İhracat Ürün Çeşitlendirmesi ve Çevresel Performans: AB Ülkelerinden MMQR Yaklaşımı ile Kanıtlar

Öz

Son yıllarda çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ile ticaret politikaları arasındaki etkileşim, özellikle ihracatın yapısal dönüşümleri bağlamında akademik ve politik tartışmaların merkezinde yer almaktadır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, 1995–2022 döneminde Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkelerinde ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin çevresel performans üzerindeki etkisini incelemek ve bu ilişkinin farklı çevresel performans seviyelerinde nasıl değiştiğini ortaya koymaktır. Ülkelerin farklı çevresel performans seviyelerindeki heterojen etkileri analiz edebilmek için MMQR (Method of Moments Quantile Regression) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Ticaret göstergesi olarak ihracat ürün çeşitlendirme endeksi, çevresel performansın ölçümünde ise çok boyutlu bir göstergeler bütünü sunan Çevresel Performans Endeksi (EPI) tercih edilmiştir. Bulgular, ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin çevresel performansı özellikle yüksek kantilde yer alan ülkelerde anlamlı ve pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, ihracatın bileşiminin çeşitlenmesinin çevreye daha az zarar veren üretim süreçlerini teşvik ederek sürdürülebilir büyüme ve kalkınmaya katkı sağlayabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, politika yapıcıların ihracat stratejilerini çevre dostu teknolojiler ve düşük karbonlu üretim süreçleri lehine geliştirmeleri, AB’nin yeşil büyüme hedefleriyle uyumlu bir yaklaşım olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İhracat Ürün Çeşitlendirmesi
• Çevresel Performans
• Avrupa Birliği
• MMQR

Export Product Diversification and Environmental Performance: Evidence from EU Countries with the MMQR Approach

Öz

In recent years, the interaction between environmental sustainability and trade policies has become a central topic in both academic and policy debates, particularly in the context of export structure transformations. The primary aim of this study is to examine the impact of export product diversification on environmental performance in European Union (EU) countries during the period 1995–2022 and to reveal how this relationship varies across different levels of environmental performance. To capture the heterogeneous effects across countries with different levels of environmental performance, the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR) approach is employed. As the trade indicator, the export product diversification index is used, while environmental performance is measured through the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which provides a multidimensional assessment. The findings reveal that export product diversification has a statistically significant and positive impact on environmental performance, particularly in countries located at the higher quantiles of the distribution. The results suggest that diversifying the sectoral composition of exports can promote production processes that are less harmful to the environment, thereby contributing to sustainable growth and development. Accordingly, policymakers are encouraged to design export strategies that prioritize environmentally friendly technologies and low-carbon production processes, in alignment with the EU’s green growth agenda.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Export Product Diversification
• Environmental Performance
• Europe Countries
• MMQR

