The Nexus between Economic Complexity, Human Development and Environmental Degradation in Türkiye: New Evidence from the QARDL Approach

Öz

As a result of the search for innovative solutions to climate change problems, the dynamics of environmental degradation are frequently discussed in their different dimensions. In this context, the study investigates the dynamic nexus between economic complexity, human development, energy intensity, and environmental degradation in Türkiye in the period 1998Q1-2020Q4. The relationship between variables is analyzed with the quantile autoregressive distributed lag (QARDL) approach, which takes into account asymmetries and short and long run dynamics at different quantiles. Empirical findings indicate that economic complexity, human development, and energy intensity (at lower quantiles) significantly increase environmental degradation in the long run in Türkiye. In the short run, economic complexity increases environmental degradation, but its effect decreases compared to the long run; human development reduces environmental degradation in the short run, unlike in the long run; and energy intensity does not have a significant effect on environmental degradation. These findings indicate that a complex production structure may increase the country's energy demand, causing more consumption of fossil fuels and ultimately increasing emissions. In addition, it can be said that human development focuses on goals such as increasing the level of education, health, and welfare rather than environmental improvement in the early stages of development. In this context, it is thought that a transformation in the energy mix, ensuring energy efficiency, and improving the economic and social goals of development are necessary in order to achieve sustainable development goals and to provide more support to global environmental improvement efforts in the country.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Complexity
• Human Development
• Environmental Degradation
• QARDL.

Türkiye’de Ekonomik Karmaşıklık, İnsani Gelişme ve Çevresel Bozulma Arasındaki Bağlantı: QARDL Yaklaşımından Yeni Kanıtlar

Öz

İklim değişikliği sorunlarına yenilikçi çözüm arayışlarının bir sonucu olarak çevresel bozulmanın dinamikleri farklı boyutlarıyla sıklıkla tartışılmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada, 1998Q1-2020Q4 döneminde Türkiye’de ekonomik karmaşıklık, insani gelişme, enerji yoğunluğu ve çevresel bozulma arasındaki dinamik bağlantı araştırılmaktadır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişki, asimetrileri ve farklı kantillerdeki kısa ve uzun vadeli dinamikleri dikkate alan kantil otoregresif dağıtılmış gecikme (QARDL) yaklaşımıyla analiz edilmektedir. Ampirik bulgular; Türkiye’de ekonomik karmaşıklık, insani gelişme ve enerji yoğunluğunun (daha düşük kantillerde) uzun dönemde çevresel bozulmayı önemli ölçüde arttırdığına işaret etmektedir. Kısa dönemde ise, ekonomik karmaşıklık çevresel bozulmayı arttırmakta ancak uzun döneme kıyasla etkisi azalmakta, insani gelişme uzun dönemin aksine kısa dönemde çevresel bozulmayı azaltmakta, enerji yoğunluğu ise çevresel bozulma üzerinde anlamlı bir etki yaratmamaktadır. Bu bulgular, karmaşık bir üretim yapısının ülkenin enerji talebini artırarak fosil yakıtların daha fazla tüketilmesine ve sonuçta emisyonların artırmasına neden olabileceğine işaret etmektedir. Ayrıca insani gelişmenin kalkınmanın ilk aşamalarında çevresel iyileşmeden ziyade eğitim, sağlık ve refah düzeyinin arttırılması gibi hedeflere odaklandığı söylenebilir. Bu kapsamda ülkede sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine ulaşabilmek ve küresel çevresel iyileşme çabalarına daha fazla destek verebilmek için enerji bileşiminde bir dönüşüm, enerji verimliliğinin sağlanması ve kalkınmanın ekonomik ve sosyal hedeflerinin iyileştirilmesi gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Karmaşıklık
• İnsani Gelişme
• Çevresel Bozulma
• QARDL.

