Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi Türkiye İçin Geçerli Mi? ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımından Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkilerini Türkiye için üç farklı hava kirliliği göstergesi doğrultusunda karbondioksit, nitrojen oksit ve toplam sera gazı ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı ile incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma karbondioksit modeli için 1971-2015, nitrojen oksit ve toplam sera gazı modelleri için 1970-2012 yıllık dönemleri kapsamaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular Türkiye’ye yönelik doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının karbondioksit emisyonunu artırıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ve dolayısıyla kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin Türkiye için geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşın doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları ile nitrojen oksit ve toplam sera gazı emisyonları arasında uzun dönemli bir ilişki bulunmamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, ARDL Sınır Testi, Türkiye

Does The Pollution Haven Hypothesis Hold for Turkey? The Findings from ARDL Bound Test

Öz

This study aims to analyse the effect of foreign direct investments on environmental pollution for Turkey by using ARDL bound testing in accordance with three different air pollution indicators. The analyses cover the yearly observations from 1970 to 2015 for carbon dioxide model and from 1970 to 2012 for nitrogen oxide and total greenhouse gas models. The results obtained show that foreign direct investments have an increasing effect on carbon dioxide emissions and therefore pollution haven hypothesis is valid for Turkey. However, there is no long-run relationship between foreign direct investment and nitrogen oxide and total greenhouse gas emissions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pollution Haven Hypothesis, Environmental Kuznets Curve, ARDL Bounds Test, Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Acharyya, J. (2009). FDI, growth and the environment: Evidence from India on CO2 emission during the last two decades. Journal of Economic Development, 34(1), 43-58.
2. Aliyu, M. A. (2005). Foreign direct investment and the environment: Pollution haven hypothesis revisited. In Eight Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Lübeck, Germany, 9-11 June 2005.
3. Al-Mulali, U. ve Tang, C. F. (2013). Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813–819.
4. Asghari, M. (2013). Does FDI promote MENA Region’s environment quality? Pollution halo or pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(6), 92-100.
5. Bao, Q., Chen, Y. ve Song, L. (2010). Foreign direct investment and environmental pollution in China: A simultaneous equations estimation. Environment and Development Economics, 16, 71-92.
6. Dean, J. M., Lovely, M. E. ve Wang, H. (2004). Foreign direct investment and pollution havens: Evaluating the evidence from China. Office of Economics Working Paper, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, USA.
7. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
8. Gökmenoğlu, K., ve Taspinar, N. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: The case of Turkey. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706-723.

9. Gray, K. R. (2002). Foreign direct investment and environmental impacts-Is the debate over?. RECIEL, 11(3), 306-313.
10. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. 3914, Cambridge.
11. He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60, 228-245.
12. Javorcik, B. S. ve Wei, S-J. (2004). Pollution havens and foreign direct investment: Dirty secret or popular myth?. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2), 1-32.
13. Jiang, Y. (2015). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and the environmental quality: A model with empirical evidence from the Chinese regions. The International Trade Journal, 00, 1-16.
14. Kaya, G., Kayalica, M. O., Kumas, M. ve Ulengin, B. (2017). The role of foreign direct investment and trade on carbon emissions in Turkey. Environmental Economics, 8(1), 8.
15. Kılıçarslan, Z., ve Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO emissions relationship: The case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647-660.
16. Koçak, E., ve Şarkgüneşi, A. (2017). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: New evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(1), 790-804.
17. Kurt, Ü., Kılıç, C. ve Özekicioğlu, H. (2019). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Co2 Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye İçin Ardl Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 22(1), 213-224.
18. 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, 159-178.
19. Lan, J., Kakinaka, M. ve Huang, X. (2012). Foreign direct investment, human capital and environmental pollution in China, Environ Resource Econ, 51, 255–275.
20. Lee, C. G. (2009). Foreign direct investment, pollution and economic growth: Evidence from Malaysia. Applied Economics, 41(13), 1709-1716.
21. Lee, J. W. (2013). The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483-489.
22. Liang, F. (2008). Does foreign direct investment harm the host country’s environment? Evidence from China. Rutgers University, New Jersey.
23. Liu, Q., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Zhan, D. ve Li, J. (2018). Does foreign direct investment affect environmental pollution in China's cities? A spatial econometric perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 613–614, 521- 529.
24. Mike, F. ve Kardaşlar, A. (2018). Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının çevre kirliliği üzerine etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(3), 178-191.
25. Mutafoglu, T. H. (2012). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and economic growth: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281-297.
26. Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K. ve Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: Evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382–389.
27. Pao, H.-T. ve Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): Evidence from A panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 36, 685-693.
28. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
29. Sapkota, P. ve Bastola, U. (2017). Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: Panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics, 64, 206-212.
30. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M. ve Cetin, M. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: A bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347- 356.
31. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S. ve Afza, T. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: Evidence from panel data analysis. Bulletin of Energy Economics (BEE), 2(2), 14-27.
32. Tang, C. F. ve Tan, B. W. (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447-454.
33. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2019). World investment report: Special Economic Zones. United Nations Publications, Geneva.
34. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2019). Erişim adresi: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
35. World Development Indicators. (2019). DataBank. Erişim adresi: https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=PA.NUS.PP P&country=
36. Yıldırım, M., Destek, M. A. ve Özsoy F. N. (2017). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar ve Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi. C. Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111.
37. Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, halos and spaghetti: Untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. Foreign direct Investment and the Environment, 13(8), 47-74.