Ekonomik Karmaşıklığın Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkisi Var Mı? ASEAN 5 Ülkelerinden Yeni Kanıtlar

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 35, 235 - 251, 31.01.2024

Onur Yağış

https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1384348

Öz

Teknoloji ve yenilik kavramlarının ön plana çıkmaya başladığı 20 yy ’ın ikinci yarısından sonra üretim yapısında geleneksellikten karmaşık bir şekle dönüşüm başlamıştır. Üretimde çeşitlenme ve birçok pazarı elinde tutabilmek için farklı yeniliklerle üretimleri benzersiz bir hale getirme ihtiyaçları ekonomik karmaşıklık kavramını meydana getirmiştir. Öte yandan karmaşık ekonomilerin doğaya zararı özellikle ekolojik ayak izi bağlamında karbon emisyonlarının artmasına sebep olabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisini 1998-2018 yıllık verileri kullanarak ASEAN 5 ülkeleri için Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse nedensellik testi ile analiz etmektir. Bu nedenle çalışmada öncelikli olarak YKB (LM testi), daha sonra delta testleri, CADF birim kök testi ile Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse nedensellik testleri uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi arasında %1 anlamlılık düzeyinde çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Ülke olarak belirlenen analiz sonuçlarına göre; Endonezya, Filipinler ve Singapur’da ekonomik karmaşıklık ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında nedensellik ilişkisi bulunurken Endonezya, Malezya, Filipinler ve Singapur’da ekolojik ayak izi ve ekonomik karmaşık arasında nedensellik bağlantısı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ekonomik Karmaşıklık, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, ASEAN 5, Panel Nedensellik Testi

Does Economic Complexity Impact Ecological Footprint? New Evidence from ASEAN 5 Countries

Öz

After the second half of the 20th century, when the concepts of technology and innovation began to come to the fore, the production structure began to transform from traditional to complex. Diversification in production and the need to make production unique with different innovations in order to retain many markets have created the concept of economic complexity. On the other hand, the harm of complex economies to nature can lead to an increase in carbon emissions, especially in the context of ecological footprint. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between economic complexity and ecological footprint with the Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse causality test for ASEAN 5 countries using annual data from 1998-2018. For this reason, firstly YKB (LM test), then delta tests, CADF unit root test and Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse causality tests were applied in the study. As a result of the study, a bidirectional causality relationship was found between economic complexity and ecological footprint at the 1% significance level. According to the analysis results determined by country; While there is a causal relationship between economic complexity and ecological footprint in Indonesia, the Philippines and Singapore, it has been determined that there is a causal relationship between ecological footprint and economic complexity in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Economic Complexity, Ecological Footprint, ASEAN 5, Panel Causality Testing

