The Relationship Between Export Diversification, Economic Growth and Ecological Footprint in D-8 Countries: An Empirical Analysis

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between export diversification, economic growth and ecological footprint of D-8 (Turkiye, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria and Bangladesh) countries for the period 1995-2022 using panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) analysis method. In addition, causality test with Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse (2011) panel causality test is also applied. According to the panel ARDL results, export diversification decreases the ecological footprint in both the short and long run, while economic growth increases it in the short run. According to the results of the panel Fisher Test Statistic in the Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse causality test, there is a bidirectional causality between export diversification (EXPD), economic growth (GDP) and ecological footprint (EF). Looking at the individual country results for EXPD and EF, bidirectional causality was found in Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, unidirectional causality from EXPD to EF in Nigeria and unidirectional causality from EF to EXPD in Turkiye. When individual country results for GDP and EF are analyzed, bidirectional causality is found in Iran, unidirectional causality from GDP to EF in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria and unidirectional causality from EF to GDP in Turkiye, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Looking at the individual country results for GDP and EXPD, unidirectional causality from GDP to EXPD was found in Turkiye, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Bangladesh and unidirectional causality from EXPD to GDP in Egypt. As a result, if export diversification is increased in the D-8 countries, environmental damage will be reduced.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• D-8 Countries
• Ecological Footprint
• Export Diversification
• Economic Growth
• Panel ARDL
• Emirmahmutoğlu-Köse Panel Causality Test

D-8 Ülkelerinde İhracat Çeşitliliği, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, D-8 (Türkiye, Endonezya, İran, Mısır, Pakistan, Malezya, Nijerya ve Bangladeş) ülkelerinin 1995-2022 dönemi için ihracat çeşitliliği, ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki panel Otoregresif Dağıtılmış Gecikme (ARDL) analiz yöntemi ile incelemektir. Ayrıca, Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse (2011) panel nedensellik testi ile nedensellik testi de uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen panel ARDL sonuçlarına göre, ekolojik ayak izini ihracat çeşitlendirmesi hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde azaltırken, ekonomik büyüme ise kısa dönemde artırmaktadır. Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse nedensellik testindeki panel Fisher Test İstatistiği sonuçlarına göre; ihracat çeşitliliği (EXPD), ekonomik büyüme (GDP) ve ekolojik ayak izi (EF) arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik olduğu tespit edilmiştir. EXPD ile EF için bireysel olarak ülke sonuçlarına bakıldığında; Endonezya, İran, Mısır, Malezya’da çift yönlü nedensellik, Nijerya’da EXPD’den EF’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ve Türkiye’de ise EF’den EXPD’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik bulunmuştur. GDP ile EF için bireysel olarak ülke sonuçlarına bakıldığında; İran’da çift yönlü nedensellik, Endonezya, Malezya, Nijerya’da GDP’den EF’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ve Türkiye, Mısır, Pakistan, Bangladeş’te ise EF’den GDP’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik bulunmuştur. GDP ile EXPD için bireysel olarak ülke sonuçlarına bakıldığında; Türkiye, Endonezya, İran, Malezya, Nijerya, Bangladeş’te GDP’den EXPD’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ve Mısır’da ise EXPD’den GDP’ye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak D-8 ülkelerinde ihracat çeşitliliği daha çok artırılırsa, çevreye olan zarar azalacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• D-8 Ülkeleri
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• İhracat Çeşitlendirmesi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Panel ARDL
• Emirmahmutoğlu-Köse Panel Nedensellik Testi

Kaynakça

1. Acaravcı, A. ve Kargı, G. (2015). Türkiye’de ihracatın çeşitlendirilmesi ve ekonomik büyüme. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.182891
2. Adewuyi, O. A. ve Awodum, B. O. (2016). Analysis of the Environmental Pollution Effect of Nigeria’s Export Diversification Drive. Annual Conference of the Nigerian Economic Society, Holding in Abuja, Nigeria from August 15 to 18, 1-26.
3. Alhassan, A., Usman, O., Ike, G. N. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Impact assessment of trade on environmental performance: Accounting for the role of government integrity and economic development in 79 countries. Heliyon, 6(9), e05046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05046
4. Ali, S., Can, M., Shah, M. I., Jiang, J., Ahmed, Z. ve Murshed, M. (2022). Exploring the linkage between export diversification and ecological footprint: evidence from advanced time series estimation techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 38395-38409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18622-3
5. Apergis, N., Can, M., Gozgor, G. ve Lau, C. K. M. (2018). Effects of export concentration on CO2 emissions in developed countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 14106-14116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1634-x
6. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0262.2004.00528.x
7. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2010). Panel unit root tests with cross-section dependence: A further investigation. Econometric Theory, 26(4), 1088-1114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466609990478
8. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170, 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004

