hipotezi
• G7
• BRICS-T

Validity of Stochastic Environmental Convergence in G7 and BRICS-T Countries: Sharp and Soft Breaks with Panel KPSS

Öz

This study investigates whether convergence or divergence in environmental terms is valid for carbon emissions in G7 and BRICS-T countries. The study utilizes carbon emission data from 1960 to 2022 and applies stochastic environmental convergence methodology. The data were normalized to overcome limitations in the analytical method, and cross-sectional dependency tests were conducted to analyze inter-country dependencies. Fourier functions were employed to identify structural breaks, revealing disruptions in the data structures of the countries. The findings indicate that Germany’s carbon emissions diverge from the average within the G7 group. On the other hand, the carbon emission series of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom were found to converge towards the long-term average. Among the BRICS-T countries, the carbon emissions of Brazil, Turkey, China, and South Africa were observed to diverge, while Russia and India showed tendencies of convergence. In the cross-group Bartlett test statistics, an analysis of carbon emission convergence between G7 and BRICS-T countries revealed that emission averages between the two groups did not fully converge. Panel KPSS tests indicate that G7 countries have shown convergence over time, while BRICS-T countries have experienced divergence in emissions. Convergence was observed in both homogeneous and heterogeneous series within the G7 countries, whereas no stationarity was found in the heterogeneous series of BRICS-T countries. This suggests that while G7 countries are moving towards a common equilibrium in carbon emissions, this equilibrium has not yet been achieved among BRICS-T countries. Keywords: Environmental Convergence Hypothesis, G7, BRICS-T.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Convergence Hypothesis
• G7
• BRICS-T.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, S., Söderholm, P. ve Brännlund, R. (2018). Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: İmplications and meta-analysis. Climate Policy, 18(4), 512-525. doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1314244
2. Aldy, J. E. (2006). Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence? Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(4), 533-555. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-6160-x
3. Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2017). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions across U.S. states by sector and fossil fuel source: Evidence from club convergence tests. Energy Economics, 63, 365-372. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.027
4. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.
5. Barro, R. J. ve Sala, X. I. M. (1992). Public Finance in Models of Economic Growth. Review of Economic Studies, 59(4), 645-661. doi:10.2307/2297991
6. Breusch, T. S. ve 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. doi:10.2307/2297111
7. Burnett, J. W. (2016). Club convergence and clustering of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions. Resource and Energy Economics, 46, 62-84. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.09.001
8. Camarero, M., Castillo, J., Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. ve Tamarit, C. (2013). Eco-Efficiency and Convergence in OECD Countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(1), 87-106. doi:10.1007/s10640-012-9616-9

