ECONOMIC COMPLEXITY AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT RELATIONSHIP: TODA-YAMAMOTO CAUSALITY ANALYSIS

Öz

Since the mid-20th century, the concepts of technology and innovation have been taking their place in the world with increasing importance. As a result this, production is stripped away from its traditional structure and pass to a complex structure in countries. The needs to make their production unique with a variety of innovations that will help countries differentiate in production and keep many markets in hand bring up the concept of economic complexity. On the other hand, even in developed countries, a complex economy can harm nature and cause an increase in carbon emissions, which have a large place in the ecological footprint.
From this point forth, the economic complexity and ecological footprint relationship are evaluated using the 1970-2016 period and Toda Yamamoto causal analysis for Germany, Sweden, Japan and Turkey. The first three countries given are developed and strong countries in terms of economic complexity, while Turkey is still a developing country and not at the desired level in terms of economic complexity. Analysis results show that there is a causal relationship between variables in Germany and Japan; there is no causality relationship between two variables in Sweden and Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic complexity
• Ecologic Footprint
• Toda-Yamamoto

EKONOMİK KARMAŞIKLIK VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: TODA-YAMAMOTO NEDENSELLİK ANALİZİ

Öz

20. yy ortalarından beri teknoloji ve yenilik kavramları her geçen gün artan bir önemle dünyada yerini almaktadır. Bunun bir sonucu olarak ülkelerde üretim geleneksel yapısından sıyrılmakta ve karmaşık bir yapıya bürünmektedir. Ülkelerin üretimde farklılaşması ve birçok pazarı elinde tutmaya yarayacak çeşitli inovasyonlarla üretimlerini benzersiz kılma gereksinimleri ekonomik karmaşıklık kavramını gündeme getirmektedir. Öte yandan gelişmiş ülkeler de dahi karmaşık bir ekonomi doğaya zarar verebilmekte özellikle ekolojik ayak izi kapsamında geniş bir yer tutan karbon emisyonunun artmasına neden olabilmektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle çalışmada ekonomik karmaşıklık ile ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi 1970-2016 dönemi ve Almanya, İsveç, Japonya ve Türkiye için Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmektedir. Verilen ilk üç ülke gelişmiş ve ekonomik karmaşıklık yönünden güçlü ülkelerken; Türkiye ise gelişmekte olan ve ekonomik karmaşıklık yönünden hala arzu edilen düzeyde bir ülke değildir. Analiz sonuçları, Almanya ve Japonya’ da değişkenler arasında bir nedensellik ilişkisinin olduğunu; İsveç ve Türkiye’ de iki değişken arasında herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisinin olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik karmaşıklık
• Ekolojik ayak izi
• Toda-Yamamoto

Kaynakça

1. Alhowaish, A. K. (2014). “Does the Service Sector Cause Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence from Saudi Arabia”. Global Studies Journal, 7(2), 1-6.
2. Ali, S. W., & Kanwal, N. (2020). “Impact of Sectors (Agrıculture, Manufacturıng, Servıce & Industry) on Pakıstan’s GDP”. Harf-o-Sukhan, 4(3), 37-50.
3. ARISOY, İ. (2013). Kaldor yasası çerçevesinde Türkiye’de sanayi sektörü ve iktisadi büyüme ilişkisinin sınanması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 143-162.
4. Bashir, A., & Susetyo, D. (2018). “The Relationship between Economic Growth, Human Capital, and Agriculture Sector: Empirical Evidence From Indonesia”. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), 6(1128-2019-554), 35-52.
5. Cantore, N., Clara, M., Lavopa, A., & Soare, C. (2017). “Manufacturing as an Engine of Growth: Which is the best fuel?”. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 42, 56-66.
6. Çetin, M. (2009). Kaldor Büyüme Yasasının Ampirik Analizi: Türkiye ve AB Ülkeleri Örneği (1981-2007). Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 355-373.
7. 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.
8. Enu, P. (2014). “Analysis of the Agricultural Sector of Ghana and its Economic Impact on Economic Growth”. Academic Research International, 5(4), 267-277.

