EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE EKONOMİK KÜRESELLEŞMENİN ÇEVRE KALİTESİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: GEÇİŞ EKONOMİLERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Çevresel kirliliği ve nedenleri son yıllarda çok farklı açılardan incelenmektedir. İktisat alanında da bu konuda teorik ve ampirik çalışmalar yapılmış ve çevre kirliliğine neden olan faktörler ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Ancak yapılan çalışmalardan elde edilen sonuçlar incelendiğinde araştırmacılar arasında fikir birliği oluşmadığı anlaşılmaktadır. Çevrenin korunarak ekonomik büyümenin sağlanabilmesi için devam eden tartışmalara katkı sunabilmek üzere yaptığımız bu çalışmada ekonomik büyüme ve ekonomik küreselleşmenin CO2 emisyonları üzerindeki etkisi incelenmektedir. Çalışma IMF tarafından yapılan sınıflandırmaya göre geçiş ülkesi olarak kabul edilen 14 ülke örnekleminde 1995 – 2014 yılları arasındaki dönem için yapılmıştır. Çalışmada FMOLS yöntemiyle yapılan analizlerde elde edilen sonuçlar çalışma döneminde Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen diğer bulgularda ise enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik küreselleşmenin CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkisinin pozitif olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testi sonuçlarında ise enerji tüketiminden CO2 emisyonlarına doğru tek yönlü, ekonomik büyüme ve ekonomik küreselleşme ile CO2 emisyonları arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda serbest piyasa ekonomisine adapte olmak üzere ekonomik küreselleşme politikaları uygulanırken çevresel bozulmanın göz önünde bulundurulması, çevre dostu teknolojilerin ithalatının desteklenmesi yararlı görülmektedir. Ayrıca enerji verimliliği ve yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının kullanılması teşvik edilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emisyonu
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekonomik Küreselleşme
• Panel Veri Analizi

THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: THE CASE OF TRANSITION ECONOMIES

Öz

Environmental pollution and its causes have been examined from many different perspectives in recent years. In the field of economics, theoretical and empirical studies have been carried out on this subject and the factors causing environmental pollution have been tried to be revealed. However, when the results obtained from the studies are examined, it is understood that there is no consensus among the researchers. In this study, which we have done in order to contribute to the ongoing discussions in order to ensure economic growth by protecting the environment, the effect of economic growth and economic globalization on CO2 emissions is examined. The study was conducted for the period between 1995 and 2014 in a sample of 14 countries accepted as transition countries according to the classification made by the IMF. The results obtained in the analyzes made with the FMOLS method in the study show that the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis is valid during the study period. In other findings, it has been obtained that the effect of energy consumption and economic globalization on CO2 emissions is positive.. In the Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test results, it is determined that there is a unidirectional causality relationship from energy consumption to CO2 emissions, and a bidirectional causality relationship between economic growth and economic globalization and CO2 emissions. In this respect, it is beneficial to consider environmental degradation and to support the import of environmentally friendly technologies while applying economic globalization policies to adapt to the free market economy. In addition, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources should be encouraged.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emissions
• Economic Growth
• Economic Globalization
• Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. ADAMS, S., BOATENG, E., & ACHEAMPONG, A. O. (2020). Transport energy consumption and environmental quality: Does urbanization matter?. Science of The Total Environment, 744, 140617.
2. AL-MULALİ, U. (2012). Factors affecting CO2 emission in the Middle East: A panel data analysis. Energy, 44(1), 564-569.
3. AL-MULALİ, U., & SHEAU-TİNG, L. (2014). Econometric analysis of trade, exports, imports, energy consumption and CO2 emission in six regions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 484-498.
4. ALTİNER, A., BOZKURT, E., & TOKTAŞ, Y. (2018). Küreselleşme ve ekonomik büyüme: Yükselen piyasa ekonomileri için bir uygulama. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (639), 1117-1161.
5. ALUKO, O. A., OPOKU, E. E. O., & IBRAHİM, M. (2021). Investigating the environmental effect of globalization: Insights from selected industrialized countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111892.
6. BATAKA, H. (2021). Globalization and environmental pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Economic Review, 9(1), 191-205.
7. BENTO, J. P. C., & MOUTİNHO, V. (2016). CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 142-155.
8. BOZKURT, C., & OKUMUŞ, İ. (2017). Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi: Kyoto Protokolünün Rolü. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 57-67.

