POLLUTION HALO HYPOTHESIS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION, AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT NEXUS IN TURKEY: EVIDENCE FROM KRLS

Öz

The environmental degradation process has accelerated globally with the industrial revolution and the developments that threatened environmental sustainability afterwards. The fact that the environmental degradation process is felt worldwide, especially with global warming and climate change, has increased the number of studies on the determinants of environmental degradation. In this study, the impact of foreign direct investments, economic growth, and economic globalization on the environment and the validity of the pollution halo hypothesis are investigated for Turkey. For this purpose, analyses are carried out with the KRLS approach, which is a machine learning method, using annual data between 1970 and 2018. As a result of the analyses, it has been determined that (i) foreign direct investments have a negative (positive) impact on the ecological footprint (environmental quality) and therefore the pollution halo hypothesis is valid; (ii) economic growth has a positive (negative) impact on the ecological footprint (environmental quality); and (iii) economic globalization has a negative (positive) impact on the ecological footprint (environmental quality). Based on these results, we recommend policymakers to develop policies that can attract more foreign direct investments to Turkey and provide economic globalization, as both have positive effects on the environment, and follow more environmentally friendly policies in the process of increasing economic growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pollution Halo Hypothesis
• Foreign Direct Investments
• Economic Growth
• Economic Globalization
• Ecological Footprint
• Nonlinear ARDL

TÜRKİYE’DE KİRLİLİK HALE HİPOTEZİ VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME, EKONOMİK KÜRESELLEŞME VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ BAĞLANTISI: KRLS’DEN KANITLAR

Öz

Sanayi Devrimi ile başlayan süreç ve sonrasında çevresel sürdürülebilirliği tehdit eden gelişmeler ile beraber küresel olarak çevresel bozulma süreci hızlanmıştır. Çevresel bozulma sürecinin özellikle küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği ile beraber dünya çapında etkilerini hissettirmesi, çevresel bozulmanın belirleyicilerine yönelik araştırmaların sayısının artmasını sağlamıştır. Bu çalışmada, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, ekonomik büyüme ve ekonomik küreselleşmenin çevreye etkisi ve kirlilik hale hipotezinin geçerliliği Türkiye için araştırılmıştır. Bu amaç için, 1970-2018 arasındaki yıllık veriler kullanılarak bir makine öğrenme yöntemi olan KRLS yaklaşımı ile analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda (i) doğrudan yabancı yatırımların ekolojik ayak izi (çevre kalitesi) üzerinde negatif (pozitif) etkisinin olduğu ve dolayısıyla kirlilik hale hipotezinin geçerli olduğu; (ii) ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izi (çevre kalitesi) üzerinde pozitif (negatif) etkisinin olduğu; (iii) ekonomik küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi (çevre kalitesi) üzerinde negatif (pozitif) etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda politika yapıcılara, çevreye olumlu etkileri olduğundan dolayı daha fazla doğrudan yabancı yatırımları Türkiye’ye çekebilecek ve ekonomik küreselleşme sağlayabilecek politikalar geliştirmeleri ve ekonomik büyüme artırılması süreçlerinde daha çevreci politikalar izlemeleri önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kirlilik Hale Hipotezi
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekonomik Küreselleşme
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Doğrusal Olmayan ARDL

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., Rahman, Z. U., & Khan, S. (2018). Does financial development asymmetrically affect CO2 emissions in China? An application of the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) model. Carbon Management, 9(6), 631-644.
2. Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G. & Wu, Y. (2021). Heterogeneity of pollution haven/halo hypothesis and Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis across development levels of Chinese provinces, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 285, 124898, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124898.
3. Ahmed, Z., Zhang, B. & Cary, M. (2021). Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL, Ecological Indicators, Volume 121, 107060, ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107060
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. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 23010–23026 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05446-x
5. Bildirici, M. E., & Kayıkçı, F. (2013). Effects of oil production on economic growth in Eurasian countries: Panel ARDL approach, Energy, 49, 156-161.
6. Chowdhury, M.A.F., Shanto, P.A., Ahmed, A. & Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? New evidence from the panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 14372–14385 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11518-0
7. Çağlayan-Akay, E., Oskonbaeva, Z. (2022). A Nonlinear Panel ARDL Analysis of Pollution Haven/Halo Hypothesis. In: Terzioğlu, M.K. (eds) Advances in Econometrics, Operational Research, Data Science and Actuarial Studies. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85254-2_11
8. Çıtak, F., Uslu, H., Batmaz, O., & Hoş, S. (2021). Do renewable energy and natural gas consumption mitigate CO2 emissions in the USA? New insights from NARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 63739-63750.