9. Gani, A., & Clemes, M. D. (2010). “Services and Economic Growth in Pacific Island Countries”. International Journal of Development Issues. 9(2), 113-130.
10. Hacker, R. S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). “Tests for Causality between Integrated Variables Using Asymptotic and Bootstrap Distributions: Theory and Application”. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500.
11. Haraguchi, N., Cheng, C. F. C., & Smeets, E. (2017). “The Importance of Manufacturing in Economic Development: as this changed?”. World Development, 93, 293-315.
12. Jalil, A., Manan, S., & Saleemi, S. (2016). “Estimating the Growth Effects of Services Sector: a Cointegration Analysis for Pakistan”. Journal of Economic Structures, 5(1), 1-14.
13. Kaldor, N. (1966), Causes of the Slow Rate of Growth of the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Katircioglu, S. (2004). “Co-İntegration and Causality between GDP, Agriculture, Industry and Services Growth in North Cyprus: Evidence from Time Series Data. Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, 5(6), 173-187.
15. Katircioglu, S. T. (2006). “Causality between Agriculture and Economic Growth in a Small Nation Under Political Isolation: a Case from North Cyprus”. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(4):331–343.
16. Kaya, O., Kaya, I., & Gunter, L. (2012). “Development Aid to Agriculture and Economic Growth”. Review of Development Economics, 16(2), 230-242.
17. Kopuk, E., & Meçik, O. (2020). “Türkiye’de İmalat Sanayi ve Tarım Sektörlerinin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: 1998-2020 Dönemi Analizi”. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 263-274.
18. Krishna Dutt, A., & Young Lee, K. (1993). “The Service Sector and Economic Growth: Some Cross-Section Evidence”. International Review of Applied Economics, 7(3), 311-329.
19. Magoti, E., & Mtui, J. M. (2020). “The Relationship between Economic Growth and Service Sector in Tanzania: An Empirica”l Investigation. African Journal of Economic Review, 8(2), 219-238.
20. Mattoo, A., Rathindran, R., & Subramanian, A. (2006). “Measuring Services Trade Liberalization and Its Impact on Economic Growth: An Illustration”. Journal of Economic Integration, 21(1), 64-98.
21. Obamuyi, T. M., Edun, A. T., & Kayode, O. F. (2012). Bank lending, economic growth and the performance of the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 8(3), 19-36.
22. Olajide, O. T., Akinlabi, B. H., & Tijani, A. A. (2012). “Agriculture Resource and Economic Growth in Nigeria”. European Scientific Journal, 8(22), 103-115.
23. Ozkan, B., & Ceylan, R. F. (2013). “Agricultural Value Added and Economic Growth in the European Union Accession Process”. New Medit: Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment, 12(4), 62-71.
24. Rahman, M. M., Rahman, M. S., & Hai-Bing, W. U. (2011). “Time Series Analysis of Causal Relationship among GDP, Agricultural, Industrial and Service Sector Growth in Bangladesh”. China-USA Business Review, 10(1).9-15.
25. Saqib, N. (2013). “Impact of Development and Efficiency of Financial Sector on Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Developing Countries”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, 3(3).
26. Sertoglu, K., Ugural, S., & Bekun, F. V. (2017). “The Contribution of Agricultural Sector on Economic Growth of Nigeria”. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(1), 547-552.
27. Singariya, M., & Sinha, N. (2015). “Relationships among per capita GDP, Agriculture and Manufacturing Sectors in India”. Journal of Finance and Economics, 3(2), 36-43.
28. Szirmai, A., & Verspagen, B. (2015). “Manufacturing and Economic Growth in Developing Countries, 1950–2005”. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 34, 46-59.
29. Terzi, H., & Oltulular, S. (2004). Türiye’de Sanayileme ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensel İlişki. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 219-226.
30. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). “Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes”. Journal Of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
31. Türkiye İhracatçılar Meclisi (2021). İhracat 2021 Raporu. https://tim.org.tr/files/downloads/Strateji_Raporlari/TIM_Ihracat_2021_Raporu.pdf, Erişim: 15.06.2022
32. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2022). Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri, Nisan 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Dis-Ticaret-Istatistikleri-Nisan-2022-45539, Erişim: 15.06.2022
33. Uddin, M. M. M. (2015). “Causal Relationship between Agriculture, Industry and Services Sector for GDP Growth in Bangladesh: An Econometric Investigation”. Journal of Poverty, Investment Development, 8, 124-129.
34. UNCTAD (2020). The Least Developed Countrıes Report 2020. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldcr2020_en.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 10.05.2022
35. Usman, M. (2016). “Contribution of Agriculture Sector in The GDP Growth Rate of Pakistan”. Journal of Global Economics, 4(2), 1-3.
36. Yamak, N. (2000). Cointegration, causality and Kaldor’s hypothesis: Evidence from Turkey, 1946-1995. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 75-80.
37. Yetiz, F., & Özden, C. (2017). “Analysis of Causal Relationship among GDP, Agricultural, Industrial and Services Sector Growth in Turkey”. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 75-84.
38. Yousuf, M., Ahmed, R., Lubna, N. A., & Sumon, S. M. (2019). “Estimating the Services Sector Impact on Economic Growth of Bangladesh: an Econometric Investigation”. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 7(2), 62-72.
39. World Bank (2020). World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/, Erişim tarihi: 13.05.2022
40. World Economic Forum (2019). Global Competitiveness Report 2019, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf, 15.06.2022