Analysis of The Conversion of CO2 Emissions in European Countries with the Fourier Cointegration Test

Öz

In this paper, whether the CO2 emissions converge among European countries or not has been inquired within the frame of convergence hypothesis under Fourier cointegration test which was developed by Tsong et al. (2016). In this context, annual data concerning Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and England for the period of 1965-2019 were used with addition of annual data concerning Europe's average CO2 emissions. This paper is the first study in the literature to test whether the CO2 emission is convergent within the frame of the convergence hypothesis under the Fourier cointegration method. As stated in the results of the Tsong et al. (2016) Fourier Cointegration test, a cointegrated relationship was found between the per capita CO2 emissions of Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Turkey and the average per capita CO2 emission of Europe. Based on these results, it has been determined that there is a convergence between the per capita CO2 emissions of these countries and the average per capita CO2 emissions of Europe. On the other hand, no cointegrated relationship has been found between the per capita CO2 emissions of Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, UK and the average per capita CO2 emissions of Europe. Therefore, no convergence was determined between these countries and average per capita CO2 emissions of Europe.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emission
• Convergence
• Fourier Cointegration

Avrupa Ülkelerinde CO2 Emisyonu Yakınsamasının Fourier Koentegrasyon Testi ile Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada yakınsama hipotezi çerçevesinde Avrupa ülkeleri arasında CO2 emisyonunun yakınsayıp yakınsamadığı, Tsong vd. (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Fourier koentegresyon testi ile araştırılmıştır. Bu kapsamda 1965-2019 dönemi için Avusturya, Belçika, Bulgaristan, Kıbrıs, Çekya, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Fransa, Almanya, Macaristan, İzlanda, İrlanda, İtalya, Lüksemburg, Hollanda, Norveç, Polonya, Portekiz, Romanya, Slovakya, İspanya, İsveç, İsviçre, Türkiye ve İngiltere ülkelerine ve Avrupa’nın ortalama CO2 emisyonuna ait yıllık veriler kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada yakınsama hipotezi kapsamında CO2 emisyonunun yakınsak olup olmadığının Fourier koentegrasyon yöntemi ile sınandığı literatürdeki ilk çalışmadır. Tsong vd. (2016) Fourier Koentegresyon testi sonuçlarına göre Avrupa ülkeleri olan Avusturya, Bulgaristan, Çekya, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Lüksemburg, Hollanda, Norveç, Romanya ve Türkiye ülkelerine ait kişi başı CO2 emisyonu ile Avrupa’nın ortalama kişi başı CO2 emisyonu arasında koentegre ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlardan hareketle söz konusu ülkelerin kişi başı CO2 emisyonu ile Avrupa’nın ortalama kişi başı CO2 emisyonu arasında yakınsamanın varlığı belirlenmiştir. Buna karşın, Kıbrıs, Almanya, Macaristan, İrlanda, İtalya, Polonya, Portekiz, Slovakya, İspanya, İsviçre ve İngiltere’ye ait kişi başı CO2 emisyonu ile Avrupa’nın ortalama kişi başı CO2 emisyonu arasında koentegre ilişki tespit edilememiştir. Dolayısıyla söz konusu ülkeler ile Avrupa’nın ortalama kişi başı CO2 emisyonu arasında yakınsamaya rastlanılmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emisyonu
• Yakınsama
• Fourier Koentegrasyon

Kaynakça

1. Acaravcı, A., (2013), Yapısal Kırılmalar ve Karbon Emisyonu: Kıta Avrupa Ülkeleri İçin Ampirik Bir Uygulama, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (3), s.1-11.
2. Ahmed, M., Khanc A.,M., Bibid S., Zakaria M., (2017), Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 86-97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.053
3. Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2019). NAFTA and the convergence of CO2 emissions intensity and its determinants. International Economics. doi:10.1016/j.inteco.2019.10.002
4. Aslan, A., (2009), Kişi Başına Karbondioksit Emisyonu Yakınsama Analizi: 1950 – 2004, Ege Akademik Bakış, 9 (4), s.1427 – 1439.
5. Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2006), A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
6. Camarero, M., Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Tamarit, C., (2013), Are the determinants of CO2 emissions converging among OECD countries?, Economics Letter, 118(1), 159-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.10.009.
7. Churchill, A., S., Inekwe J., Ivanovski, K., (2020), Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: Evidence from emerging economies, 1921–2014, Energy Economics, Volumu 86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104659.
8. Dickey, D.A., Fuller, W.A., (1981), Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49, 1057–1072.

9. Enders ,W., Lee, J., (2012a) The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letter, 117(1), 196–199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081.
10. Enders, W., Lee, J., (2012b), A unit root test using Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574–599, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x.
11. Harvey, D., Mills, T, (2002), Unit roots and double smooth transitions, Journal of Applied Statistics, 29(5), 675-683, https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760120098739.
12. Husted, S. (1992), The Emerging U.S. Current Account Deficit in the 1980s: A Cointegration Analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74 (1), 159-166.
13. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C.B., Schmidt, P., 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.
14. Kounetas, K. E. (2018). Energy consumption and CO 2 emissions convergence in European Union member countries. A tonneau des Danaides? Energy Economics, 69, 111–127. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.015
15. Leybourne S., Newbold P., Vougas D., (1998), Unit Roots and Smooth Transitions, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83 – 97, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00078.
16. Li, X., & Lin, B. (2013). Global convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 357–363. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.048.
17. Lin, J., Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Chang, T. (2018). Revisiting CO2 emissions convergence in G18 countries. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 13(5), 269–280. doi:10.1080/15567249.2018.1460422.
18. Narayan, P.K. (2007), Testing convergence of Fiji’s tourism markets, Pacific Economic Review, Vol 12, s. 651–663.
19. Perron, P., (1989), The Great Crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis, Econometrica 57, 1361-1401. Robalino-López, A., García-Ramos, J. E., Golpe, A. A., & Mena-Nieto, A. (2016). CO2 emissions convergence among 10 South American countries. A study of Kaya components (1980–2010). Carbon Management, 7(1-2), 1-12. doi:10.1080/17583004.2016.1151502.
20. Shin, Y., (1994), A residual-based test of the null of cointegration against the alternative of no cointegration. Economic Theory. 10(1), 91–115.
21. Tiwari, A. K., Nasir, M. A., Shahbaz, M., & Raheem, I. D. (2020). Convergence and Club Convergence of CO2 Emissions at State Levels: A Nonlinear Analysis of the USA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125093. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125093
22. Tiwari, C., & Mishra, M. (2016). Testing the CO2 Emissions Convergence: Evidence from Asian Countries. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 6(1), 67–72. doi:10.1177/2277975216674073
23. Tsong, C.C., Lee, C.F., Tsai, L.J., Hu, T.C. (2016). The Fourier approximation and testing for the null of cointegration, Empirical Economics, 51(3), 1085-1113.