Kaynakça

1. Abid, A., Mehmood, U., Tariq, S. ve Haq, Z. U. (2022). The effect of technological innovation, fdi, and financial development on co2 emission: Evidence from the G8 Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15993-x
2. Akbar, M., Hussain, A., Akbar, A. ve Ullah, I. (2021). The dynamic association between healthcare spending, co2 emissions, and human development index in OECD Countries: Evidence from Panel VAR Model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 10470-10489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01066-5
3. Albiman, M. M., Suleiman, N. N. ve Baka, H. O. (2015). The relationship between energy consumption, co2 emissions and economic growth in Tanzania. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 9(3), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-05-2014-0006
4. Amuakwa-Mensah, F. ve Adom, P. K. (2017). Quality of institution and the FEG (forest, energy intensity, and globalization)-environment relationships in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 17455-17473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9300-2
5. Appiah, K., Du, J., Yeboah, M. ve Appiah, R. (2019). Causal relationship between industrialization, energy intensity, economic growth and carbondioxide emissions: Recent evidence from Uganda. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.7420
6. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., dos Santos Parente, C. C., Leitão, N. C. ve Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2023). The influence of economic complexity processes and renewable energy on CO2 emissions of BRICS. What about Industry 4.0?. Resources Policy, 82, 103547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103547
7. Behera, S. R. ve Dash, D. P. (2017). The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbondioxide emission in the SSEA (South and Southeast Asian) Region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.201
8. Boonyasana, P. ve Chinnakum, W. (2020). Linkages among tourism demand, human development, and CO2 emissions in Thailand. Abac Journal, 40(3), 78-98.

