KÜRESELLEŞME, SANAYİLEŞME VE ŞEHİRLEŞMENİN TÜRKİYE’NİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİNE ETKİSİNİN GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ARDL YÖNTEMİYLE İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada gelir, enerji tüketimi ve finansal kalkınma gibi kontrol değişkenlerinin yanında küreselleşme, küreselleşmenin alt-göstergeleri (iktisadi, ticari ve finansal küreselleşme), sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’deki Ekolojik Ayak İzi’ni (EAİ) nasıl etkilediği, genişletilmiş otoregresif dağıtılmış gecikme (genişletilmiş ARDL) sınır testi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. 1980-2016 dönemini temel alan bu çalışmanın sonucunda elde edilen bulgular şunlardır: (i) Türkiye’de EAİ için çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi (ÇKEH) geçerli değildir, (ii) enerji tüketimi, EAİ’yi kısa dönemde arttırmaktadır, (iii) sanayileşme ve şehirleşme, çevresel bozulmayı arttırmaktadır, (iv) küreselleşmenin yanında iktisadi, ticari ve finansal küreselleşme de uzun dönemde EAİ’yi azaltmaktadır, (v) kısa dönemde finansal kalkınma, EAİ’yi arttırmaktadır. Bu bulgular çerçevesinde alternatif politika önerileri sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tüketimin Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Küreselleşme
• Sanayileşme
• Türkiye
• Genişletilmiş ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı

Examining the Impacts of Globalization, Industrialization, and Urbanization on Turkey’s Ecological Footprint via the Augmented ARDL Approach

Abstract

This study examines the impacts of income, energy consumption, financial development, globalization (economic, trade, and financial globalization), industrialization, and urbanization on Turkey’s ecological footprint (EF) in the context of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis via the augmented autoregressive distributed lag (augmented ARDL) bounds testing approach for the period 1980-2016. The findings of this research are as follows: (i) the EKC hypothesis is not valid in Turkey, (ii) energy consumption intensifies EF in the short-run, (iii) industrialization and urbanization increase environmental degradation, (iv) globalization -including its economic, trade, and financial dimensions- negatively affects EF in the long-run, (v) financial development deteriorates EF in the short-run. Based on these findings, alternative policy recommendations are made.

Keywords

• Ecological footprint of consumption
• Globalization
• Industrialization
• Turkey
• Augmented ARDL bounds testing approach

Kaynakça

1. Akçay, S. ve Karasoy, A. (2018). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve karbondioksit emisyonu ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği (The relationship between foreign direct investments and carbon dioxide emissions: the case of Turkey). Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 73(2), 501–526. doi:10.1501/SBFder_0000002507
2. Al-Rodhan, N. R. F. ve Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: a comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. In Program on the geopolitical implications of globalization and transnational security definitions (June 19, 2006; GCSP Occasional Papers). Erişim adresi: https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/publications/publication.html/19462
3. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M. ve Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(18), 18565–18582. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
4. Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23–42. doi:10.30784/epfad.695836
5. Balibey, M. (2015). Relationships among Co2 emissions, economic growth and foreign direct investment and the EKC hypothesis in Turkey. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(4), 1042–1049.
6. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., Koçak, E. ve İlkay, S. Ç. (2020). Does globalization matter for environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(1), 1087–1100. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06996-w
7. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2019). Data. Erişim adresi: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
8. Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: an environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227–237. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1793425

