Evaluation of the Effects of the Applied Shocks on Environmental Pollution in Candidate Countries for European Union Membership

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 5, 2138 - 2159

Asiye Tütüncü , Aybala Demirci Aksoy

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1522596

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the permanent/temporary nature of the shocks experienced in the environmental pollution level of candidate countries for EU membership, such as Türkiye. Accordingly, 7 countries out of 9 candidate countries for which carbon dioxide emission and ecological footprint data for the period between 1993 and 2022 were available were taken into consideration. As of the present day, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, and Ukraine are the candidate countries for EU membership. Despite being candidate countries for EU membership, these countries include the economies that import the most waste from the EU and have high pollution rates in rivers, according to the data from the European Statistical Office. In this respect, it is important to determine the long-term movements of variables for countries to reduce environmental degradation and make effective policy decisions. The analyses using SURADF, CADF, and BCIPS panel unit root tests concluded that the variables generally had unit roots and the effects of the applied shocks on environmental pollution were permanent. Considering the individual results for CO2 emission and ecological footprint variables on the basis of candidate countries for European Union membership, it was determined that the effect of shocks in Moldova was temporary for both variables, whereas the effect of shocks was permanent in other countries. For the ecological footprint, the effects of shocks were temporary in Georgia and Moldova but permanent in the other countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CO2 Emission, Ecological Footprint, European Union Candidate Countries, Traditional Panel Unit Root Tests, Fourier Panel Root Test

Avrupa Birliği Üyeliğine Aday Olan Ülkelerin Çevre Kirliliğine Uygulanan Şokların Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye gibi AB üyeliğine aday konumunda olan ülkelerin çevresel kirlilik seviyesinde yaşanan şokların kalıcı/geçici olma durumunun incelenmesidir. Bu doğrultuda, 1993-2022 dönemi boyunca karbondioksit emisyonu ve ekolojik ayak izi verileri temin edilebilen 9 aday ülkeden 7 ülke dikkate alınmıştır. Günümüz itibariyle AB’ye aday ülke konumunda olan ülkeler, Arnavutluk, Bosna Hersek, Gürcistan, Moldova, Karadağ, Kuzey Makedonya, Sırbistan, Türkiye ve Ukrayna’dır. AB aday ülke konumunda olmalarına rağmen Avrupa İstatistik Ofisi verilerine göre, AB’den en çok atık ithal eden ve nehirlerde kirlilik oranı yüksek olan ekonomiler, bu ülkeler arasında bulunmaktadırlar. Bu bağlamda ülkelerin çevresel bozulmalarını azaltabilmesi ve etkin politika kararlarının alınabilmesinde değişkenlerin uzun dönemli hareketlerinin belirlenebilmesi önem arz etmektedir. SURADF, CADF ve BCIPS panel birim kök testlerinin kullanıldığı analizlerde, değişkenlerin genel olarak birim köke sahip olduğu, çevre kirliliğine uygulanan şokların etkisinin kalıcı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Avrupa Birliği üyeliğine aday olan ülkeler bazında CO2 emisyonu ve ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerine yönelik bireysel sonuçlar incelendiğinde ise, her iki değişken için Moldova’da şokların etkisi geçici iken, diğer ülkelerde şokların etkisinin kalıcı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ekolojik ayak izi için Moldova’nın yanı sıra Gürcistan’da da şokların etkisinin geçici, diğer ülkelerde kalıcı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CO2 Emisyonu, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Avrupa Birliğine Aday Ülkeler, Geleneksel Panel Birim Kök Testleri, Fourier Panel Kök Testi