Kaynakça

1. Adewuyi, A.O. and Awodumi, O.B. (2016). Analysis of the environmental pollution effect of Nigeria’s export diversification drive. Paper presented at the at the 57th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Economic Society. Abuja, Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.nigerianeconomicsociety.org/
2. Akın, F. (2024). D-8 ülkelerinde ihracat çeşitliliği, ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: Ampirik bir analiz. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 37, 384-405. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1493966
3. Alhassan, A., Usman, O., Ike, G.N. and Sarkodie, S.A. (2020). Impact assessment of trade on environmental performance: Accounting for the role of government integrity and economic development in 79 countries. Heliyon, 6(9), e05046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05046
4. Ali, S., Can, M., Shah, M.I., Jiang, J., Ahmed, Z. and Murshed, M. (2022). Exploring the linkage between export diversification and ecological footprint: Evidence from advanced time series estimation techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 38395- 38409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18622-3
5. Apergis, N., Can, M., Gozgor, G. and Lau, C.K.M. (2018). Effects of export concentration on CO2 emissions in developed countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 14106-14116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1634-x
6. Atıcı, C. ve Kurt, F. (2007). Türkiye’nin dış ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi yaklaşımı. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(1 ve 2), 61-69. https://izlik.org/JA95XK58RS
7. Berthelemy, J.C. and Sophie C. (2000). Structural changes in Asia and growth prospects after the crisis (CEPII Working Papers No. 2000-09). Retrieved from https://www.cepii.fr/pdf_pub/wp/2000/wp2000-09.pdf
8. Breusch, T.S. and 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. Can, M., Dogan, B. and Saboori, B. (2020). Does trade matter for environmental degradation in developing countries? New evidence in the context of export product diversification. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 14702-14710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08000-2
10. Cole, M.A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: How robust is the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economics, 8(4), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X0300305
11. Cole, M.A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.09.007
12. Dessus, S. and Bussolo, M. (1998). Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and pollution abatement?: A computable general equilibrium assessment applied to Costa Rica. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(1), 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-8938(96)00092-0
13. Dogan, B., Madaleno, M., Tiwari, A.K. and Hammoudeh, S. (2020). Impacts of export quality on environmental degradation: Does income matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 13735-13772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07371-5
14. Fang, J., Gozgor, G., Lu, Z. and Wu, W. (2019). Effects of the export product quality on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from developing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 12181-12193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04513-7
15. Gözgör, G. and Can, M. (2016). Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 21594-21603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7403
16. Güzel, İ. ve Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 14(26), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437
17. Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012
18. Iqbal, N., Abbasi, K.R., Shinwari, R., Guangcai, W., Ahmad, M. and Tang, K. (2021). Does exports diversification and environmental innovation achieve carbon neutrality target of OECD economies? Journal of Environmental Management, 291, 112648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112648
19. Jarque, C.M. and Bera, A.K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403192
20. Li, M., Ahmad, M., Fareed, Z., Hassan, T., and Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Role of trade openness, export diversification, and renewable electricity output in realizing carbon neutrality dream of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 297, 113419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113419
21. Liu, H., Kim, H. and Choe, J. (2019). Export diversification, CO2 emissions and EKC: Panel data analysis of 125 countries. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 3(2), 361-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-018-0099-8
22. Liu, H., Kim, H., Liang, S. and Kwon, O.-S. (2018). Export diversification and ecological footprint: A comparative study on EKC theory among Korea, Japan, and China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103657
23. Liobikienė, G. and Butkus, M. (2019). Scale, composition, and technique effects through which the economic growth, foreign direct investment, urbanization, and trade affect greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable Energy, 132, 1310-1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.032
24. Machado, J.A. and Silva, J.S. (2019). Quantiles via moments. Journal of Econometrics, 213(1), 145-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.04.009
25. Mahmood, H., Maalel, N. and Zarrad, O. (2019). Trade openness and CO2 emissions: Evidence from Tunisia. Sustainability, 11(12), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123295
26. Mania, E. (2020). Export diversification and CO2 emissions: An augmented environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of International Development, 32(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3441
27. Naranpanawa, A. (2011). Does trade openness promote carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(10), 973-986. Retrieved from https://researchrepository.griffith.edu.au/
28. Pata, U.K., Shahzad, F., Fareed, Z. and Rehman, M.A. (2022). Revisiting the EKC hypothesis with export diversification and ecological footprint pressure index for India: A RALSFourier cointegration test. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 886515. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.886515
29. Pesaran, M.H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
30. Pesaran, M.H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
31. Pişkin, A. (2023). Economic globalization, export diversification and greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from OECD countries. Paradigma: İktisadi ve İdari Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 85-98. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/paradigmaiiad/
32. Samen, S. (2010). Export development, diversification and competitiveness: How some developing countries got it right. Retrieved from https://www.wbginstitute.org/
33. Shahzad, U., Ferraz, D., Doğan, B. and do Nascimento Rebelatto, D.A. (2020). Export product diversification and CO2 emissions: Contextual evidences from developing and developed economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124146
34. Shi, J., Visas, H., Ul-Haq, J., Abbas, S. and Khanum, S. (2023). Investigating the impact of export product diversification on environmental degradation: Evidence from Chinese provinces. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 11455-11486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02536-8
35. Tekbaş, M. (2022). Empirical findings on the relationship between renewable energy production, export diversification and CO2 emissions in Transformation Economies. Eurasian Research Journal (ERJ), 4(4), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2022.4-02
36. Udeagha, M.C. and Ngepah, N. (2023). Towards Climate action and UN sustainable development goals in BRICS economies: Do export diversification, fiscal decentralisation and environmental innovation matter? International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 15(1), 172-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2023.2222264
37. Ul-Haq, J., Visas, H., Can, M. and Khanum, S. (2023). How diversification of products impact emissions in China: A provincial perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 124215-124231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31078-3
38. van den Wall Bake, K., Can, M. and Brusselaers, J. (2024). The impact of export concentration on the ecological footprint in the European Union. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 29(6), 987-1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09984-8
39. Wang, Q., Zhang, F. and Li, R. (2023). Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustainable Development, 32, 876-901. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2703
40. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, 193‐233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967
41. Zafar, M.W., Saleem, M.M., Destek, M.A. and Caglar, A.E. (2021). The dynamics linkage between remittances, export diversification, education, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 Emissions in top remittance-receiving countries. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2236