EİT ÜLKELERİNDE ENERJİ YOKSULLUĞUNUN EKONOMİK BÜYÜMEYE ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Öz

Enerji yoksulluğu veya enerjiye erişimde yaşanan zorluklar, sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümenin sağlanmasında kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Ekonomik İşbirliği Teşkilatı (EİT) üyesi ülkelerde (Türkiye, Türkmenistan, Tacikistan, İran, Pakistan, Özbekistan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan ve Azerbaycan) enerji yoksulluğu ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkiyi analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 1993-2022 dönemine ait panel veriler kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen analizlerde, değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi tespit edilmiş; uzun dönemli etkiler Ortak İlişkili Etkiler (CCE) tahmincisi aracılığıyla, nedensellik ilişkileri ise Juodis, Karavias ve Sarafidis (JKS, 2021) Granger nedensellik testi ile incelenmiştir. Panel genelinde CCE tahmincisi bulguları, enerjiye erişimin ekonomik büyüme üzerinde genel olarak pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ülke bazında ise Türkiye, Tacikistan, İran, Pakistan ve Özbekistan’da bu etkinin anlamlı olduğu görülürken, diğer ülkelerde anlamlılık düzeyine ulaşılamamıştır. Ayrıca JKS (2021) Granger nedensellik testi sonuçları, enerji yoksulluğu ile ekonomik büyüme arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çerçevede, enerjiye erişim politikalarının ekonomik kalkınmayı destekleyici nitelikte olduğu ve ekonomik büyümenin enerji yoksulluğunu azaltıcı etkiler doğurabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enerji Yoksulluğu
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekonomik İşbirliği Teşkilatı

THE IMPACT OF ENERGY POVERTY ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN ECO COUNTRIES: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Öz

Energy poverty or difficulties in accessing energy play a critical role in ensuring sustainable economic growth. This study aims to analyze the long-term relationship between energy poverty and economic growth in the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) member countries (Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Azerbaijan). Using panel data from the period 1993-2022, the analysis identified a cointegration relationship between the variables; long-term effects were examined using the Common Correlated Effects (CCE) estimator, while causality relationships were analyzed using the Granger causality test developed by Juodis, Karavias, and Sarafidis (JKS, 2021). The findings of the CCE estimator across the panel reveal that access to energy has a generally positive and statistically significant effect on economic growth. At the country level, this effect is significant in Türkiye, Tajikistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, while it does not reach the level of significance in other countries. Additionally, the results of the Granger causality test by JKS (2021) indicate a bidirectional causality relationship between energy poverty and economic growth. Within this framework, it is concluded that energy access policies play a supportive role in economic development and that economic growth may have a mitigating effect on energy poverty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Energy Poverty
• Economic Growth
• Economic Cooperation Organization

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, R. H., & Sadath, A. C. (2019). Energy poverty and economic development: Household-level evidence from India. Energy and Buildings, 183, 785-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.047
2. Aigheyisi, O., & Oligbi, B. O. (2020). Energy Poverty and Economic Development in Nigeria: Empirical Analysis. KIU Interdisciplinary Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 183-193. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3676046
3. Algül, Y. (2024). Energy Poverty and Its Effect on Economic Growth in Türkiye. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(3), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1478715
4. Amin, A., Liu, Y., Yu, J., Chandio, A. A., Rasool, S. F., Luo, J., & Zaman, S. (2020). How does energy poverty affect economic development? A panel data analysis of South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(25), 31623-31635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09173-6
5. Aneke, M., & Wang, M. (2016). Energy storage technologies and real life applications: A state-of-the-art review. Applied Energy, 179, 350-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.097
6. Barnes, D. F., Khandker, S. R., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Energy access, efficiency, and poverty: how many households are energy poor in Bangladesh? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (5332).
7. Beken, H. G., & Lecuna, H. K. S. (2023). Türkiye’de enerji yoksulluğu ve ekonomik büyüme ile ilişkisi: Eşbütünleşme analizi. In Yerelden küresele farklı boyutlarıyla enerji ekonomisi: Güncel araştırmalar ve tartışmalar (ss. 101-118). EKİN Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
8. Breusch, T. S., & 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111