Kaynakça

• Acaravcı, A. (2013). Yapısal Kırılmalar ve Karbon Emisyonu: Kıta Avrupa Ülkeleri İçin Ampirik Bir Uygulama. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-11.
• Aldy, J. E. (2006). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence? Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(4), 533-555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-6160-x.
• Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., ve Eren, A. A. (2023). Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: new insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 22100-22114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23763-6.
• Alper, A. E., ve Alper, F. Ö. (2021). Persistence of policy shocks to the ecological footprint of MINT countries. Ege Academic Review, 21(4), 427-440. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1015635.
• Altıntaş, H., ve Kassouri, Y. (2020). Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecological indicators, 113, 106187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106187.
• Bayraktar, Y., Koc, K., Toprak, M., Ozyılmaz, A., Olgun, M. F., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., ve Soylu, O. B. (2023). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among BRICS-T countries: evidence from Fourier unit root test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 63022-63035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356- 023-26532-1.
• Bello, M. O., Gil-Alana, L. A., ve Ch’ng, K. S. (2023). Mean reversion and convergence of ecological footprint in the MENA region: evidence from a fractional integration procedure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(12), 35384-35397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24678-y.
• Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., ve Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of environmental convergence: continental evidence based on ecological footprint. Energy and environmental strategies in the era of globalization, 133-165.
• Breuer, J. B., McNown, R., ve Wallace, M. S. (2001). Misleading inferences from panel unit‐root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Review of International Economics, 9(3), 482-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9396.00294.
• 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
• Caglar, A. E., ve Mert, M. (2022). Carbon hysteresis hypothesis as a new approach to emission behavior: a case of top five emitters. Gondwana Research, 109, 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.05.002
• Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., del Barrio-Castro, T., ve Lopez-Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the panels: an application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal, 159-175. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23113636
• Chang, Chun-Ping ve Lee, Chien-Chiang (2008). Are per capita carbon dioxide emissions converging among industrialized countries? New time series evidence with structural breaks. Environment and Development Economics, 13 (4), pp 497-515 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004361.
• Churchill, S. A., Inekwe, J., Ivanovski, K., ve Smyth, R. (2020). Stationarity properties of per capita CO2 emissions in the OECD in the very long-run: a replication and extension analysis. Energy Economics, 90, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104868.
• Çelik, O., Adali, Z., ve Bari, B. (2023). Does ecological footprint in ECCAS and ECOWAS converge? Empirical evidence from a panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 16253-16265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3.
• Dünya Bankası (2023). World Development Indicators.https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world- development-indicators#.
• Dürrü, Z. ve Konat, G. (2023). CIVETS ülkelerinde ekolojik dengenin stokastik yakınsaması: Fourier Kantil birim kök testi yaklaşımı. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(Özel Sayı), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1149267.
• Enders, W., ve Lee, J. (2012). A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2023). Climate Change. https://www.epa.gov/
• Eurostat (2023) Database, environment and energy. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/ database.
• European Commission. (2023). Türkiye 2023 Report: Accompanying the Document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy. https://neighbourhood- enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/SWD_2023_696%20T%C3%BCrkiye%20report.pdf.
• Erdoğmuş, M. (2023). Şoklar Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda’da Kişi Başı Ekolojik Dengeyi Kalıcı Olarak Etkiler mi? EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (39), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2023.39.1330203
• Erdogan, S., ve Okumus, I. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: an empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123
• Erdogan, S., ve Solarin, S. A. (2021). Stochastic convergence in carbon emissions based on a new Fourier- based wavelet unit root test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(17), 21887-21899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12033-y
• Global Footprint Network (2024). https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.112370956. 900793520.1721215731- 1537002386.1721215731#/
• Guloglu, B. ve Ivrendi, M. (2008) 'Output fluctuations: transitory or permanent? the case of Latin America', Applied Economics Letters, 17(4),381-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850701735880.
• Im, Kyung So, M. Hashem Pesaran, ve Yongcheol Shin (1997), “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels,” Manuscript, Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.
• Im, K. S., Lee, J., ve Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit‐root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 393-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2005.00125.x.
• Kaya, S. K., ve Göv, A. (2023). BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Örneğinde Ekolojik Ayak İzine Yönelik Çevresel Politika
• Şokları Kalıcı mı? Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.1192998 .
• Kardaşlar, A. (2022). Kişi Başına Düşen Karbondioksit Emisyonunun (CO2) Yakınsaması: Fourier Panel Durağanlık Testinden Bulgular. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 20(3), 239-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.11611/yead.1061857.
• Lee, C. C., ve Chang, C. P. (2008). New evidence on the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions from panel seemingly unrelated regressions augmented Dickey–Fuller tests. Energy, 33(9), 1468-1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.05.002.
