Is The Pollution Haven Hypothesis Valid In Türkiye? Evidence From Ecological Footprint

Öz

The impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on ecological quality has garnered increasing attention in recent environmental economics literature. Within this context, the Pollution Haven Hypothesis posits that FDI may lead to environmental degradation in developing countries. According to the hypothesis, firms from developed countries seek to avoid the additional costs associated with stringent environmental regulations by relocating their operations to countries with more lenient environmental standards. In this regard, the present study investigates the validity of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis for Turkey over the period 1989–2022. The empirical analysis employs the Autoregressive Distributed Lag model. The findings indicate that, in the long run, increases in FDI have a positive and statistically significant effect on EF. In the long-run estimations, the ARDL, FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR methods produced consistent and similar results. These results provide empirical support for the validity of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the Turkish context. From a policy perspective, it is crucial to implement regulatory frameworks that encourage ecological sustainable FDI inflows. Moreover, structural reforms aimed at attracting international investment without compromising environmental standards are essential for achieving sustainable development goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological Footprint
• Pollution Haven
• Foreign Direct Investment

Türkiye’de Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi Geçerli Mi? Ekolojik Ayak İzinden Kanıtlar

Öz

Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların (FDI) çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi, son yıllarda çevre ekonomisi literatüründe artan bir ilgiyle ele alınmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi, FDI’nın gelişmekte olan ülkelerde çevresel bozulmaya yol açabileceğini savunmaktadır. Hipoteze göre, gelişmiş ülkelerdeki sıkı çevre politikaları ve yüksek uyum maliyetlerinden kaçınmak isteyen firmalar, daha esnek çevre düzenlemelerine sahip ülkelere yönelmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çalışma Türkiye’de 1989-2022 dönemi için söz konusu hipotezin geçerliliğini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ampirik analizde Gecikmesi Dağıtılmış Otoregresif Model yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, uzun dönemde FDI’daki artışın EF üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Uzun dönem tahminlerinde ARDL ile FMOLS, DOLS ve CCR yöntemleri tutarlı ve benzer sonuçlar vermiştir. Bu sonuçlar, Türkiye özelinde kirlilik cenneti hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Politik olarak, çevre dostu FDI girişlerini teşvik eden düzenlemelerin hayata geçirilmesi, sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri açısından önem arz etmektedir. Ayrıca, çevre standartlarını düşürmeden uluslararası yatırımları çekebilecek yapısal dönüşümlerin gerçekleştirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Kirlilik Cenneti
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, M. A., Nosheen, M., & Rahman, H. U. (2023). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 49270-49289.
2. Achuo, E., & Ojong, N. (2025). Foreign direct ınvestment, economic growth and environmental quality in africa: revisiting the pollution haven and environmental kuznets curve hypotheses. Journal of Economic Studies, 52(4), 673-691.
3. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–908. Apergis, N., Pinar, M., & Unlu, E. (2023). HOw do foreign direct ınvestment flows affect carbon emissions in brıcs countries? revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis using bilateral fdı flows from oecd to brıcs countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 30, 14680-14692.
4. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N., & Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2019). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23010-23026.
5. Bulut, U., Ucler, G., & Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2021). Does the pollution haven hypothesis prevail in Turkey? Empirical evidence from nonlinear smooth transition models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 38563-38572.
6. Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. R. (2005). FDI and the capital intensity of "dirty" sectors: a missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics, 9(4), 530–548.
7. Destek, M. A., Yıldırım, M., & Manga, M. (2024). High-income developing countries as pollution havens: can financial development and environmental regulations make a difference?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 436, 140479.
8. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, A. W. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.