9. Camarero, M., Ez, J. O. ve Tamarit, C. R. (2002). Tests for interest rate convergence and structural breaks in the EMS: Further analysis. Applied Financial Economics, 12(6), 447-456. doi:10.1080/09603100010005294
10. Carbon Atlas. (2024). Global Carbon Atlas. Global Carbon Atlas. 30 Eylül 2024 tarihinde https://globalcarbonatlas.org/ adresinden erişildi.
11. Carlino, G. A. ve Mills, L. O. (1993). Are U.S. regional incomes converging?: A time series analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(2), 335-346. doi:10.1016/0304-3932(93)90009-5
12. Chang, M.-J. ve Su, C.-Y. (2015). Does real interest rate parity really hold? New evidence from G7 countries. Economic Modelling, 47, 299-306. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2015.03.005
13. Chang, T. ve Ranjbar, O. (2012). Can the BRICS countries catch up with the US? When sharp drifts and smooth breaks wed. Working Paper. Taiwan: Feng Chia University.
14. Çelik, E. U., Omay, T. ve Tuzlukaya, Ş. (2022). Testing Health Expenditure Convergence In 21 OECD Countries By Using Nonlinear Unit Root Tests. Konuralp Medical Journal, 14(S1), 192-205. doi:10.18521/ktd.1056926
15. Elmslie, B. T. (1995). Retrospectives: The Convergence Debate Between David Hume and Josiah Tucker. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 207-216.
16. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012). A Unit Root Test Using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x
17. Erdogan, S. ve Okumus, I. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: An empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107123. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123
18. Ezcurra, R. (2007). The world distribution of carbon dioxide emissions. Applied Economics Letters, 14(5), 349-352. doi:10.1080/13504850500426285
19. Frankel, J. A. ve Okongwu, C. (1996). Liberalized Portfolio Capital Inflows in Emerging Markets: Sterilization, Expectations, and the Incompleteness of Interest Rate Convergence. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 1(1), 1-23. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1158(199601)1:1<1::AID-IJFE1>3.0.CO;2-K
20. Frömmel, M. ve Kruse, R. (2015). Interest rate convergence in the EMS prior to European Monetary Union. Journal of Policy Modeling, 37(6), 990-1004. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.08.002
21. Furceri, D. (2005). β and σ-convergence: A mathematical relation of causality. Economics Letters, 89(2), 212-215. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2005.05.026
22. Gabrisch, H. ve Orlowski, L. T. (2010). Interest Rate Convergence in Euro-Candidate Countries: Volatility Dynamics of Sovereign Bond Yields. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 46(6), 69-85. doi:10.2753/REE1540-496X460605
23. Goldman Sachs. (2023). The Path to 2075—Capital Market Size and Opportunity (Daly/Gedminas). 30 Eylül 2024 tarihinde https://www.gspublishing.com/content/research/en/reports/2023/06/08/50ccfb98-b82c-4ba6-976d-d541f83239be.html adresinden erişildi.
24. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. doi:10.2307/2118443
25. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161. doi:10.1111/1368-423X.00043
26. Herrerias, M. J. (2012). CO2 weighted convergence across the EU-25 countries (1920–2007). Applied Energy, 92, 9-16. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.10.034
27. Islam, N. (1995). Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 1127-1170. doi:10.2307/2946651
28. Jeong, S., Kim, J.-C. ve Choi, J. Y. (2015). Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in? Scientometrics, 104(3), 841-871. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1606-6
29. Jobert, T., Karanfil, F. ve Tykhonenko, A. (2010). Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the EU: Legend or reality? Energy Economics, 32(6), 1364-1373. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2010.03.005
30. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P. ve Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1), 159-178. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
31. Lee, W. S., Han, E. J. ve Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Predicting the pattern of technology convergence using big-data technology on large-scale triadic patents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 317-329. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.022
32. Li, C., Zuo, J., Wang, Z. ve Zhang, X. (2020). Production- and consumption-based convergence analyses of global CO2 emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121723. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121723
33. Lluís Carrion i Silvestre, J., Del Barrio Castro, T. ve López Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the panels: An application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal, 8(2), 159-175. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2005.00158.x
34. Mankiw, G. N. (1992). Keynesian Economics Today: The Reincarnation of Keynesian Economics. European Economic Review, 36, 559-565.
35. Ordás Criado, C. ve Grether, J.-M. (2011). Convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: A robust distributional approach. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 637-665. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.01.003
36. Panopoulou, E. ve Pantelidis, T. (2009). Club Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(1), 47-70. doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9260-6
37. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (Working Paper No: 1229). Cambridge: CESifo.
38. Pfaffermayr, M. (2009). Conditional β- and σ-convergence in space: A maximum likelihood approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 63-78. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.004
39. Phillips, P. C. B. ve Sul, D. (2007). Transition Modeling and Econometric Convergence Tests. Econometrica, 75(6), 1771-1855. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00811.x
40. Ritchie, H. (2024). CO₂ emissions dataset: Our sources and methods. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-dataset-sources adresinden erişildi.
41. Sala i Martin, X. (1996). Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1325-1352.
42. Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. doi:10.2307/1884513
43. Stern, D. I. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
44. Strazicich, M. C. ve List, J. A. (2003). Are CO2 Emission Levels Converging Among Industrial Countries? Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(3), 263-271. doi:10.1023/A:1022910701857
45. Ulucak, R. (2018). Çevre Kalitesi Açısından Yakınsama Hipotezine Yeni Bir Bakış: Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Kulüp Yakınsamaya Dayalı Ampirik Bir Analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(4), 29-38. doi:10.18037/ausbd.552674
46. Ursavaş, N. ve Apaydın, Ş. (2023). The Convergence in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Across G-7 Countries. Fiscaoeconomia, 7(1), 327-340.
47. Ursavaş, U. ve Yilanci, V. (2023). Convergence analysis of ecological footprint at different time scales: Evidence from Southern Common Market countries. Energy & Environment, 34(2), 429-442. doi:10.1177/0958305X221120930
48. Walther, J. B., Carr, C. ve Choi, S. S. W. (2010). Interaction of Interpersonal, Peer, and Media Influence Sources Online: A Research Agenda for Technology Convergence. A Networked Self içinde . New York: Routledge.
49. Wang, Z. (2009). The convergence of health care expenditure in the US states. Health Economics, 18(1), 55-70. doi:10.1002/hec.1343
50. Westerlund, J. ve Basher, S. A. (2008). Testing for Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Using a Century of Panel Data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40(1), 109-120. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9143-2
51. Yang, G. J.-A., Chueh, H. ve Lee, C.-H. (2014). Examining the theory of capital structure: Signal factor hypothesis. Applied Economics, 46(10), 1127-1133. doi:10.1080/00036846.2013.864040
52. Yang, G. J.-A., Ying, Y.-H., Chang, K. ve Lee, C.-H. (2014). Investigating Stationarity in Tourist Arrivals to Taiwan Using Panel Kpss with Sharp Drifts and Smooth Breaks. Tourism Analysis, 19(5), 573-580. doi:10.3727/108354214X14116690097819
53. Yasunaga, Y., Watanabe, M. ve Korenaga, M. (2009). Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Knowledge Driven Planning Tools for Emerging and Converging Technologies, 76(1), 61-79. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.06.004
54. Young, A. T., Higgins, M. J. ve Levy, D. (2008). Sigma Convergence versus Beta Convergence: Evidence from U.S. County-Level Data. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 40(5), 1083-1093. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00148.x