Petrol Tüketimindeki Dalgalanmalar Geçici mi Yoksa Kalıcı mı? BRICS-T Ülkeleri için Doğrusal ve Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testi Uygulamaları

Öz

Çalışma, BRICS-T ülkeleri için toplam petrol tüketiminin durağanlığını 1965-2014 yıllarını kapsayan dönem için doğrusal ve doğrusal olmayan birim kök testleri kullanarak analiz etmektedir. Ampirik sonuçlar Hindistan, Güney Afrika, Rusya ve Türkiye'nin petrol tüketiminin doğrusal olmayan bir seyir izlediğini göstermektedir. Doğrusallık testi sonucuna göre uygulanan KSS (2003) ve iki kırılmalı LM birim kök testi sonuçlarına göre, Brezilya, Çin ve Türkiye'de toplam petrol tüketimi serileri durağandır. Bu sonuç, bu ülkelerde enerji talep yönetimi politikalarının uzun dönemde petrol tüketimi üzerinde etkili olmayacağını göstermiştir. Diğer bir yandan, Hindistan, Güney Afrika ve Rusya'da ise petrol tüketimi serilerinin durağan olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu ülkelerde, petrol tüketiminde meydana gelen herhangi bir şokun kalıcı etkiye sahip olacağı ve petrol tüketimiyle ilgili politikaların da kalıcı etkiler göstereceği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Petrol tüketimi,durağanlık,doğrusal olmayan,BRICS-T

Kaynakça

1. Apergis, N. Ve Payne, J. E. (2010). Structural breaks and petroleum consumption in US states: Are shocks transitory or permanent?. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6375-6378.
2. Apergis, N., Loomis, D. ve Payne, J. E. (2010a). Are shocks to natural gas consumption temporary or permanent? Evidence from a panel of US states.Energy Policy, 38(8), 4734-4736.
3. Apergis, N., Loomis, D. ve Payne, J. E. (2010b). Are fluctuations in coal consumption transitory or permanent? Evidence from a panel of US states.Applied Energy, 87(7), 2424-2426.
4. Aslan, A. (2011). Does natural gas consumption follow a nonlinear path over time? Evidence from 50 US States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4466-4469.
5. Aslan, A. ve Kum, H. (2011). The stationary of energy consumption for Turkish disaggregate data by employing linear and nonlinear unit root tests. Energy,36(7), 4256-4258.
6. Campbell, J. Y. ve Perron, P. (1991). Pitfalls and opportunities: what macroeconomists should know about unit roots. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6 (pp. 141-220). MIT press.
7. Chen, P. F. ve Lee, C. C. (2007). Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels. Energy Policy, 35(6), 3526-3540.
8. Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J. ve Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3).

9. Hasanov, M. ve Telatar, E. (2011). A re-examination of stationarity of energy consumption: evidence from new unit root tests. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7726- 7738.
10. Hsu, Y. C., Lee, C. C. ve Lee, C. C. (2008). Revisited: are shocks to energy consumption permanent or temporary? New evidence from a panel SURADF approach. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2314-2330.
11. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. ve Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
12. Kruse, R. (2011). A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics. Statistical Papers, 52(1), 71-85.
13. Kula, F., Aslan, A. ve Ozturk, I. (2012). Is per capita electricity consumption stationary? Time series evidence from OECD countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 501-503.
14. Lean, H. H. ve Smyth, R. (2009). Long memory in US disaggregated petroleum consumption: evidence from univariate and multivariate LM tests for fractional integration. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3205-3211.
15. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M.C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test With Two Structural Breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85, no.4, pp.1082-1089
16. Lluís Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J., Barrio‐Castro, D. ve López‐Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the panels: an application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal, 8(2), 159-175.
17. Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P. ve Teräsvirta, T. (1988). Testing linearity against smooth transition autoregressive models. Biometrika, 75(3), 491-499.
18. Mishra, V., Sharma, S. ve Smyth, R. (2009). Are fluctuations in energy consumption per capita transitory? Evidence from a panel of Pacific Island countries. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2318-2326.
19. Narayan, P. K. ve Smyth, R. (2007). Are shocks to energy consumption permanent or temporary? Evidence from 182 countries. Energy policy, 35(1), 333-341.
20. OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin (2013). OPEC Share of World Crude Oil Reserves . Öztürk, I. ve Aslan, A. (2015). Are Fluctuations in Electricity Consumption Permanent or Transitory? Evidence from a Nonlinear Unit Root Test in High-income OECD Countries. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 10(3), 257-262.
21. Perron, P. (1997). Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Functions in Macroeconomic Variables, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 80, no. 2, pp.355-385.
22. Schwert, G. W. (2002). Tests for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation.Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 5-17.
23. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S. A. ve Mallick, H. (2015). Are Fluctuations in Gas Consumption Per Capita Transitory? Evidence from LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks.
24. Teräsvirta, T. (1994). Specification, estimation, and evaluation of smooth transition autoregressive models. Journal of the american Statistical association, 89(425), 208-218.
25. Vogelsang, T. J. ve Perron, P. (1998). Additional tests for a unit root allowing for a break in the trend function at an unknown time. International Economic Review, 1073-1100.
26. Wu, K. (2008). Oil in Asia and the Pacific: Production, Consumption, Imports, and Policy Options. Honolulu: East-West Center.
27. Yilanci, V. ve Tunali, Ç. B. (2014). Are fluctuations in energy consumption transitory or permanent? Evidence from a Fourier LM unit root test. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 20-25.
28. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D. (1992). Further Evidence On The Great Crash, The Oil-Price Shock, and The Unit Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.251-270.