9. BREİTUNG, JORG (2000), “The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data”, Advances in Econometrics, 15, 161-178.
10. COLE, M. A., & ELLİOTT, R. J. (2003). Determining the trade–environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. Journal of environmental economics and management, 46(3), 363-383.
11. DAUDA, L., LONG, X., MENSAH, C. N., SALMAN, M., BOAMAH, K. B., AMPON-WİREKO, S., & DOGBE, C. S. K. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125143.
12. DESTEK, M. A. (2020). Investigation on the role of economic, social, and political globalization on environment: evidence from CEECs. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(27), 33601-33614.
13. DESTEK, M. A., & OZSOY, F. N. (2015). Relationships between economic growth, energy consumption, globalization, urbanization and environmental degradation in Turkey. International Journal of Energy and Statistics, 3(04), 1550017.
14. DESTEK, M. A., & SİNHA, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537.
15. DESTEK, M. A., BALLİ, E., & MANGA, M. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, 7(1), 52-58.
16. DOGAN, E., SEKER, F., & BULBUL, S. (2017). Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1701-1719.
17. DREHER, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied economics, 38(10), 1091-1110.
18. DUMİTRESCU, E. I., & HURLİN, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
19. FARHANİ, S., CHAİBİ, A., & RAULT, C. (2014). CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Economic Modelling, 38, 426-434.
20. FAROOQ, S., OZTURK, I., MAJEED, M. T., & AKRAM, R. (2022). Globalization and CO2 emissions in the presence of EKC: A global panel data analysis. Gondwana Research, 106, 367-378.
21. GÖZEN, R. (2004). Uluslararası İlişkiler Sonrası Çoğulculuk, Küreselleşme ve 11 Eylül, 1.Basım, Alfa Yayınları, İstanbul. ss.71-72.
22. GROSSMAN, G.M., KRUEGER, A.B., (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North AmericanFree Trade Agreement. NBER Working Paper 3914.
23. HASEEB, A., XİA, E., BALOCH, M. A., & ABBAS, K. (2018). Financial development, globalization, and CO2 emission in the presence of EKC: evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 31283-31296.
24. IM, K. S., PESARAN, M. H., & SHİN, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7 .
25. IMF, (2000). Transition Economies: An IMF Perspective on Progress and Prospects -- An IMF Issues Brief, Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2022.
26. JALİL, A., & MAHMUD, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy policy, 37(12), 5167-5172.
27. JAYANTHAKUMARAN, K., VERMA, R., & LİU, Y. (2012). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy, 42, 450-460.
28. KASMAN, A., & DUMAN, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic modelling, 44, 97-103.
29. KHAN, M. B., SALEEM, H., SHABBİR, M. S., & HUOBAO, X. (2022). The effects of globalization, energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in South Asian countries. Energy & Environment, 33(1), 107-134.
30. KUZNETS S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Econ Rev 1955; 45: 1–28.
31. LEVİN, A., LİN, C. F., & CHU, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
32. MAHMOOD, H., MAALEL, N., & ZARRAD, O. (2019). Trade openness and CO2 emissions: Evidence from Tunisia. Sustainability, 11(12), 3295.
33. OHLAN, R. (2015). The impact of population density, energy consumption, economic growth and trade openness on CO2 emissions in India. Natural Hazards, 79(2), 1409-1428.
34. OKUMUŞ, İ., & BOZKURT, C. (2020). Ekonomik büyümenin çevreye etkilerinin farklı gelişmişlik düzeyindeki ülkeler için incelenmesi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(1), 238-255.
35. OKUMUŞ, İ., YILDIRIM, A., & DESTEK, M. A. (2016). MİNT Ülkelerinde Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Geçerliliği: Panel Veri Analizi. ÜNİDAP Uluslararası Bölgesel Kalkınma Konferansı, Muş.
36. ÖZCAN, C. C., ÖZMEN, İ., & ÖZCAN, G. (2018). Ticari Dışa Açıklığın Ekonomik Büyüme’ye Etkisi: Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomileri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (40), 60-73.
37. PANAYOTOU, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and development economics, 2(4), 465-484.
38. PANAYOTOU, T. (2000). Globalization and environment. CID Working Paper Series.
39. PATA, U. K. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20264-20276.
40. PEDRONİ, P. (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In B. H. Baltagi, T. B. Fomby, & R. Carter Hill (Eds.), Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels. (Advances in Econometrics, 15, pp. 93-130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2
41. SHAHBAZ, M., HYE, Q. M. A., TİWARİ, A. K., & LEİTÃO, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121.
42. SHAHBAZ, M., MALLİCK, H., MAHALİK, M. K., & LOGANATHAN, N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India?. Ecological Indicators, 52, 379-393.
43. SHAHBAZ, M., SHAHZAD, S. J. H., MAHALİK, M. K., & HAMMOUDEH, S. (2018). Does globalisation worsen environmental quality in developed economies?. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 23(2), 141-156.
44. SHAHBAZ, M., SOLARİN, S. A., & OZTURK, I. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 623-636.
45. TAHİR, T., LUNİ, T., MAJEED, M. T., & ZAFAR, A. (2021). The impact of financial development and globalization on environmental quality: evidence from South Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(7), 8088-8101.
46. YETER, F., EROĞLU, İ., KANGAL, N., & ÇOBAN, M. N. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Tüketimi Ve Çevresel Bozulma İlişkisi: Türk Cumhuriyetleri Üzerine Panel Veri Analizi. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 129(255), 405-432.