9. Bağrıyanık, B. (2021). İhracat çeşitliliği ve ekonomik büyümenin karbon emisyonu üzerindeki etkileri: BRICS ülkeleri üzerine bir çalışma. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 30-52. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bilgisosyal/issue/60370/844816
10. Barro, R. J. ve Martin, X. S. (1995). Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
11. Becheri, I. G. ve Van den Akker, R. (2015). Uniformly most powerful unit root tests for PANIC. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2688060
12. Benli, M. (2020). Export diversification and economic growth: Evidence from emerging economies. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 285-298. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.609237
13. Bleaney, M. ve Greenaway, D. (2001). The impact of trade and real exchange rate volatility on investment and growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 65, 491-500.
14. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M. ve Galli, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
15. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
16. Can, M., Dogan, B. ve Saboori, B. (2020). Does trade matter for environmental degradation in developing countries? New evidence in the context of export product diversification. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 14702-14710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08000-2
17. De Hoyos, R. E. ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
18. Dennis, A. ve Shepherd, B. (2011). Trade facilitation and export diversification. The World Economy, 34, 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01303.x
19. Dogan, B., Madaleno, M., Tiwari, A. K. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2020). Impacts of export quality on environmental degradation: Does income matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 13735-13772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07371-5
20. D-8 Developing Organization for Economic Cooperation. (2024). Brief History of D-8 (10. 08. 2024) https://developing8.org/about-d-8/brief-history-of-d-8/
21. Emirmahmutoğlu, F. ve Köse, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28, 870-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
22. Fang, J., Gozgor, G., Lu, Z. ve Wu, W. (2019). Effects of the export product quality on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from developing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 12181-12193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04513-7
23. Fisher, R. A. (1932). Statistical methods for research workers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 4th edition.
24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2004). The state of agricultural commodity markets. Rome.
25. Ghosh, A. R. ve Ostry, J. (1994). Export instability and the external balance in developing countries. IMF Working Paper, No. 94/8, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
26. Global Footprint Network. (2024). Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity (gha per person) (21. 1. 2024) https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/
27. Gnangnon, S. K. (2019). Aid for trade and export diversification in recipient-countries. The World Economy, 42, 396-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12711
28. Gozgor, G. ve Can, M. (2016). Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 21594-21603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7403-9
29. Guneri, B. (2019). Does export diversification lower growth volatility? An empirical analysis’’, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2), 113-135. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jiss/issue/50416/630352
30. Gündüz, H. İ. (2017). Testing for slope homogeneity in dynamic panels using the wild bootstrap ∆ ̃_adj test. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics E-Journal, 26, 53-59. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iuekois/issue/31079/337065
31. Güzel, İ. ve Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 14(26), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437
32. Halunga, A. G., Orme, C. D. ve Yamagata, T. (2017). A heteroskedasticity robust Breusch-Pagan test for contemporaneous correlation in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 198(2), 209-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2016.12.005
33. Iqbal, N., Abbasi, K. R., Shinwari, R., Guangcai, W., Ahmad, M. ve Tang, K. (2021). Does exports diversification and environmental innovation achieve carbon neutrality target of OECD economies? Journal of Environmental Management, 291, 112648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112648
34. Jiang, S., Mentel, G., Shahzadi, I., Ben Jebli, M. ve Iqbal, N. (2022a). Renewable energy, trade diversification and environmental footprints: Evidence for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Renewable Energy, 187, 874-886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.134
35. Jiang, G., Alvarado, R., Murshed, M., Tillaguango, B., Toledo, E., Méndez, P. ve Isik, C. (2022b). Effect of agricultural employment and export diversification ındex on environmental pollution: Building the agenda towards sustainability. Sustainability, 14, 677. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14020677
36. Júnior, G. D. P. ve Ferraz, D. (2023). The impact of export diversification on economic growth: A systematic literature review. Conference: European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE), At: Leeds/UK.
37. Lee, D. ve Zhang, H. (2022). Export diversification in low-income countries and small states: Do country size and income level matter? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 60, 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.11.017
38. Li, M., Ahmad, M., Fareed, Z., Hassan, T. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Role of trade openness, export diversification, and renewable electricity output in realizing carbon neutrality dream of China. Journal of Environmanetal Management, 297, 113419. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113419
39. Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., Mancini, M.S., Martindill, J., Medouar, F.Z., Huang, S. & Wackernagel, M. (2018). Ecological footprint accounting for countries: Updates and results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources, 2018, 7, 58, 1-22.