9. Calhoun, C. (2002). Dictionary of the social sciences (C. Calhoun (editör); 1. basım). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001
10. Cetin, M. ve Ecevit, E. (2017). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions under the structural breaks: empirical evidence from Turkish economy. International Journal of Economics Perspectives, 11(1), 64–78.
11. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E. ve Yucel, A. G. (2018). Structural breaks, urbanization and CO2 emissions: evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 8(2), 122–139. Erişim adresi: http://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/2/2/6622240/joaebrjune2018_122_139.pdf
12. Curran, D. (2017). The treadmill of production and the positional economy of consumption. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 54(1), 28–47. doi:10.1111/cars.12137
13. Dar, J. A. Ve Asif, M. (2018). Does financial development improve environmental quality in Turkey? An application of endogenous structural breaks based cointegration approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 368–384. doi:10.1108/MEQ-02-2017-0021
14. Destek, M. A. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin Türkiye için incelenmesi: STIRPAT modelinden bulgular. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 268–283. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cumuiibf/452978
15. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, reindustrialization and environmental degradation: Evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
16. Destek, M. A. ve Ozsoy, F. N. (2015). Relationships between economic growth, energy consumption, globalization, urbanization and environmental degradation in Turkey. International Journal of Energy and Statistics, 03(04), 1550017. doi:10.1142/S2335680415500179
17. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072. doi: 10.2307/1912517
18. Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110. doi:10.1080/00036840500392078
19. Figge, L., Oebels, K. ve Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 863–876. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9769-8
20. Gallagher, K. P. (2009). Economic globalization and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 279–304. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.021407.092325
21. Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V. ve Tiezzi, E. (2011). An exploration of the mathematics behind the ecological footprint. WIT Transactions on State-of-the-art in Science and Engineering, 249–256. doi:10.2495/978-1-84564-654-7/23
22. Global Footprint Network National Footprint Accounts. (2020). Erişim adresi: http://data.footprintnetwork.org
23. Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Rafique, S. ve Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). The asymmetric effect of tourism, financial development, and globalization on ecological footprint in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(2020), 40109–40120. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09937-0
24. Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Military expenditure, financial development and environmental degradation in Turkey: A comparison of CO2 emissions and ecological footprint. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(1), 986–997. doi:10.1002/ijfe.1831
25. Gokmenoglu, K. ve Taspinar, N. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: the case of Turkey. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706–723. doi:10.1080/09638199.2015.1119876
26. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series (No. 3914). doi:10.3386/w3914
27. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J.-E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index – revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. doi:10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
28. Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156–1164. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012
29. IMF. (2020). Financial development index database. Erişim adresi: https://data.imf.org/?sk=F8032E80-B36C-43B1-AC26-493C5B1CD33B
30. Kaika, D. ve Zervas, E. (2013). The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory - part A: concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy, 62, 1392–1402. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131
31. Karasoy, A. (2019). Drivers of carbon emissions in Turkey: considering asymmetric impacts. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(9), 9219–9231. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04354-4
32. Karasoy, A. (2021). How do remittances to the Philippines affect its environmental sustainability? Evidence based on the augmented ARDL approach. Natural Resources Forum, 45(2), 120–137. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12218
33. Karasoy, A. ve Akçay, S. (2019). Effects of renewable energy consumption and trade on environmental pollution: The Turkish case. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(2). doi:10.1108/MEQ-04-2018-0081
34. Katircioglu, S. ve Celebi, A. (2018). Testing the role of external debt in environmental degradation: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(9), 8843–8852. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-1194-0
35. Katircioğlu, S. S. ve Katircioğlu, S. S. (2018). Testing the role of urban development in the conventional environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics Letters, 25(11), 741-746. doi:10.1080/13504851.2017.1361004
36. Kılıçarslan, Z. ve Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: the case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(8), 647–660. doi:10.20409/berj.2017.73
37. Kirikkaleli, D., Adebayo, T. S., Khan, Z. ve Ali, S. (2021). Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(11), 14009–14017. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11654-7
38. Koçak, E. ve 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(1), 790–804. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0468-2
39. KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2020). KOF Globalisation Index. Erişim adresi: https://www.kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html
40. Kripfganz, S. ve Schneider, D. C. (2020). Response surface regressions for critical value bounds and approximate p‐values in equilibrium correction models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(6), 1456–1481. doi:10.1111/obes.12377
41. Laurent, A., Olsen, S. I. ve Hauschild, M. Z. (2012). Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(7), 4100–4108. doi:10.1021/es204163f
42. Mabey, N., McNally, R. ve Zarsky, L. (2003). Foreign direct investment and the environment: from pollution havens to sustainable development (2nd Edition) - WWF-UK Report (Issue: August). Erişim adresi: http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/pollutionhavens2ndeditionfinal.pdf
