Effects of Globalization on Ecological Footprint: The Case of Turkey

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 23 - 42, 30.04.2020

Şükrü Apaydın

https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.695836

Cited By: 30

Öz

In this study, the effects of globalization on the ecological footprint of both theoretical and political issues since the last quarter of the twentieth century are investigated. In the analysis conducted using Turkey’s 1980-2014 period data, ARDL, FMOLS and DOLS methods were used. The variables used in the analysis are the KOF overall globalization index, the ecological footprint of consumption, the ecological footprint of production, the ecological footprint of imports and exports, and the economic growth selected as a control variable. In the study, stationary of the variables were checked by ADF, PP, Ng-P and KPSS unit root tests. According to the findings, long-term significant relationships were found between globalization and all ecological footprint indicators. Accordingly, while globalization increases the ecological footprint of consumption, production and imports, it has a decreasing effect on the ecological footprint of exports. Although the effects of economic growth on the ecological footprint of consumption, production and imports are also positive, there were no significant effects on exports' ecological footprint (within 5% confidence interval). As a result, there are serious negative effects of globalization on Turkey's ecological system. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Globalization, Growth, Ecological Footprint

Küreselleşmenin Ekolojik Ayakizi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmada yirminci yüzyılın son çeyreğinden günümüze kadar hem teorik hem de politik alanda tartışma konusu olan küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Türkiye’nin 1980-2014 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak yapılan analizde ARDL, FMOLS ve DOLS modelleri kullanılmıştır. Analizde kullanılan değişkenler KOF küreselleşme endeksi, tüketimin ekolojik ayak izi, üretimin ekolojik ayak izi, ithalat ve ihracatın ekolojik ayak izi ile kontrol değişkeni olarak seçilen ekonomik büyümedir. Çalışmada ayrıca değişkenlerin durağanlığı ADF, P-P, Ng-P ve KPSS birim kök testleri ile kontrol edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, küreselleşme ile tüm ekolojik ayak izi göstergeleri arasında uzun dönemde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmaktadır. Buna göre küreselleşme tüketim, üretim ve ithalatın ekolojik ayak izini artırırken, ihracatın ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde azaltıcı etki yapmaktadır. Ekonomik büyümenin tüketim, üretim ve ithalat üzerindeki etkileri de pozitif olmakla birlikte ihracatın ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde (%5 güven aralığında) anlamlı etkileri bulunmamıştır. Sonuç olarak, küreselleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik sistemi üzerinde ciddi olumsuz etkileri bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Küreselleşme, Büyüme, Ekolojik Ayak izi

Kaynakça

• Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M. and Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 18565-18582. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
• Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R. and Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.4.877
• Arrighi, G. (2000). Uzun yirminci yüzyıl: Para, güç ve çağımızın kökenleri (Çev. R. Boztemur). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K. and Larson, J. E. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
• Copeland, B. R. (2005). Policy endogeneity and the effects of trade on the environment. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 34(1), 1-15. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.10196
• Copeland, B. R. and Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1257/002205104773558047
• Dasgupta, S., Hamilton, K., Pandey, K. D. and Wheeler, D. (2006). The environment during growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Development, 34(9), 1597-1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.12.008
• Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091-1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500392078
• Dreher, A., Gaston, N. and Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalization: Gauging its consequences. New York: Springer.
• Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A. and Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological footprint atlas. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
• Figge, L. and Martens, P. (2014). Globalization continues: The Maastrich Globalization Index revisited and updated. Globalizations, 11(6), 875-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731. 2014.887389
• Figge, L., Oebeles, K. and Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on ecological footprints: An emprical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 19(3), 863-876. doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-9769-8.
• Global Footprint Network. (2019). National Footprint Accounts [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://data.footprintnetwork.org
• Grossman, G. M. and Kruger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NBRE Working Paper No. 3914). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/ w3914
• International Monetary Fund. (2002, March). Globalization: A framework for IMF involvement (Issue Brief). Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2002/031502.htm
• Jones, A. (2010). Globalization: Key thinkers. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
• Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What's new? What's not? (and so what?). Foreign Policy, 118, 104-119. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
• Kwiatkowski, P., Schmidt, P. and 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(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
• Martens, P. and Raza, M. (2009). Globalization in the 21st century: Measuring regional changes in multiple domains. Integrated Assessment, 9(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/int_assess/index.php/iaj/
• Narayan, S. and Narayan, P. K. (2004). Determinants of demand for Fiji's exports: An emprical investigation. The Developing Economies, 42(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2004.tb01017.x
• Ng, S. and Perron, P. (2001). Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. The Econometric Society, 69(6), 1519-1554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00256
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1997). Economic globalization and the environment. Paris: OECD Publications.
• Panayotou, T. (2000). Globalization and environment (Harvard University Center for International Development Working Paper No. 53). Retrieved from https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/ default/files/centers/cid/files/publications/faculty-working-papers/053.pdf
• Pesaran, M. H. and Pesaran, B. (1997). Microfit 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pesaran, M. H. and Shin, Y. (1995). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis (Department of Applied Economics Working Paper No. 9514). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.153.3246&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
• Phillips, P. C. and Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545
• Rennen, W. and Martens, P. (2003). The globalization timeline. Integrated Assessment, 4(3), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.3.137.23768
• Rudolph, A. and Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization? Ecological Indicators, 81, 348-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.060
• Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M. K. and Loganathan, N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecological Indicators, 52, 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.025
• Shahbaz, M., Hoang, T. H., Mahalik, M. K. and Roubaud, D. (2017). Energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in India: New evidence from a nonlinear and asiymetric analysis. Energy Economics, 63(3), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.023
• Sharif, A., Afshan, S. and Qureshi, M. A. (2019). Idolization and ramification between globalization and ecological footprints: Evidence from quantile-on-quantile aproach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 6, 11191-11211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04351-7
• Stock, J. H. and Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61(4), 783-820. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org
• van den Bergh, J. C. and Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00032-4
• Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
• Yeldan, E. (2001). Küreselleşme sürecinde Türkiye ekonomisi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.