9. Destek, M.A. (2020). Investigation on the role of economic, social, and political globalization on environment: evidence from CEECs. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 33601–33614 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04698-x
10. Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29387-29396.
11. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431.
12. Doytch, N. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecological footprints of nations, Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, Volume 8, 100085, ISSN 2665-9727, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100085.
13. Doytch, N. & Uctum, M. (2016) Globalization and the environmental impact of sectoral FDI, Economic Systems, Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 582-594, ISSN 0939-3625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.02.005.
14. Farooq, F., Chaudhry, I. S., Yusop, Z. & Habibullah, M. S. (2020). How do globalization and foreign direct investment affect environmental quality in OIC member countries?, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 551-568
15. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J-E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index – Revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543-574.
16. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Educational International.
17. Islam, M.M., Khan, M.K., Tareque, M. et al. (2021). Impact of globalization, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: Does institutional quality matter?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 48851–48871 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13441-4
18. Kallner, A. (2018). Laboratory Statistics (2nd ed.). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-00959-X.
19. Karaduman, C. The effects of economic globalization and productivity on environmental quality: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 639–652 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15717-1
20. Khan, A., Ahmed, M., & Bibi, S. (2019). Financial development and economic growth nexus for Pakistan: a revisit using maximum entropy bootstrap approach. Empirical Economics, 57, 1157-1169.
21. Kim, M. H. & Adilov, N. (2012). The lesser of two evils: an empirical investigation of foreign direct investment-pollution tradeoff, Applied Economics, 44:20, 2597-2606, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.566187
22. Kisswani, K. M. & Zaitouni, M. (2021). Does FDI affect environmental degradation? Examining pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses using ARDL modelling, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, DOI: 10.1080/13547860.2021.1949086
23. Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., Yousaf, H. M. A. U., & Liu, Y. (2020). The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: a case study of ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19251-19264.
24. Li, Z.; Dong, H.; Huang, Z.; & Failler, P. (2019). Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Environmental Performance. Sustainability, 11, 3538.
25. Ling, G., Razzaq, A., Guo, Y., Fatima, T., & Shahzad, F. (2022). Asymmetric and time-varying linkages between carbon emissions, globalization, natural resources and financial development in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 6702-6730.
26. Liu, Q., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Zhan, D. & Li, J. (2018). Does foreign direct investment affect environmental pollution in China's cities? A spatial econometric perspective, Science of The Total Environment, Volumes 613–614, Pages 521-529, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.110.
27. Mert, M., & Caglar, A. E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: a new perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32933-32943.
28. Mishra, A. K., & Dash, A. K. (2022). Connecting the Carbon Ecological Footprint, Economic Globalization, Population Density, Financial Sector Development, and Economic Growth of Five South Asian Countries. Energy RESEARCH LETTERS, 3(2).
29. Muhammad, B., Khan, M.K., Khan, M.I. & Khan, S. (2021). Impact of foreign direct investment, natural resources, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on environmental degradation: evidence from BRICS, developing, developed and global countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 21789–21798 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12084-1
30. Olasehinde-Williams, G., & Oshodi, A. F. (2021). Global value chains and export growth in South Africa: evidence from dynamic ARDL simulations. Transnational Corporations Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2021.1959833.
31. Panayotou, T. (2000). Globalization and Environment, CID Working Paper Series, 2000.53, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, July 2000.
32. 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.
33. Phillips, P. C. B, & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
34. Shahzad, S. J. H., Nor, S. M., Ferrer, R., & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Asymmetric determinants of CDS spreads: U.S. industry-level evidence through the NARDL approach. Economic Modelling, 60, 211-230.
35. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Sickles, R., Horrace, W. (eds) Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications. Springer, New York, pp 281-314.
36. Teng, JZ., Khan, M.K., Khan, M.I., Chishti, M. Z. & 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. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 5271–5282 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10823-y
37. Toader, E., Firtescu, B. N., Roman, A., & Anton, S. G. (2018). Impact of Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure on Economic Growth: An Empirical Assessment for the EU Countries. Sustainability, 10(10), 3750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103750.
38. Ullah, A., Zhao, X., Kamal, M. A., & Zheng, J. (2020). Modeling the relationship between military spending and stock market development (a) symmetrically in China: An empirical analysis via the NARDL approach. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 554, 124106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.124106.