Türkiye’nin Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Sürecinde Bankacılık Sektör Gelişimi ile CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi

Öz

Bankacılık sektör gelişimi, parasal aktarım mekanizmasının işleyişinde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Politika yapıcılar tarafından para arzının belirlenmesi için uygulanan politikalar, ekonominin tüm paydaşlarını etkilemektedir. Bu çalışmada bankacılık sektör gelişiminin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi incelenmektedir. Çalışmada 1990-2020 yılları arasındaki dönemde Türkiye için oluşturulan modelde bankacılık sektör gelişimi, ekonomik büyüme ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımların CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmada zaman serisi analiz yöntemlerinden yararlanılmış olup, FMOLS ve CCR yöntemleriyle elde edilmiş bulgular bankacılık sektör gelişiminin ve ekonomik büyümenin CO2 emisyonu üzerinde negatif ve azaltıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Uygulanan Granger nedensellik sonuçlarında ise bankacılık sektör gelişimi ve ekonomik büyümeden CO2 emisyonuna tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu görülmektedir. Çalışmada ulaşılan sonuçlar bankacılık sektörünün kredi hacmi artışında enerji verimliliği, geri dönüşüm, düşük karbon salınımı sağlayan teknolojiler gibi çevresel projelerin desteklemesinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bankacılık Sektör Gelişimi
• CO2 Emisyonu
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım

The relationship between Banking Sector Development and CO2 emission in the Sustainable Development Process of Turkey

Öz

Banking sector development has an important place in the functioning of the monetary transmission mechanism. The policies implemented by policy makers to determine the money supply affect all stakeholders of the economy. This study examines the impact of banking sector development on environmental pollution. In the study, the impact of banking sector development, economic growth and foreign direct investments on CO2 emissions is investigated in the model created for Turkey in the period between 1990 and 2020. Time series analysis methods were used in the study, and the findings obtained by FMOLS and CCR methods reveal that banking sector development and economic growth have a negative and reducing effect on CO2 emissions. In the applied Granger causality results, it is seen that there is a one-way causality relationship from banking sector development and economic growth to CO2 emissions. The results obtained in the study reveal the importance of supporting environmental projects such as energy efficiency, recycling and low carbon emission technologies in increasing the credit volume of the banking sector.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Banking sector development
• CO2 Emissions
• Economic Growth
• Foreign Direct Investment

Kaynakça

1. Agboola, P. O., Hossain, M. E., Gyamfi, B. A., & Bekun, F. V. (2022). Environmental consequences of foreign direct investment influx and conventional energy consumption: evidence from dynamic ARDL simulation for Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(35), 53584-53597.
2. Altıntaş, N., Açıkgöz, F., Okur, M., Öztürk, M., & Aydın, A. (2024). Renewable Energy and Banking Sector Development Impact on Load Capacity Factor in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140143.
3. Aytun, C., Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., & Cengiz, O. (2024). Associating environmental quality, human capital, financial development and technological innovation in 19 middle-income countries: A disaggregated ecological footprint approach. Technology in Society, 76, 102445.
4. Bingöl, B. A., & Türk, A. (2019). Türkiye’de Yeşil Bankacılık. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 11(20), 81-92.
5. BM. (1998). Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Sözleşmesi: Kyoto Protokolü, http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/Files/Mevzuat/kyoto_protokol.pdf
6. Boamah, V.; Tang, D.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J. Do FDI Inflows into African Countries Impact Their CO2 Emission Levels? Sustainability 2023, 15, 3131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043131
7. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E., & Yucel, A. G. (2018). The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental science and pollution research, 25(36), 36589-36603.
8. Çamkaya, S., Polat, İ. H., & Polat, Ü. (2022). Are Foreign Direct Investments Effective on Environmental Quality in Turkey? An Approach with Non-Linear ARDL Method. İktisadi İdari Ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(17), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1023839.