9. British Petroleum. (BP) (2023). Statistical Review of World Energy. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
10. Caglar, A. E., Zafar, M. W., Bekun, F. V. ve Mert, M. (2022). Determinants of CO2 emissions in the BRICS economies: The role of partnerships investment in energy and economic complexity. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101907
11. Chen, Y. ve Lee, C. C. (2020). Does technological innovation reduce co2 emissions? cross-country evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121550
12. Cho, J. S., Kim, T. H. ve Shin, Y. (2015). Quantile cointegration in the autoregressive distributed-lag modeling framework. Journal of Econometrics, 188(1), 281-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.05.003
13. Costa, L., Rybski, D. ve Kropp, J. P. (2011). A human development framework for co2 reductions. PloSOne, 6(12), e29262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029262
14. Çetintaş, H., Bicil, İ. M. ve Türköz, K. (2016). Türkiye’de CO2 salınımları, enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (619), 57-67. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/fpeyd/issue/48025/607346
15. Danish, Ulucak, R. ve Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Relationship between energy intensity and CO2 emissions: does economic policy matter?. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1457-1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2098
16. Dogan, 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(31), 31900-31912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06333-1
17. Dumor, K., Li, Y., Amouzou, E. K., Ampaw, E. M., Kursah, M. B. ve Akakpo, K. (2022). Modeling the dynamic nexus among CO2 emissions, fossil energy usage, and human development in East Africa: New Insight from the Novel DARDL Simulation Embeddedness. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56265-56280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19546-8
18. Ehigiamusoe, K. U. ve Lean, H. H. (2019). Effects of energy consumption, economic growth, and financial development on carbon emissions: evidence from heterogeneous income groups. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 22611-22624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05309-5
19. Enerdata (2024). World Energy&Climate Statistics-Yearbook 2023. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-intensity-gdp-data.html
20. Felipe, J., Kumar, U., Abdon, A. ve Bacate, M. (2012). Product complexity and economic development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(1), 36-68. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2011.08.003
21. Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Ali, M. I., Ozturk, I. ve Usman, R. (2021). The role of financial development, R&D expenditure, globalization and institutional quality in energy consumption in India: New evidence from the QARDL approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 285, 112208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112208
22. Haliru, B. (2023). Effect of energy intensity and CO2 emissions on sustainable development in Nigeria. Available at SSRN 4479039. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4479039
23. He, K., Ramzan, M., Awosusi, A. A., Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M. ve Altuntaş, M. (2021). Does globalization moderate the effect of economic complexity on CO2 emissions? Evidence from the top 10 energy transition economies. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 778088. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.778088
24. Hidalgo, 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
25. Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabási, A. L. ve Hausmann, R. (2007). The product space conditions the development of nations. Science, 317(5837), 482-487. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144581
26. Hossain, M. A. ve Chen, S. (2021). Nexus between human development index (HDI) and CO2 emissions in a developing country: Decoupling study evidence from Bangladesh. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 58742-58754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14822-5
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460
28. Islam, M. S. ve Rahaman, S. H. (2023). The asymmetric effect of ict on co2 emissions in the context of an EKC framework in GCC countries: the role of energy consumption, energy intensity, trade, and financial development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(31), 77729-77741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27590-1
29. Le, H. P. ve Ozturk, I. (2020). The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(18), 22680-22697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08812-2
30. Leitão, N. C. (2024). The link between Human Development, Foreign Direct Investment, Renewable Energy, and Carbondioxide Emissions in G7 Economies. Energies, 17(5), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17050978
31. Leitão, N. C., Balsalobre-Lorente, D. ve Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2021). The impact of renewable energy and economic complexity on carbon emissions in BRICS Countries under the EKC Scheme. Energies, 14(16), 4908. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164908
32. Liu, S., Li, C., Aziz, N. ve Raza, A. (2023). Dynamic nexus between transportation, economic growth and environmental degradation in China: Fresh insights from the QARDL approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2149590
33. Mahmood, T. ve Ahmad, E. (2018). The relationship of energy intensity with economic growth: Evidence for European economies. Energy Strategy Reviews, 20, 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.02.002
34. Manga, M. ve Akar, P. G. (2020). Ekonomik büyüme, karbon emisyonu ve insani gelişmişlik arasındaki ilişki: Seçilmiş Akdeniz Ülkeleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.555415
35. Minh, N. H. ve Ly, D. K. (2023). Impact of human development on CO2 emissions in Vietnam. Hue University Journal of Science: Economics and Development, 132(5B), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijed.v132i5B.7130
36. Namahoro, J. P., Wu, Q., Zhou, N. ve Xue, S. (2021). Impact of energy intensity, renewable energy, and economic growth on CO2 emissions: Evidence from Africa across regions and income levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 147, 111233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111233
37. 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(17), 4753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174753
38. Neagu, O. Ve Teodoru, M. C. (2019). The relationship between economic complexity, energy consumption structure and greenhouse gas emission: Heterogeneous panel evidence from the EU countries. Sustainability, 11(2), 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020497
39. OECD (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en
