Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Ekonomik Büyüme: N-11 Ülkeleri için Panel Veri Analizinden Kanıtlar

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1985–2022 dönemi için N-11 (Next Eleven) ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme, ticari küreselleşme, ekonomik karmaşıklık, nüfus artışı ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımın çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkilerini Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezi bağlamında incelemektedir. Çevresel bozulma göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi (lnEF) kullanılmış; modelde ekonomik büyümenin doğrusal ve doğrusal olmayan etkilerini test edebilmek amacıyla GSYH'nin logaritması (lnGDP) ve karesi (lnGDP²) dahil edilmiştir. Panel veri analizinde Westerlund ECM eşbütünleşme testi ile değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişki araştırılmış, ayrıca Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012) panel nedensellik testi ile değişkenler arasındaki kısa dönemli nedensellik ilişkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, panel genelinde uzun dönemli eşbütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmadığını, dolayısıyla ÇKE hipotezinin N-11 ülkeleri özelinde geçerli olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Nedensellik analizleri ise ekonomik büyümenin ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımların çevresel ve yapısal değişkenler üzerinde yönlendirici etkileri olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca ticari küreselleşme ve ekonomik karmaşıklık gibi yapısal faktörlerden ekolojik ayak izine nedensellik tespit edilmiştir. Çalışma, N-11 ülkelerinde sürdürülebilir büyüme stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi ve çevresel etkileri minimize eden kalkınma modellerine yönelinmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik ayak izi
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi
• Panel Veri Analizi

Ecological Footprint and Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Data Analysis for N-11 Countries

Öz

The objective of this study is to examine the effects of economic growth, trade globalization, economic complexity, population growth, and foreign direct investment on environmental sustainability in the N-11 (Next Eleven) countries for the period 1985–2022 in the context of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. The ecological footprint (lnEF) was utilised as an indicator of environmental degradation; the logarithm of GDP (lnGDP) and its square (lnGDP2) were incorporated into the model to assess the linear and nonlinear effects of economic growth. In the panel data analysis, the Westerlund ECM cointegration test was employed to investigate the long-term relationship between the variables, and the Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012) panel causality test was used to evaluate the short-term causality relationships between the variables. The findings indicate the absence of long-term cointegration relationships across the panel, thereby suggesting the invalidity of the CGE hypothesis for the N-11 countries. Causality analyses demonstrate that economic growth and foreign direct investment exert a guiding influence on environmental and structural variables. Furthermore, causality was identified from structural factors, such as trade globalization and economic complexity, to the ecological footprint. The study indicates that sustainable growth strategies should be developed and development models that minimise environmental impacts should be pursued in the N-11 countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological footprint
• Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis
• Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. AHMAD, M., JIANG, P., MAJEED, A., UMAR, M., KHAN, Z. ve MUHAMMAD, S. (2020). “The Dynamic Impact of Natural Resources, Technological Innovations and Economic Growth on Ecological Footprint: An Advanced Data Estimation Panel”, Resources Policy, 69 (101817): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
2. AHMED, Z., AHMAD, M., RJOUB, H., KALUGINA, O.A. ve HUSSAIN, N. (2022). “Economic Growth, Renewable Energy Consumption, and Ecological Footprint: Exploring the Role of Environmental Regulations and Democracy in Sustainable Development”, Sustainable Development, 30(4): 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251
3. ALONAIZI, B. ve YOUSR G. (2017). “The Next 11: Emerging Investment Market. 1st International Conference on Advanced Research (ICAR-2017)”, Manama, Bahrain. 16 Kasım 2024’te Erişim Adresi: https://apiar.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/5_APJABSS_v3i2_Bus-44-53.pdf
4. ALTINTAŞ, H. ve KASSOURI, Y. (2020). “Is The Environmental Kuznets Curve In Europe Related to the Per-Capita Ecological Footprint or CO2 emissions?”, Ecological Indicators, 113(106187): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106187
5. APAYDIN, Ş. (2020). “Effects of Globalization on Ecological Footprint: The Case of Turkey”, Journal of Research in Economics, Politics & Finance, 5(1): 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.695836
6. AŞICI, A. A. ve ACAR, S. (2016). “Does Income Growth Relocate Ecological Footprint?”, Ecological Indicators, 61: 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.10.022
7. BİLGİN, E. ve YILDIRIM, Z. (2025). “The Effects of Environmental Protection and Social Spending on Societal Well- Beeing: Panel Evidence From Selected OECD Countries”, Economic Annals, 246: 69-96. https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA2546069B
8. DAM, T. A., PASCHE, M., ve WERLICH, N. (2017). “Trade Patterns and the Ecological Footprint–A Theory-Based Empirical Approach”, Jena Economic Research Papers, 005. 19 Mayıs 2023’te Erişim Adresi: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/162490 (Accesses date: 19.05.2023).