9. Doytch, N. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecological footprints of nations. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 8, 100085.
10. Erdoğan, E. & Ataklı, R. (2012), Investment incentives and FDI in Turkey: the ıncentives package after the 2008 global crisis, procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58(1), 1183-1192.
11. Erdoğan, L., Tiryaki, A. & Ceylan, R. (2018). Türkiye'de uzun dönem ekonomik büyümenin belirleyicilerinin ardl, fmols, dols ve ccr yöntemleriyle tahmini. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(4), 39-57.
12. Georgescu, I. A., Bâra, A., & Oprea, S. V. (2024). Challenges for low-carbon economies in latin america. testing pollution haven hypothesis in developing countries. Energy Reports, 12, 5280-5299.
13. Gharnit, S., Bouzahzah, M., & Soussane, A. J. (2019). Foreign direct ınvestment and pollution havens: evidence from african countries. Archives of Business Research, 244-252.
14. Gill, F. L., Viswanathan, K. K., & Karim, M. Z. A. (2018). The critical review of the pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167-174.
15. Global Footprint Network (2024). National foot print accounts. http://data.footprintnetwork.org, (Retrieved: 05.12.2024).
16. Gogoi, N., & Hussain, F. (2024). Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis and pollution haven hypothesis in ındia: an ardl approach. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 16(1), 16-44.
17. Gökmenoğlu, K., & Taspinar, N. (2016), The relationship between co2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and fdı: the case of turkey, The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 25(5), 706-723.
18. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. (2009). Basic econometrics. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
19. Gür, B. (2019). Doğrudan Yabancı yatırımlar ve karbondioksit emisyonu ilişkisi: Türkiye için kirlilik cenneti hipotezinin değerlendirilmesi. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Empirical Economics Journal, 13, 1-13.
20. Holtbrügge, D., & Raghavan, N. (2025). Environmental effects of foreign direct investment in India: pollution haven or pollution halo?. Critical Perspectives on International Business.
21. Jorgenson, A. K. (2007). Does foreign direct ınvestment harm the air quality of developing nations? Sociological Inquiry, 77(3), 287–312.
22. Kearsley, A. & Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 69, 905-919.
23. Khan, Q. R., Anwar, A., Muhammad, T., Ghafoori, N., & Ahmad, M. (2024). Asymmetric effects of high-tech ındustry and presence of pollution haven hypothesis in apec countries: fresh evidence with panel quantile regression. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 26(8), 2643-2660.
24. Kılıçarşlan, Z., & Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct ınvestments and co2 emissions relationship: the case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal (BERJ), 8(4), 647-660.
25. Kim, S. E., & Seok, J. H. (2023). The impact of foreign direct investment on co2 emissions considering economic development: evidence from south korea. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 32(4), 1-16.
26. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804.
27. Liu, P., Ur Rahman, Z., Jóźwik, B., & Doğan, M. (2024). Determining the environmental effect of chinese fdı on the belt and road countries co2 emissions: an ekc-based assessment in the context of pollution haven and halo hypotheses. Environmental Sciences Europe, 36(1), 48.
28. Mike, F. (2020). Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi Türkiye için geçerli mi? ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımından bulgular. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 21(2).
29. Murshed, M., Nurmakhanova, M., Al-Tal, R., Mahmood, H., Elheddad, M., & Ahmed, R. (2022). Can intra-regional trade, renewable energy use, foreign direct investments, and economic growth mitigate ecological footprints in South Asia?. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 17(1), 2038730.
30. Mutafoğlu, T. H. (2012). Foreign Direct investment, pollution, and economic growth evidence from turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281-297.
31. Ozcelik, O., Bardakci, H., Barut, A., Usman, M., & Das, N. (2024). Testing the validity of pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in brıcmt countries by fourier bootstrap aardl method and fourier bootstrap toda-yamamoto causality approach. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 17(7), 1491-1504.
32. Özkan, O., & Çoban, M. N. (2022). Türkiye’de kirlilik hale hipotezi ve ekonomik büyüme, ekonomik küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi bağlantısı: krls’den kanıtlar. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 18(4), 1049-1068.
33. Özmen, İ., & Balı, S. (2024). Pollution haven hypothesis: smooth quantile evidence from BRICS. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 6(1), 48-58.
