EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLE OECD ÜLKELERİNE YÖNELİK ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 307 - 333, 31.12.2024

Fatih Akın , Ali Şen

https://doi.org/10.54282/inijoss.1514029

Öz

Son zamanlarda ulusların başlıca endişelerinden biri küresel ısınma, özellikle de küresel ısınmanın gezegen üzerindeki zararlı etkileri ve yaşam standartları üzerindeki dolaylı etkileri olmuştur. Sanayi devriminin başlaması, dünya ölçeğinde büyük bir sosyal ve ekonomik dönüşümü beraberinde getirmiş ve bu dönüşüm çevre üzerinde de etkili olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, 1980-2014 dönemi için 29 OECD ülkesinde ekonomik büyüme, finansal gelişme, enerji tüketimi ve çevresel kirlilik göstergesi olarak kullanılan Ekolojik Ayak İzi ile Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezinin geçerli olup olmadığı panel veri yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada, değişkenler ve panelin geneli için yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenlik olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu durumda ikinci kuşak testlerin kullanılması gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Yatay kesit bağımlılığı içeren ve heterojen olduğu tespit edilen modelin durağanlık analizi için Reese & Westerlund tarafından ortaya konulan ikinci kuşak testlerinden PANICCA panel birim kök testi kullanılmıştır. Uzun dönemde değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme olup olmadığını belirlemek için GUW testi kullanılmıştır. Eşbütünleşme varlığından sonra CCE ve AMG parametre tahmincileri kullanılarak katsayıların anlamlı olup olmadığına bakılmıştır. Elde edilen CCE ve AMG tahminci sonuçlarına göre; ÇKE hipotezinin, tüm panel için geçerli olmadığı, ancak tek tek ülkelere bakıldığında ise Lüksemburg ve Yunanistan’da geçerli olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, 29 OECD ülkesinin çoğunda ekolojik ayak izi, artan enerji kullanımı ve finansal gelişmenin bir sonucu olarak arttığı bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ekonomik büyüme, Panel veri analizi, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, Ekolojik ayak izi, OECD

INVESTIGATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE FOR OECD COUNTRIES WITH ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Öz

One of the main concerns of nations in recent times has been global warming, particularly its detrimental effects on the planet and its indirect effects on living standards. The onset of the industrial revolution has brought about a major social and economic transformation on a global scale and this transformation has also had an impact on the environment. In this study, the Ecological Footprint, which is used as an indicator of economic growth, financial development, energy consumption and environmental pollution in 29 OECD countries for the period 1980-2014, and the validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis are analyzed using panel data method. In the study, it was determined that there was cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity for the variables and the panel as a whole. In this case, it is concluded that second-generation tests should be used. PANICCA panel unit root test, one of the second-generation tests proposed by Reese & Westerlund, was used for the stationarity analysis of the model, which was found to be heterogeneous and contain cross-section dependence. The GUW test was used to determine whether there is cointegration between the variables in the long run. After the existence of cointegration, CCE and AMG parameter estimators are used to check whether the coefficients are significant. According to the CCE and AMG estimator results obtained; it was determined that the EKC hypothesis was not valid for the entire panel, but when looking at individual countries, it was valid in Luxembourg and Greece. Moreover, in most of the 29 OECD countries, the ecological footprint is found to increase as a result of increased energy use and financial development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Economic growth, Panel data analysis, Environmental Kuznets Curve, Ecological footprint, OECD.

