Yenilenemeyen Enerji Tüketimi ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Avrupa Kıtasının Bölgesel Analizi

Öz

Yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve ülkelerin ekonomik durumları birbirine bağlı olgular olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu çalışma, ülkelerin yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyümeleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Avrupa kıtasının Doğu, Orta, Kuzey, Güney ve Batı bölgelerini, 1990 ve 2014 dönemleri arasında analiz etmektedir. Bildiğimiz kadarıyla bu çalışma, yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi, Avrupa kıtasındaki bölgelere göre analiz eden ilk çalışmadır. Bu çalışma, yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla panel nedensellik analizi yöntemini kullanmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, Doğu, Orta, Kuzey ve Güney Avrupa bölgelerinde yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasında çift yönlü nedensellik olduğu belirlenirken, Batı Avrupa’da yenilenemeyen enerji tüketiminden ekonomik büyümeye doğru tek yönlü bir ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyümenin, ülkelerin iklim değişikliğine yönelik kaygıları, aldıkları çevresel önlemler ve sürdürülemez üretimi azaltmaya yönelik teşviklere rağmen Avrupa ülkelerinde hala birbiriyle bağlantılı olgular olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilenemeyen Enerji
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Avrupa Kıtası
• Panel Nedensellik Analizi

The Relationship between Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: A Regional Analysis of European Continent

Öz

This study aims to examine the relationship between the non-renewable energy consumption of the countries and their economic status since energy consumption and production appear to be interconnected phenomena. This study analyses the Eastern, Middle, North, South, and Western regions of the European continent from 1990 to 2014. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to analyze the relationship between non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the European continent by region. The study adopts a panel causality process to examine the relationship between two phenomena. According to the empirical analyses, there is bidirectional causality between non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in Eastern, Middle, North, and South European regions whereas a unidirectional relationship from non-renewable energy consumption to economic growth in the Western. Non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth are still interconnected phenomena in the European countries even though climate concerns, environmental precautions, and promotion to reduce unsustainable production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Non-renewable Energy
• Economic Growth
• European Continent
• Panel Causality Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Adhikari, D. and Chen, Y. (2013). Energy consumption and economic growth: A panel cointegration analysis for developing countries, Review of Economics & Finance, 3(2), 68-80.
2. Akadiri, S. S. and Akadiri, A. C. (2020). Interaction between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in the Middle East: panel causality evidence, Int. J. Energy Technology and Policy, 16(2), 105–118. https://www.doi.org/10.1504/IJETP.2020.10026628
3. Ang, J. (2008). Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia. Journal of Policy Modelling, (30), 271-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2007.04.010
4. Apergis, N. and Payne, J. (2009). Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Economics, 31(2), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.09.002
5. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, 22, 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00050-5
6. Chaudhry, I., Sadfar, N., and Farooq, F. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 32(2), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9468-3
7. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
8. Demirel, Y. (2012). Energy: Production, Conversion, Storage, Conservation, and Coupling (Green Energy and Technology). London: Springer-Verlag.

9. Dogan, E. and Seker, F. (2016). Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renewable Energy, 94, 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.078
10. Dumitrescu, E. and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
11. Fatai, B. O. (2014). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus: Panel co-integration and causality tests for Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 25(4), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2014/v25i4a2242
12. Fuinhas, J. and Marques, A. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus in Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Turkey: An ARDL bounds test approach. Energy Economics, 34(2), 511-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.003
13. Gozgor G., Lau, C., and Lu, Z. (2018). Energy consumption and economic growth: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy, 153, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.158
14. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043
15. Harris, R. and Tzavalis, E. (1999). Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed. Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00076-1
16. Im, K., Lee, J. and Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit-root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 393-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00125.x
17. Im, K., Lee, J. and Tieslau, M. (2010). Panel LM unit root tests with trend shifts. FDIC Center for Financial Research Working Paper No. 2010-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1619918
18. Im, K., Pesaran, M. and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
19. Khan, M. T. I., Yaseen, M. R., and Ali, Q. (2018). The dependency analysis between energy consumption, sanitation, forest area, financial development, and greenhouse gas: a continent-wise comparison of lower middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(24), 24013-24040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2460-x
20. Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2003). Minimum LM unit root test with two structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1082-1089. https://10.1162/003465303772815961
21. Lee, J. and Strazicich, M. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Appalachian State University Working Papers, 1-15.
22. Levin, A., Lin, C. and Chu, C. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
23. Mehrara, M. (2007). Energy consumption and economic growth: The case of oil exporting countries. Energy Policy, 35, 2939-2945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.018
24. Muse, B. (2014). Energy consumption and economic growth in Nigeria: Correlation or causality? Journal of Empirical Economics, Research Academy of Social Sciences, 3(3), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1111/j.1753-0237.2010.00173.x
25. Ng, S. and Perron, P. (1995). Unit root tests in ARMA models with data-dependent methods for the selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476510
26. Ozturk, I., Aslan, A., and Kalyoncu, H. (2010). Energy consumption and economic growth relationship: Evidence from panel data for low- and middle-income countries. Energy Policy, 38 (8), 4422-4428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.071
27. Pao, H., Li, Y., and Fu, H. (2014). Causality relationship between energy consumption and economic growth in Brazil. Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, 5, 198-205. https://doi.org/10.4236/sgre.2014.58019
28. Paul, S. and Bhattacharya, R. (2004). Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: A note on conflicting results. Energy Economics, 26(6), 977-983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.07.002
29. Perron, P. (1989). The great cash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
30. Pesaran, M. H. (2003). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0346, Faculty of Economics (DAE), University of Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.457280
31. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
32. Swamy, P. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica Journal of The Econometric Society, 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
33. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Yaseen, M. R., and Makhdum, M. S. A. (2020). An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in upper-middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(31), 38995-39018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09772-3
34. Yu, Q. H. and Meng, W. D. (2008). The relationship between energy consumption and Chinese economic growth based on panel data, Systems Engineering, 26, 68–72.
35. Zhang, X.-P. and Cheng, X.-M. (2009). Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecological Economics, 68, 2706-2712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.011
36. Zivot, E. and Andrews, D. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 11, 251-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391541