9. Castro-Cárdenas, C., & Ibarra-Yunez, A. (2023). Understanding the link between energy poverty and economic growth in Latin America. Contaduría y administración, 68(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.22201/fca.24488410e.2023.4629
10. Çelik, H., & Polat, M. A. (2024). The nexus between economic growth and energy poverty: Evidence from D-8 countries. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), 12(3), 663-673. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i3.2402
11. Dagoumas, A., & Kitsios, F. (2014). Assessing the impact of the economic crisis on energy poverty in Greece. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.02.004
12. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. http://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
13. Demir, D., & Kuveloğlu, D. T. (2023). Orta Asya Türk cumhuriyetlerinde enerji yoksulluğu. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Çalışmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 50-70.
14. Doğanalp, N., Ozsolak, B., & Aslan, A. (2021). The effects of energy poverty on economic growth: a panel data analysis for BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 50167-50178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14185-x
15. Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 748-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113
16. Ellegård, K., & Palm, J. (2011). Visualizing energy consumption activities as a tool for making everyday life more sustainable. Applied Energy, 88(5), 1920-1926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.11.019
17. Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., Bazilian, M. D., Wagner, N., & Gorini, R. (2019). The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006
18. González-Eguino, M. (2015). Energy poverty: An overview. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 47, 377-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.013
19. IEA (2017). Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty To Prosperity, World Energy Outlook Special Report.
20. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
21. Jayanthakumaran, K., Verma, R., & Liu, Y. (2012). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy, 42, 450-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.010
22. Jewell, J. (2011). The IEA model of short-term energy security (MOSES): Primary energy sources and secondary fuels.
23. Juodis, A., Karavias, Y., & Sarafidis, V. (2021). A homogeneous approach to testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 93-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29896.96007
24. Karadaş, H. A., Koşaroğlu, Ş. M., & Salihoğlu, E. (2017). Enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 129-141.
25. Koç, E., & Kaya, K. (2015). Enerji kaynakları–yenilenebilir enerji durumu. Mühendis ve Makina, 56(668), 36-47.
26. Köktaş, A. (2018). AB ve Türkiye’de enerji yoksulluğu. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 2(2), 95-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.30586/pek.478441
27. Manga, M. (2020). Enerji yoksulluğu ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 5(2), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.812850
28. Mutluer, M. (1990). Gelişimi, yapısı ve sorunlarıyla Türkiye’de enerji sektörü. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 5(1), 184-214.
29. Øvergaard, S. (2008). Issue paper: Definition of primary and secondary energy. Statistics Norway, Oslo.
30. Öztürk, Y. K., & Çelik, B. (2023). Yeni sanayileşen ülkelerde (N11) enerji yoksulluğu ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 64, 47-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1216699
31. Pamir, N. (2017). Enerjinin İktidarı (3. basım). İstanbul: Hayykitap.
32. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No. 0435). Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
33. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
34. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.671050
35. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
36. Raghutla, C., & Chittedi, K. R. (2022). Energy poverty and economic development: evidence from BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(7), 9707-9721. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-021-16174-6
37. Rehman, A., Deyuan, Z., Chandio, A. A., & Hussain, I. (2018). An empirical analysis of rural and urban populations’ access to electricity: evidence from Pakistan. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0183-y
38. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2025). International organizations and our relations. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/, Access Date: 05.08.2025.
39. Sarafidis, V., & Wansbeek, T. (2012). Cross-sectional dependence in panel data analysis. Econometric Reviews, 31(5), 483–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2011.611458
40. Shafiullah, A. Z. M., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Energy poverty, economic growth, and ındustrialization nexus in South Asian Countries: Panel data analysis. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 81(1), 100-110. https://asrjetsjournal.org/American_Scientific_Journal/article/view/7034
41. Smith, L. V., Leybourne, S., Kim, T. H., & Newbold, P. (2004). More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.723
42. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913012
43. Ullah, S., Khan, M., & Yoon, S. M. (2021). Measuring energy poverty and its impact on economic growth in Pakistan. Sustainability, 13(19), 10969. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131910969
44. United Nations. (2002). World Summit On Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 9(3), 82-108.
45. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967
46. World Bank. (2025). Electric power consumption (kWh per capita). https://data.worldbank.org, Access Date: 10.07.2025.
47. World Bank. (2025). Gross domestic product per capita (Constant 2015 US$). https://data.worldbank.org, Access Date: 10.07.2025.
48. Xiao, J., Juodis, A., Karavias, Y., Sarafidis, V., & Ditzen, J. (2023). Improved tests for Granger noncausality in panel data. The Stata Journal, 23(1), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X231162034