43. McGranahan, G., Jacobi, P., Songsore, J., Surjadi, C. ve Kjellén, M. (2010). The citizens at risk: from urban sanitation to sustainable cities (G. McGranahan, P. Jacobi, J. Songsore, C. Surjadi ve M. Kjellén (Editörler; 1. Basım). Earthscan Publications. Erişim adresi: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781849776097
44. McNown, R., Sam, C. Y. ve Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509–1521. doi:10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
45. Mert, M. ve Caglar, A. E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: a new perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(2020), 32933–32943. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09469-7
46. Naudé, W., Szirmai, A. ve Lavopa, A. (2013). Industrialization Lessons from BRICS: A Comparative Analysis. IZA Discussion Papers (No. 7543; IZA Discussion Papers). Erişim adresi: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2314838
47. Ozatac, N., Gokmenoglu, K. K. ve Taspinar, N. (2017). Testing the EKC hypothesis by considering trade openness, urbanization, and financial development: the case of Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(20), 16690–16701. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9317-6
48. Ozcan, B., Apergis, N. ve Shahbaz, M. (2018). A revisit of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey: new evidence from bootstrap rolling window causality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(2018), 32381–32394. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-3165-x
49. Özdemir, B. K. ve Koç, K. (2020). Türkiye’de karbon emisyonları, yenilenebilir enerji ve ekonomik büyüme. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(1), 66–86. doi:10.18354/esam.665191
50. Öztürk, S. ve Saygın, S. (2020). Türkiye’de 1974-2016 döneminde yapısal kırılma altında kişi başına reel gelir, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, ticari açıklık ve karbon emisyonları arasındaki ilişki. Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 69–90. doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.02.04
51. Öztürk, Z. ve Öz, D. (2016). The relationship between energy consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and CO2 emissions: the case of Turkey. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 6(2), 269–288.
52. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (Wep 2-22, WP:238; ILO Working Papers). International Labour Organization. Erişim adresi: https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ilo:ilowps:992927783402676
53. Pata, U. K. (2018a). The effect of urbanization and industrialization on carbon emissions in Turkey: evidence from ARDL bounds testing procedure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(8), 7740–7747. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-1088-6
54. Pata, U. K. (2018b). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, ıncome and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770–779. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.236
55. Pata, U.K. (2018c). The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy, 160, 1115–1123. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.095
56. 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. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05266-z
57. Pata, U.K. ve Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, nüfus yoğunluğu ve finansal gelişmenin CO2 salımına etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Harun TERZİ Özel Sayısı, 303–318. doi:10.18092/ulikidince.441173
58. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. doi:10.1002/jae.616
59. Phillips, P. C. B. ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346. doi:10.2307/2336182
60. Poumanyvong, P. ve Kaneko, S. (2010). Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 434–444. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.029
61. Rudolph, A. ve Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of Ecological Footprints: What is the role of globalization? Ecological Indicators, 81, 348–361. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.060
62. Sabir, S. ve Gorus, M. S. (2019). The impact of globalization on ecological footprint: empirical evidence from the South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33387–33398. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06458-3
63. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R. ve Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
64. Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T. ve Ali, A. (2013). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 494–502. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021
65. Shahbaz, M. ve Sinha, A. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a literature survey. Journal of Economic Studies, 46(1), 106–168. doi:10.1108/JES-09-2017-0249
66. Svirydzenka, K. (2016). Introducing a new broad-based ındex of financial development. IMF Working Paper, January, 1–43, Erişim adresi: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp1605.pdf
67. TDK. (2020). Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri. Erişim adresi: https://sozluk.gov.tr/
68. The World Bank. (2020). Dünya kalkınma göstergeleri. Erişim adresi: https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
69. Varkey, A. M. (1984). Industrialisation and environmental problems. Cochin University Law Review, 8, 83–93. Erişim adresi: http://dspace.cusat.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/10981/1/Industrialisation and Environmental Problems.PDF
70. WWF-Türkiye. (2012). Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi raporu. Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Turkish.pdf
71. Xiong, L. ve Qi, S. (2018). Financial development and carbon emissions in Chinese provinces: a spatial panel data analysis. Singapore Economic Review, 63(2), 447–464. doi:10.1142/S0217590817400203
72. Yilanci, V. ve Gorus, M. S. (2020). Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a Fourier function. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(32), 40552–40562. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10092-9
73. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). Türkiye’de çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin testi: Temiz enerji tüketiminin rolü. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2). Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ahbvuibfd/661314
74. Yurttagüler, İ. ve Kutlu, S. (2017). An econometric analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve: the case of Turkey. Alphanumeric Journal, 5(1), 115–115. doi:10.17093/alphanumeric.304256