Kaynakça

• Acar, S. & Aşıcı, A. A. (2015). Does Income Growth Relocate Ecological Footprint?. (No. 938), 1-20. Dokki, Giza. https://erf.org.eg/app/uploads/2015/12/938.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2021).
• Agras, J. & Chapman D. (1999). A Dynamic Approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28, 267-277.
• Al-mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L. & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis By Utilizing the Ecological Footprint As An Indicator of Environmental Degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48(3), 15-23.
• Al-mulali, U., Solarin, S. A., Sheau-Ting, L. & Ozturk, I. (2016). Does Moving Towards Renewable Energy Causes Water and Land İnefficiency? An Empirical İnvestigation. Energy Policy, 93, 303-314.
• Arı, A. & Zeren, F. (2011). CO2 Emisyonu ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Veri Analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 18(2), 37-47.
• Aşıcı, A. A. & Acar, S. (2016). Does Income Growth Relocate Ecological Footprint?. Ecolojical Indicators, 61, 707-714.
• Aşıcı, A. A. & Acar, S. (2018). How Does Environmental Regulation Affect Production Location of Non-Carbon Ecological Footprint? Journal of Clean Production, 178, 927-936.
• Aydin, C., Esen, O. & Aydin, R. (2019). Is the Ecological Footprint Related to The Kuznets Curve A Real Process or Rationalizing The Ecological Consequences of The Affluence? Evidence From PSTR Approach. Ecological Indicators, 98, 543-555.
• Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177.
• Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2010). Panel Unit Root Tests With Cross-Section Dependence: A Further İnvestigation. Econometric Theory, 26(4), 1088-1114.
• Bagliani, M., Bravo, G. & Dalmazzone, S. (2008). A Consumption-Based Approach to Environmental Kuznets Curves Using The Ecological Footprint İndicator. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650-661.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. (Third Edition), John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York.
• Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Onifade, S. T. & Agboola, M. O. (2021). Beyond the Environmental Kuznets Curve İn E7 Economies: Accounting For The Combined Impacts of Institutional Quality and Renewables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127924.
• Bölük, G. & Mert, M. (2014). Fossil & Renewable Energy Consumption, GHGs (greenhouse gases) and Economic Growth: Evidence From a Panel of EU (European Union) Countries. Energy, 74(C), 439-446.
• Breusch, T. S. & 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.
• Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D. & Kahn, J. R. (2009). Taking the "U" Out of Kuznets: A Comprehensive Analysis of The EKC and Environmental Degradation. Ecological Economics, 68, 1149-1159.
• Cho, C. H., Chu, Y. P. & Yang, H. Y. (2014). An Environment Kuznets Curve for GHG Emissions: A Panel Cointegration Analysis. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(2), 120-129.
• Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, The Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the Linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
• Cranston, G. (2010). Carbon and Ecological Footprints For The 21st Century.
• 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.
• Destek, M. A. & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: The Role of Energy and Financial Development. Science of The Total Environment, 650, 2483-2489.
• Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics, 49, 431-455.
• Eberhardt, M. & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-Sectional Dependence in Non-Stationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator. MPRA Paper No. 17870.
• Fang, Z., Huang, B. & Yang, Z. (2018). Trade Openness and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from Chinese Cities. ADBI Working Paper, 1-29.
• Frodyma, K., Papie, M. & Smiech, S. (2022). Revisiting The Environmental Kuznets Curve in The European Union Countries. Energy, 241, 122899.
• Gengenbach, C., Urbain, J-P. & Westerlund, J. (2016). Error Correction Testing in Panels with Common Stochastic Trends. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 982-1004.
• Global Footprint Network. (2021). Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity (gha per person). https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/(Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2021)
• Grossman, G. & Kreuger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914, Erişim Tarihi: 24.05.2021. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3914.pdf.
• Grossman, G. & Kreuger, A. (1995). Economic Growth and The Environment. The Quarterly of Journal Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
• Hasan, M. B., Wieloch, J., Ali, M. A., Zikovic, S. & Uddin, G. S. (2023). A New Answer to the Old Question of The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). Does it Work for BRICS Countries?. Resources Policy, 87B, 104332.
• Hervieux, M. S. & Darne, O. (2015). Environmental Kuznets Curve and Ecological Footprint: A Time Series Analysis. Economics Bulletin, 35, 814-826.
• Holtz-Eakin, D. & Selden, T. M. (1995). Stoking the Fires? CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 85-101.
• International Monetary Fund. (2024). Financial Devolopment Index. https://data.imf.org/(Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2021)
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.
• Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., Ng, C. F., Liew, F. M. & Ching, S. L. (2018). Is Nuclear Energy Clean? Revisit of Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in OECD Countries. Economic Modelling, 9, 1-9.
• 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.
• Munasinghe, M. (1999). Is Environmental Degradation an Inevitable Consequence of Economic Growth: Tunneling Through the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 89-109.
• Nişancı, M., Aydemir, A. F. & Emsen, Ö. S. (2017). Kuznets Eğrisi ile Ekonomik ve Siyasal Liberalizasyon Uygulamaları Arasındaki İlişkiler. The Relationships between Economic and Political Liberalization and the Kuznets Curve, International Congerence On Eurasian Economies 2017, 147-154.