9. DUMITRESCU, E. I. ve HURLIN C. (2012). “Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels”, Economic Modelling, 29: 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
10. GRANGER, C. W. J. (1969). “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Method”, Econometrica, 37(3): 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
11. GROSSMAN, G.M. ve KRUEGER, A.B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a north American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. 11.11.2024’te erişim adresi: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3914/w3914.pdf
12. GROSSMAN, G.M. ve KRUEGER, A.B. (1995). “Economic Growth and the Environment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (2): 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
13. GYGLI, S., HAELG F., POTRAFKE, N. ve STURM, J. (2019). “The KOF Globalization Index – Revisited, Review of International Organizations”, 14(3): 543-574 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2.
14. HİDALGO, C. A. ve HAUSMANN, R. (2009). “The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity”, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 106(26): 10570-10575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106.
15. JAEGER, W. K., KOLPIN, V., ve SIEGEL, R. (2023). “The Environmental Kuznets Curve Reconsidered”, Energy Economics, 120: 106561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106561.
16. KHAN, A., CHENGGANG, Y., XUE YI, W., HUSSAIN, J., SICEN, L., ve BANO, S. (2021). “Examining the Pollution Haven, and Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis for Ecological Footprints: an Econometric Analysis of China, India, and Pakistan”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 26(3): 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2020.1761739
17. KUZNETS, S. (1955). “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, The American Economic Review, 45(1): 1-28.
18. LEVIN, A., LIN, C.-F. ve CHU, J., C.-S. (2002). “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties”, Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier,108(1): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
19. MAJEED, M. T. ve MAZHAR, M. (2019). “Financial Development and Ecological Footprint: a Global Panel Data Analysis”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(2): 487-514. 10.05.2024’te erişim adresi: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/201002.
20. MARK, N. C. ve SUL, D. (2003). “Cointegration Vector Estimation by Panel DOLS and Long-Run Money Demand”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 65(5): 655-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2003.00066.x.
21. NEAGU, O., ve NEAGU, M. I. (2022). “The Environmental Kuznets Curve revisited: Economic Complexity and Ecological Footprint in the Most Complex Economies of the World”, Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldiș Arad, Seria Științe Economice, 32(1): 78-99.
22. PATA, U. K. (2020). “MIST Ülkelerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak Izi Ilişkisi: Panel Nedensellik Testi Bulguları”. İçinde 20. Uluslararası Ekonometri, Yöneylem Araştırması ve İstatistik Sempozyumu bildiriler kitabı ss.60-67, Ankara, Türkiye.
23. PEDRONI, P. (1997). “Panel Cointegration; Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests, with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis: New results”, Working Paper, Indiana University.
24. PEDRONI, P. (1999). “Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue, 0305-9049.
25. PEDRONI, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis”, Econometric Theory, 20: 597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073.
26. PESARAN, H., ve YAMAGATA, T. (2008), “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142: 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
27. PESARAN, M. H. (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross‐Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2): 265-312.
28. REES, W. E. (2000). “Eco-footprint Analysis: Merits and Brickbats”, Ecological Economics 32(3): 371-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00157-3.
29. SWAMY, P. A. (1970). “Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 38(2): 311-323.
30. ULUCAK, R. ve ERDEM, E. (2017). “The Environment in Economic Growth Models: an Application Based on Ecological Footprint”, Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 35(4): 115-147. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.372407.
31. ULUCAK, R. ve KOÇAK, E. (2018). “Economic Growth and Environment: Econometric Analysis for OECD Countries”, EconWorld2018, 24-26 July; Amsterdam, Netherlands. 10.05.2024’te erişim adresi: https://amsterdam2018.econworld.org/papers/Ulucak_Kocak_Economic.pdf.
32. ULUCAK, R. (2017). “Çevre Kalitesi Açısından Yakınsama Hipotezine Yeni Bir Bakış: Ekolojik Ayak Izi ve Kulüp Yakınsamaya Dayalı Ampirik Bir Analiz”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(4): 29-38. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552674.
33. VAN DEN BERGH, J. CJM ve 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.
34. VENETOULIS, J., ve TALBERTH J. (2008). “Refining the Ecological Footprint”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(4): 441-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z.
35. WACKERNAGEL, M., ONISTO, L., BELLO, P., CALLEJAS LINARES, A., LO´PEZ FALFA´N, I.S., ME´NDEZ GARCI´A, J., SUA´REZ GUERRERO, A.I. ve SUA´REZ GUERRERO, M.G. (1999). “National Natural Capital Accounting with the Ecological Footprint Concept”, Ecological economics, 29: 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5.
36. WACKERNAGEL, M. ve REES, W.E. (1996). “Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth”, New Society.
37. WESTERLUND, J. (2007). “Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6): 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
38. YERDELEN TATOĞLU, F. (2013). İleri Panel Veri Analizi Stata Uygulamalı. 2. Baskı, İstanbul, Beta Yayınları.
39. YILANCI, V. ve PATA, U. K. (2020). “Investigating the EKC Hypothesis for China: The Role of Economic Complexity on Ecological Footprint”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26): 32683-32694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4.
40. YURTKURAN, S. (2020). “N11 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak Izi Yakınsaması: Fourier Durağanlık Testinden Yeni Kanıtlar”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2): 191-210. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.681354.