• Lee, C. C., ve Chang, C. P. (2009). Stochastic convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions and multiple structural breaks in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 26(6), 1375-1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2009.07.003
• Lee, C., Wu, J. L., ve Yang, L. (2016). A Simple panel unit‐root test with smooth breaks in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), 365-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12109.
• Levin, A. ve Lin, C. F. (1992). `Unit Root Test in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties', University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper No. 92-93.
• Li, X. L., Tang, D. P., ve Chang, T. (2014). CO2 emissions converge in the 50 US states—sequential panel selection method. Economic Modelling, 40, 320-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.04.003.
• Lin, J.; Inglesi-Lotz, R. ve Chang, T. (2018) Revisiting CO2 emissions convergence in G18 countries, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 13(5), 269-280, https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2018.1460422.
• Maddala, G. S., ve Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
• Mert, M., Bölük, G., ve Çağlar, A. E. (2019). Interrelationships among foreign direct investments, renewable energy, and CO2 emissions for different European country groups: a panel ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 21495-21510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05415-4.
• Ozcan, B., ve Gultekın, E. (2016). Stochastic convergence in per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions: evidence from OECD countries. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 9(18), 113-134. https://doi.org/10.17015/ejbe.2016.018.07.
• Pata, U. K., ve Aydin, M. (2023). Persistence of CO2 emissions in G7 countries: a different outlook from wavelet-based linear and nonlinear unit root tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 15267-15281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23284-2.
• Pata, U. K., ve Yilanci, V. (2021). Investigating the persistence of shocks on the ecological balance: Evidence from G10 and N11 countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption.28: 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.027.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General, diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Discussion paper No1240. https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The econometrics journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x.
• Pesaran, M. H., Smith, L. V., ve Yamagata, T. (2013). Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics, 175(2), 94-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.02.001.
• Rees, W.E., 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment, 17(3), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02208489.
• Romero-Ávila, D. (2008). Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions among industrialised countries revisited. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2265-2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.06.003.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064.
• Solarin, Sakiru Adebol, Gil-Alana, Luis A. ve Lafuente, Carmen (2019) Persistence in carbon footprint emissions: an overview of 92 countries, Carbon Management, 10:4, 405-415, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1620038.
• Strazicich, M. C., ve List, J. A. (2003). Are CO 2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 263-271.
• Tatar, H. E. (2022).Asean-5 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yansıması: SURADF ve SURKSS Birim Kök Testi. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1018-1035. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1071194.
• Tiwari, A. K., Kyophilavong, P., ve Albulescu, C. T. (2016). Testing the stationarity of CO2 emissions series in Sub-Saharan African countries by incorporating nonlinearity and smooth breaks. Research in International Business and Finance, 37(C), 527-540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.005.
• Topallı, N. (2021).Düşük gelirli ülkelerde kişi başına karbondioksit emisyonu durağanlığının test edilmesi: Doğrusal olmayan birim kök analizi. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 608-626. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.899797.
• Ulucak, R., ve Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020
• United Nations Environment Report (2023). Emissions Gap Report 2023. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2023.
• Wachernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, The New Catalyst Bioregional Series.
• Wang, R., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Cifuentes-Faura, J., ve Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2023). Achieving ecological sustainability through technological innovations, financial development, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption in developing European countries. Gondwana Research, 119, 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.023.
• Yazici, B. E., ve Çil, N. (2021). Avrupa Ülkelerinde CO2 Emisyonu Yakınsamasının Fourier Koentegrasyon Testi ile Analizi. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (35), 1-18. DOI: 10.26650/ekoist.2021.35.959182.
• Yilanci, V., ve Abbas, S. (2023). Does the frequency of stochastic convergence in per capita ecological footprint matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(21), 59676-59688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26688-w.
• Yilanci, V., ve Gorus, M. S. (2021). Considering nonlinearity and structural changes in the convergence of clean energy consumption: the case of OECD countries. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2020-0047.
• Yilanci, V., ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106178.
• Yilanci, V., ve Pata, U. K. (2020). Are shocks to ecological balance permanent or temporary? Evidence from LM unit root tests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124294.
• Yilanci, V., Pata, U. K., ve Cutcu, I. (2022). Testing the persistence of shocks on ecological footprint and sub- accounts: evidence from the big ten emerging markets. International Journal of Environmental Research, 16(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00391-5.
• Yıldırım, S. (2019). Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Karbon Dioksit Emisyonu Politikaları Başarılı Olabilir mi? Kırılmalı Birim Kök Analizi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 2243-2255.
• Yıldırım, D. Ç., Yıldırım, S., Erdoğan, S., Demirtaş, I., Couto, G., ve Castanho, R. A. (2021). Time-varying convergences of environmental footprint levels between European Countries. Energies, 14(7), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813.
• Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210.