40. Liu, H., Kim, H., Liang, S. ve Kwon O.S., (2018). Export diversification and ecological footprint: A comparative study on EKC theory among Korea, Japan, and China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103657
41. Liu, H., Kim, H. ve Choe, J. (2019). Export diversification, CO2 emissions and EKC: Panel data analysis of 125 countries. Asia-Pacifc Journal of Regional Science, 3, 361-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-018-0099-8
42. Liu, X., Udemba, E. N., Emir, F., Hussain, S., Khan, N. U., Abdallah, I. (2024). Nexus between resource policy, renewable energy policy and export diversification: Asymmetric study of environment quality towards sustainable development. Resources Policy, 88, 104402.
43. Mania, E. (2019). Export diversification and CO2 emissions: An augmented environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of International Development, 32, 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3441
44. Padhan, H., Ghosh, S. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2023). Renewable energy, forest cover, export diversification, and ecological footprint: A machine learning application in moderating eco-innovations on agriculture in the BRICS-T economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 83771-83791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27973-4
45. Pata, U. K., Shahzad, F., Fareed, Z. ve Rehman, M. A. (2022). Revisiting the EKC hypothesis with export diversification and ecological footprint pressure index for India: A RALS-Fourier cointegration test. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 886515. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.886515
46. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. P. (1999). pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
47. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435, 1-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
48. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
49. Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
50. Pişkin, A. (2023). Economic globalization, export diversification and greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from OECD countries. Paradigma: İktisadi Ve İdari Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 85-98. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/paradigmaiiad/issue/79998/1357340
51. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4, 121-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
52. Salmerón, M. H. ve Romero-Ávila, D. (2015). Convergence in output and its sources among industrialised countries. SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-13635-6, October.
53. Sannassee, R. V., Seetanah, B. ve Lamport, M. J. (2014). Export diversification and economic growth: The case of Mauritius. M. In Jansen, M.S. Jallab ve M. Smeets (Eds.), Connecting to Global Markets-Challenges and Opportunities, (pp. 11–23). Geneva: World Trade Organization.
54. Sargan, J. D. ve Bhargava, A. (1983). Testing for residuals from least squares regression being generated by gaussian random walk. Econometrica, 51, 153-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912252
55. Shahzad, U., Ferraz, D., Dogan, B. ve Aparecida do Nascimento Rebelatto, D. (2020). Export product diversification and CO2 emissions: Contextual evidences from developing and developed economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.124146.
56. Sharma, R., Sinha, A. ve Kautish, P. (2021). Examining the nexus between export diversification and environmental pollution: Evidence from BRICS nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 61732-61747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14889-0
57. Shi, J., Visas, H., Ul-Haq, J., Abbas, S. ve Khanum, S. (2023). Investigating the impact of export product diversification on environmental degradation: Evidence from Chinese Provinces. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 11455-11486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02536-8
58. Stock, J. H. ve Watson, M. W. (1988). Testing for common trends. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1097-1107. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478707
59. Tekbaş, M. (2022). Empirical findings on the relationship between renewable energy production, export diversification and CO2 emissions in Transformation Economies. EURASIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL (ERJ), 4(4), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2022.4-02
60. Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
61. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2024). Gelişen Sekiz Ülke (D-8) Teşkilatı (10. 08. 2024) https://www.mfa.gov.tr/gelisen-sekiz-ulke-_d-8_.tr.mfa
62. Udeagha, M. C. ve Ngepah, N. (2023). Towards climate action and UN sustainable development goals in BRICS economies: Do export diversification, fiscal decentralisation and environmental innovation matter? International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 15(1), 172-200. DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2023.2222264
63. Ul-Haq, J., Visas, H., Can, M. ve Khanum, S. (2023). How diversification of products impact emissions in China: a provincial perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 124215-124231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31078-3
64. Unctadstat. (2024). Export Diversification Index (21. 1. 2024) https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/
65. Wang, L., Chang, H .L., Rizvi, S. K. A. ve Sari, A. (2020). Are eco-innovation and export diversification mutually exclusive to control carbon emissions in G-7 countries? Journal of Environmental Management, 270, 110829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110829
66. Wang, Q., Zhang, F. ve Li, R. (2023). Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustainable Development, 32, 876-901. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2703
67. World Bank. (2024). GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$) (21. 1. 2024) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
68. Zafar, M. W., Saleem, M. M., Destek, M. A. ve Caglar, A. E. (2021). The dynamic linkage between remittances, export diversification, education, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in top remittance-receiving countries. Sustainable Development, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2236