34. Pao, H. T., & Tsai, C. M. (2011). Multivariate granger causality between CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) Countries. Energy, 36(1), 685-693.
35. Paramati, S. R., Ummalla, M., & Apergis, N. (2016). The effect of foreign direct ınvestment and stock market growth on clean energy use across a panel of emerging market economies. Energy Economics, 56, 29–41.
36. Park, J. (1992). Canonical Cointegrating Regressions. Econometrica, 60, 119-143.
37. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
38. Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99-125.
39. Phillips, P.C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
40. Polat, M. A. (2015). Türkiye’de Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları ile CO2 Emisyonu Arasındaki İlişkinin Yapısal Kırılmalı Testler ile Analizi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(1), 41, 1127-1135.
41. Şahinöz, A., & Fotourehchi, Z. (2014). Kirlilik emisyonu ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları: türkiye için kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin testi. Sosyoekonomi, 1, 187-210.
42. Salehnia, N., Karimi Alavijeh, N., & Salehnia, N. (2020). Testing porter and pollution haven hypothesis via economic variables and co2 emissions: a cross-country review with panel quantile regression Method. Environ Sci Pollut Res., 27, 31527-31542.
43. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., & Afza, T. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: Evidence from panel data analysis. Bulletin of Energy Economics (BEE), 2(2), 14-27.
44. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., & Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Economics, 51, 275–287.
45. Sökmen, F. Ş. (2021). Kırılgan beşli ülkelerinde kirlilik sığınağı hipotezinin test edilmesi. Turkish Studies-Economics, Finance, Politics, 16(1), 447-455.
46. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegration vectors in higher order ıntegrated systems. Econometrica, 61, 783-820.
47. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246–253.
48. Terzi, H., & Pata U. K. (2020). Is the pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) valid for Turkey? Panoeconomicus, 67, 93-109.
49. Uche, E., Omoke, P. C., Silva-Opuala, C., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Re-estimating the Pollution Haven–Halo Hypotheses for Brazil via a Machine Learning Procedure. Journal of International Development, 1-19.
50. Udemba, E. N. (2021). Nexus of ecological footprint and foreign direct investment pattern in carbon neutrality: new insight for United Arab Emirates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 34367-34385.
51. Uğur, B., & Taş, S. (2022). Doğrudan yabancı yatırım girişlerinin ev sahibi ülke ihracatı üzerine etkilerinin teorik alt yapısına ilişkin bir inceleme. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 456-471.
52. Ursavaş, N. (2024). Doğrudan Yabancı yatırımın çevresel kirlilik üzerine etkisi: kirlilik cenneti hipotezinin Türkiye için yeniden değerlendirilmesi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(1), 37-51.
53. Usupbeyli, A., & Uçak, S. (2018). Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji-büyüme ilişkisi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(4), 223-238.
54. Wang, Q., & Wang, L. (2021). How does trade openness ımpact carbon ıntensity? Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126370.
55. Wooldridge, J. M., Wadud, M., & Lye, J. (2016). Introductory econometrics: Asia pacific edition with online study tools 12 months. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.
56. World Bank (2024). Databank, world development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, (Erişim Tarihi: 05.12.2024).
57. Yalta, A. T. (2011). Ekonometrik modelleme modellemeye ilişkin konular. https://acikders.tuba.gov.tr, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.06.2024).
58. Yang, W.-P., Yang, Y., & Xu, J. (2008). The Impact of foreign trade and FDI on environmental pollution. China-USA Business Review, 7, (12), 1-11.
59. Yıldırım, M., Destek, M. A., & Özsoy, F. N. (2017). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111.
60. Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Türkiye’de kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi geçerli mi? fourier eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik yöntemlerinden kanıtlar. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13(24), 61-77.
61. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F., & Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct ınvestment on the ecological footprint: the case of the united states. Resources Policy, 63, 101428.
62. Zeren, F. (2015). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların CO2 emisyonuna etkisi: kirlilik hale hipotezi mi kirlilik cenneti hipotezi mi? Journal of Yasar University, 10(37), 6381-6477.
63. Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in asean-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Econ. 58, 237-248