Kaynakça

• Ahmad, M., Ahmed, Z., Majeed, A. ve Huang, B. (2021). An environmental impact assessment of economic complexity and energy consumption: does institutional quality make a difference? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106603. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106603
• Akıllı, H., Kemahlı, F., Okudan, K. ve Polat, F. (2008). Ekolojik ayak izinin kavramsal içeriği ve akdeniz i.i.b.f.’nde bireysel ekolojik ayak izi hesaplaması. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 15, 1-25.
• Altıner, A. (2019). Mınt ülkelerinde enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: panel nedensellik analizi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 10(2), 369-378.
• Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Dagar, V., Ahmad, M., Işık, C., Mendez, P. ve Toledo, E. (2021). Ecological footprint, economic complexity and natural resources rents in latin america: empirical evidence using quantile regressions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318(128585), 1-14.
• Aşıcı, A. A. ve Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicator, 61, 707-714.
• Atlas Media (2023a). Atlas Of Economic Complexity. https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/glossary adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Atlas Media (2023). Atlas Of Economic Complexity. https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/glossary adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Balland, P. A. ve Rigby, D. (2016). The geography of complex knowledge. Economic Geography, 93(1), 1–23.
• Bener, Ö. ve Babaoğul, M. (2008). Sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışı ve çevre bilinci oluşturmada bir araç olarak tüketici eğitimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyolojik Araştırmalar E-Dergisi, 1-10.
• Breusch, T. ve Pagan, A. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and ıts applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
• Bucak, Ç. (2022). Brıcs-t ülkelerinde ekonomik karmaşıklık ve küreselleşme ilişkisi: panel veri analizi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 14(26), 92-105.
• Can, M. ve Gozgor, G. (2016). Dynamic relationships among co2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and economic complexity in france. MPRA, 70373, 1-21.
• Calcott, A. ve Bull, J. (2007). Ecological Footprint Of British City Residents, Wwf-Uk. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/city_footprint2.pdf adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Doğan, B., Saboori, B. ve Can, M. (2019). Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? An empirical analysis for different stages of development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 31900-31912.
• Emirmahmutoğlu, F. ve Köse, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28, 870-876.
• Erataş, F., Nur, H. B. ve Özçalık, M. (2013). Feldstein-horioka bilmecesinin gelişmiş ülke ekonomileri açısından değerlendirilmesi: panel veri analizi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 18-33.
• Erdogan, S. ve Okumus, I. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: an empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, 1-13.
• Ersungur, M. Ş., Tığtepe, E. ve Kılıç, F. (2022). Ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: todayamamoto nedensellik analizi. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 271-294.
• Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A. ve Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network.
• Global Footprint Network (2023). Veri Dosyası. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=223 adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Global Footprint Network (2023a). https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A. ve Yıldırım, M. A. (2013). The Atlas Of Economic Complexity-Mapping Paths To Prosperity. The MIT Press.
• He., K., Ramzan, M., Awosusi, A. A., Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M. ve Altuntas, M. (2021). Does globalization moderate the effect of economic complexity on co2 emissions? evidence from the top 10 energy transition economies. Frontiersin Environmental Science, 9, 1-11.
• Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M. ve Öztürk, İ. (2022). Dynamic association between ıct, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: ıs there any difference between e-7 (developing) and g-7 (developed) countries? Technology in Science , 68(101853), 1-16.
• Hidalgo, C. A. ve Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575.
• Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U. ve Rafique, M. Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: contextual evidences from japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47 (101460), 1-12.
• Khan, S., Yahong, W. ve Chandio, A. A. (2022). How does economic complexity affect ecological footprint in g-7 economies: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumptions and testing ekc hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
• Kumar, M. A. ve Kumar, Y. T. (2019). What is ecological footprint and why is it important?, Agronomy, 18(1), 25-26.
• Lenzen, M., Hansson, C. B. ve Bond, S. (2007). On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 61, 6-10.
• Leitão, N. C., Balsalobre-Lorente, D. Ve Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2021). The impact of renewable energy and economic complexity on carbon emissions in brıcs countries under the ekc scheme. Energies, 14(16), 2-15.
• Mancini, M. S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, C., Bastianoni, S., Wackernagel, M. ve Marchettini, N. (2015). Ecological footprint: refining the carbon footprint calculation. Ecological Indicators, 61(2), 390-403.
• Martins, J. M., Adebayo, T. S., Mata, M. N., Oladipupo, S. D., Adeshola, I., Ahmed, Z. ve Correia, A. B. (2021). Modeling the relationship between economic complexity and environmental degradation: evidence from top seven economic complexity countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 1-12.
• Neagu, O. (2019). The link between economic complexity and carbon emissions in the european union countries: a model based on the environmental kuznets curve (ekc) approach. Sustainability, 11, 1-27.
• Ökmen, M. (1996). Teknoloji, tüketim ve çevre sorunları. Çevre Dergisi, 19, 4-7.
• Özbek, S. ve Naimoğlu, M. (2022). Çevre kalitesi-ekonomik karmaşıklık ilişkisi: türkiye ekonomisi üzerine fourier eşbütünleşme analizi. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72(1), 407-431. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1061837
• Özer, Z. (2002). Ekolojik ayak izleri. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, 419, 82-84.
• Pesaran, H. M. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
• 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.
• Rafique, M. Z., Nadeem, A. M., Xia, W., Ikram, M., Shoaib, H. M., & Shahzad, U. (2021). Does eeconomic complexity matter for environmental sustainability? Using ecological footprint as an indicator. Environment Development and Sustainability, 1-18.
• Rapport, D. J. (2000). Ecological footprints and ecosystem health: complementary approaches to a sustainable future. Ecological Economics, 32, 367-370.
• Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shadzad, F. ve Shadzad, K. (2020). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the united states: new insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279(2021), 123806.
• Soyyiğit, S. (2019). Sektörel katma değer ve yapısal dönüşüm ilişkisi: cee ülkeleri ve türkiye analizi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 377-393.
• Solarin, S. A. ve Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 89, 35-44.
• Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in co2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: evidence from oecd countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 6167-6181.
• Şeker, A. ve Şimdi, H., (2019). The relationship between economic complexity index and export: the case of turkey and central asian and turkic republics. Economy of Region, 15(3), 659-669.
• Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi. Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K. ve Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175.
• Ulucak, R. ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of ekc model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188(7), 144-157.
• UNDP (2021). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İçin Küresel Amaçlar. https://www.kureselamaclar.org/adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Yılancı, 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, 32683-32694.
• Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X. ve Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the; environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: a spatial econometric approach. Ecological Indicator, 34, 15-21.
• Wang, Q., Yang, T. Ve Rongrong, L. (2023). Economic complexity and ecological footprint: The role of energy structure, industrial structure, and labor force. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412(137389), 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137389.
• WWF (2012). Türkiye'nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Repo rt_Turkish.pdf/ adresinden 19.09.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.