40. Opoku, E. E. O., Dogah, K. E. ve Aluko, O. A. (2022). The contribution of human development towards environmental sustainability. Energy Economics, 106, 105782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105782
41. Osobajo, O. A., Otitoju, A., Otitoju, M. A. ve Oke, A. (2020). The impact of energy consumption and economic growth on carbondioxide emissions. Sustainability, 12(19), 7965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197965
42. Our World in Data (2024) Human Development Index. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=table&time=2020..latest
43. 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
44. Pervaiz, R., Faisal, F., Rahman, S. U., Chander, R. ve Ali, A. (2021). Do health expenditure and human development index matter in the carbon emission function for ensuring sustainable development? Evidence from the heterogeneous panel. Air Quality, Atmosphere&Health, 14(11), 1773-1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01052-4
45. Rahman, M. M., Sultana, N. ve Velayutham, E. (2022). Renewable energy, energy intensity and carbon reduction: Experience of large emerging economies. Renewable Energy, 184, 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.068
46. Romero, J. P. ve Gramkow, C. (2021). Economic complexity and greenhousegas emissions. World Development, 139, 105317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105317
47. Salari, M., Javid, R. J. ve Noghanibehambari, H. (2021). The nexus between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in the US. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.007
48. Sezgin, F. H., Bayar, Y., Herta, L. ve Gavriletea, M. D. (2021). Do environmental stringency policies and human development reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from G7 and BRICS Economies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136727
49. Shah, M. H., De Chun, H., Wang, Y., Ullah, I., Hassan, S. T. ve Fareed, Z. (2023). Analyzing nexus between economic complexity, renewable energy, and environmental quality in Japan: A new evidence from QARDL approach. International Journal of Energy Research. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1683231
50. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K. ve Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.009
51. Shahbaz, M., Jam, F. A., Bibi, S. ve Loganathan, N. (2015). Multivariate granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy intensity and economic growth in Portugal: evidence from cointegration and causality analysis. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(1), 47-74. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.989932
52. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F. ve Shahzad, K. (2021). 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, 123806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123806
53. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
54. Taghvaee, V.M., Nodehi, M. ve Saboori, B. (2022). Economic complexity and CO2 emissions in OECD Countries: Sector-wise Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 80860–80870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21491-5
55. Teng, J. Z., Khan, M. K., Khan, M. I., Chishti, M. Z. ve Khan, M. O. (2021). Effect of foreign direct investment on CO2 emission with the role of globalization, institutional quality with pooled mean group panel ARDL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 5271-5282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10823-y
56. The Observatory of Economic Complexity (2024). Complexity rankings. https://oec.world/en/rankings/eci/hs6/hs96?tab=ranking
57. Tran, N. V, Tran, Q. V., Do, L. T. T., Dinh, L. H. ve Do, H. T. T. (2019). Trade off between environment, energy consumption and human development: Do levels of economic development matter?. Energy, 173, 483-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.042
58. United Nations Development Programme. (2024) Human Development Reports. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
59. Vitenu-Sackey, P. A. ve Acheampong, T. (2022). Impact of economic policy uncertainty, energy intensity, technological innovation and R&D on CO2 emissions: Evidence from a panel of 18 developed economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(58), 87426-87445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21729-2
60. Wang, L., Vo, X. V., Shahbaz, M. ve Ak, A. (2020). Globalization and carbon emissions: Is there any role of agriculture value-added, financial development, and natural resource rent in the aftermath of COP21?. Journal of Environmental Management, 268, 110712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110712
61. Wang, Q., Zhang, F. ve Li, R. (2023). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in 208 countries: The roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environmental Research, 216, 114637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114637
62. Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P. ve Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4870-4875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.032
63. Wang, Z., Rasool, Y., Asghar, M. M. ve Wang, B. (2019). Dynamic linkages among CO2 emissions, human development, financial development, and globalization: Empirical evidence based on PMG Long-run Panel Estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 36248-36263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06556-2
64. World Bank (2024a). Databank. Metadata Glossary. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/sustainable-energy-for-all/series/6.1_PRIMARY.ENERGY.INTENSITY
65. World Bank (2024b). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
66. Yang, Z., Cai, J., Lu, Y. ve Zhang, B. (2022). The impact of economic growth, industrial transition, and energy intensity on carbondioxide emissions in China. Sustainability, 14(9), 4884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094884
67. Zaidi, S. A. H., Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M. veHou, F. (2019). Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 533-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.210
68. Zhang, X., Shi, X., Khan, Y., Khan, M., Naz, S., Hassan, T., ve Rahman, T. (2023). The impact of energy intensity, energy productivity and natural resource rents on carbon emissions in Morocco. Sustainability, 15(8), 6720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086720
69. Zhang, Y. ve Wu, Z. (2022). Environmental performance and human development for sustainability: Towards to a new environmental human index. Science of the Total Environment, 838, 156491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156491
70. Zulham, T., Dawood, T. C., Farlian, T., Saputra, J., Juliansyah, R. ve Hadi, F. (2021). The nexus of human development index, economic and population growth on environmental degradation in Aceh Province, Indonesia. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 17(1), 314-320. DOI: 10.37394/232015.2021.17.31