• Omojolaibi, J. & Nathaniel, S. (2020). Assessing the Potency of Environmental Regulation in Maintaining Environmental Sustainability in MENA Countries: An Advanced Panel Data Estimation. Journal of Public Affairs, e2526, 1-10.
• Ozturk, I., Al-mulali, U. & Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Tourism and Ecological Footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 1916-1928.
• Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development. ILO Technology and Empoloyment Programme Working Paper, WP238.
• Panayotou, T. (2000). Economic Growth and the Environment. CID Working Papers 56, Center for International Development at Harvard University, 1-114.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests For Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cesifo Working Paper Series, 1229, Cambridge.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation And Inference in Large Heteregenous Panels With A Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
• 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.
• Pesaran, M. H. & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal Of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test Of Error Cross-Section Independence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127.
• Pesaran, M. H., Smith, L. V. & Yamagata, T. (2013). Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of A Multifactor Error Structure. Journal of Econometrics, 175, 94-115.
• Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out. Environment and Urbanization, 4, 121-130.
• Rees, W. E. (1997). Is 'Sustainable City' an Oxymoron?. Local Environment, 2(3), 303-310.
• Reese, S. & Westerlund, J. (2016). Panicca: Panic on Cross‐Section Averages. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 961-981.
• Richmond, A. K. & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is There a Turning Point in the Relationship Between Income and Energy Use and/or Carbon Emissions?. Ecological Economics, 56, 176-189.
• Roberts, J. T. & Grimes, P. E. (1997). Carbon Intensity and Economic Development 1962-1991: A Brief Exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 25(2), 191-198.
• Sapkota, P. & Bastola, U. (2017). Foreign Direct Investment, Income, and Environmental Pollution in Developing Countries: Panel Data Analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics, 64, 206-212.
• Sarafidis, V. & Wansbeek, T. (2012). Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis. Econometric Reviews, 31(5), 483-531.
• Sarkodie, S. A. & Strezov, V. (2018). Empirical Study of the Environmental Kuznets Curve and Environmental Sustainability Curve Hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana And USA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 98-110.
• Sarkodie, S. A. & Ozturk, I. (2020). Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Kenya: A Multivariate Analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 117, 109481.
• Selden, T. M. & Song, D. (1994). Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162.
• Simmons, C. & Chambers, N. (1998). Footprinting UK Households: How Big is Your Ecological Garden?. Local Environment, 3(3), 355-362.
• Simmons, C., Lewis, K. & Barrett, J. (2000).Two Feet- Two Approaches: A Component-Based Model of Ecological Footprinting. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 375-380.
• Shafik, N. & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Time Series and Cross-Country Evidence. Background Paper for World Development Report 1992, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
• Stern, D. I. & Common, M. S. (2001). Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulfur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Environmental Management, 41, 162-178.
• Nazlıoğlu, Ş. (2010). Makro İktisat Politikalarının Tarım Sektörü Üzerindeki Etkileri: Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler İçin Bir Karşılaştırma, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kayseri.
• Tamazian, A. & Rao, B. B. (2010). Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence From Transitional Economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145.
• Tatoğlu, F. (2020). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi, (3. baskı), Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• Torras, M. & Boyce, J. K. (1998). Income, Inequality, and Pollution: A Reassessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecolojical Economics, 25(2), 147-160.
• Tosunoğlu, B. T. (2014). Sürdürülebilir Küresel Refah Göstergesi Olarak Ekolojik Ayak İzi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 154-171.
• Ulucak, R. & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC Model By Ecological Footprint Measurement for High, Middle- and Low-Income Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157.
• Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.
• Wang, K. M. (2012). Modelling the Nonlinear Relationship Between CO2 Emissions From Oil and Economic Growth. Economic Modelling, 29, 1537-1547.
• Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X. & Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint at the Global Level: A Spatial Econometric Approach. Ecological Indicators, 34, 15-21.
• Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. (2007). On the Conversion Between Local and Global Hectares in Ecological Footprint Analysis. Ecological Economics, 60, 673-677.
• World Bank. (2021). GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2021)
• World Bank. (2021). Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2021)
• WWF. (2012). Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu, Ofset Yapımevi. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/ (Erişim Tarihi: 21.10.2021)
• Xu, P., Hussain, M., Ye, C., Wang, J., Wang, C., Geng, J., Yiding, L. & Jingwei, C.(2022). Natural Resources, Economic Policies, Energy Structure, and Ecological Footprints’ Nexus in Emerging Seven Countries. Resources Policy, 77, 102747.
• Yandle, B., Vıjayaraghavan, M. & Bhattaraı, M. (2002). The Environmental Kuznets Curve. PERC Research Study, 02-1, 1-24.
• Yılancı, V. & Pata, U. K. (2020). Convergence of Per Capita Ecological Footprint Among the ASEAN-5 Countries: Evidence from A Non-Linear Panel Unit Root Test. Ecological Indicators, 113, 106178.