9. Çobanoğulları, G. (2024). Exploring the link between CO2 emissions, health expenditure, and economic growth in Türkiye: evidence from the ARDL model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-15.
10. Destek, M. A., & Ozsoy, F. N. (2015). Relationships between economic growth, energy consumption, globalization, urbanization and environmental degradation in Turkey. International Journal of Energy and Statistics, 3(04), 1550017.
11. Dickey D. Ve Fuller W. (1979), “Distribution of Estimatiors for Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root ”,Journal of The American Statistical Association ,74,427-431.
12. Dickey D. Ve Fuller W. (1981),” Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica,49,1057-1072.
13. Dilek, Ç. İ. L. (2023). Ekonomi ve Çevre Etkileşimi: Türkiye'de Finansal Gelişim ve Ulaşım Kaynaklı CO2 İlişkisi Üzerine Fourier ADL Analizi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(4), 456-476.
14. Duan, K., Cao, M., Malim, N. A. K., & Song, Y. (2022). Nonlinear relationship between financial development and CO2 emissions—based on a PSTR model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(1), 661.
15. Erdogan, S. (2024). Linking green fiscal policy, energy, economic growth, population dynamics, and environmental degradation: Empirical evidence from Germany. Energy Policy, 189, 114110.
16. Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., Okumus, I., & Solarin, S. A. (2024). Uncovering the linkage among tourism diversification, economic development, energy consumption, population density, technology, and carbon emissions: empirical evidence from New Zealand. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 1-13.
17. Erkişi, K., & Çelik, D. (2020). The Relationship between CO2 Emission, Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: A Case of Turkey. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(2), 844-857.
18. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
19. Gür, B. (2019). Relationship between foreign direct investment and carbon dioxide emissions: Evaluation of the hypothesis of pollution haven for Turkey. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Empirical Economics Journal, 13, 1-13.
20. Haug, A. A., & Ucal, M. (2019). The role of trade and FDI for CO2 emissions in Turkey: Nonlinear relationships. Energy Economics, 81, 297-307.
21. İklim Değişikliği Başkanlığı, (2023) İklim Değişikliği Azaltım Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı (2024 – 2030), https://iklim.gov.tr/eylem-planlari-i-19 Erişim Tarihi : 10.04.2024
22. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 12, No. 2/3, 231-254.
23. Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990), “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inferences On Cointegration With Applications To The Demand For Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169–210.
24. Karaaslan, A., & Çamkaya, S. (2022). The relationship between CO2 emissions, economic growth, health expenditure, and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Renewable Energy, 190, 457-466.
25. Kaya, E. Ö. (2010). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma sürecinde bankaların rolü ve Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir bankacılık uygulamaları. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 75-94.
26. Kaya, G., Kayalica, M. Ö., Kumaş, M., & Ulengin, B. (2017). The role of foreign direct investment and trade on carbon emissions in Turkey. Environmental economics, (8, Iss. 1), 8-17.
27. Khan MA and Rehan R (2022). Revealing the Impacts of Banking Sector Development on Renewable Energy Consumption, Green Growth and Environmental Quality in China: Does Financial Inclusion Matter? Front. Energy Res. 10:940209. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.940209.
28. Kılıçarslan, Z., & Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: the case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647-660.
29. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO 2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804.
30. Korhan Gökmenoğlu & Nigar Taspinar (2016) The relationship between Co2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: the case of Turkey, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25:5, 706-723, DOI: 10.1080/09638199.2015.1119876
31. MacKinnon, J. G., Haug, A. A., & Michelis, L. (1999). Numerical distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Journal of applied Econometrics, 14(5), 563-577.
32. Mehmood, U. (2023). Environmental sustainability through renewable energy and banking sector development: policy implications for N-11 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(9), 22296-22304.
33. Mukhtarov, S., Karacan, R., & Humbatova, S. (2024). The long-run effect of financial development on carbon emissions in Kazakhstan. Energy Efficiency, 17(3), 17.
34. Naz, A., & Aslam, M. (2023). Green innovation, globalization, financial development, and CO2 emissions: the role of governance as a moderator in South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(20), 57358-57377.
35. Obiora, S. C., Bamisile, O., Opoku-Mensah, E., & Kofi Frimpong, A. N. (2020). Impact of banking and financial systems on environmental sustainability: An overarching study of developing, emerging, and developed economies. Sustainability, 12(19), 8074.
36. Okumuş, İ. (2013). Yeşil ekonomi göstergeleri açısından Türkiye’nin sürdürülebilir kalkınma performansı (Yüksek lisans tezi). Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.
37. Özaydın, M. ve Bicil. İ.M. (2023). Sürdürülebilirlik Kavramı ve Bankacılık Sektöründe Sürdürülebilirlik Uygulamaları. Başarır, Ç. ve Yılmaz, Ö. (ed) (2023). Sosyal Bilimlerde Yeşil Yaklaşımlar: Dijitalleşme ve Enerji içinde (s.1-16). Özgür Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub374.
38. Öztürk, Z., & Öz D. (2016). The relationship between energy consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and CO2 emissions: the case of Turkey. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 269-288.
39. Park, J. Y. (1992): Canonical cointegrating regressions. – Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 119-143.
40. Phillips, P. C., Hansen, B. E. (1990): Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. – The Review of Economic Studies 57(1): 99-125.
41. Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P. (1988). Testing For A Unit Root In Time Series Regression, Biomètrika, 75 (2) 336-346.
42. Ren, X., An, Y., He, F., & Goodell, J. W. (2024). Do FDI inflows bring both capital and CO2 emissions? Evidence from non-parametric modelling for the G7 countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, 95, 103420.
43. Saadaoui, H., Dogan, M., & Omri, E. (2024). The impacts of hydroelectricity generation, financial development, geopolitical risk, income, and foreign direct investment on carbon emissions in Turkey. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(2), 239-261.
44. Samour, A., Isiksal, A. Z., & Resatoglu, N. G. (2019). Testıng The Impact Of Bankıng Sector Development On Turkey's CO2 Emıssıons. Applied Ecology & Environmental Research, 17(3).
45. Samour, A., Moyo, D., & Tursoy, T. (2022). Renewable energy, banking sector development, and carbon dioxide emissions nexus: A path toward sustainable development in South Africa. Renewable Energy, 193, 1032-1040.
46. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., & Cetin, M. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347-356.
47. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73518-73533.
48. Shahriyar Mukhtarov, Shahriyar Aliyev, Jeyhun I. Mikayilov, Altay Ismayilov & Anar Rzayev (2021) The FDI-CO2 nexus from the sustainable development perspective: the case of Azerbaijan, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28:3, 246-254, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1804479
49. Tosun, M. M. ve Şendoğdu, A. A. (2023). Bankacılık Sektörü İnsan Kaynaklarının Teknoloji Kabul Modeline Göre Toplum 5.0 Farkındalık Düzeyinin Araştırılması, Five Zero, 3(1), 202-220.
50. Türkiye Bankalar Birliği. (2022). Bankacılık Sektöründe Sürdürülebilirlik: Sektör Görünüm Raporu, https://www.tbb.org.tr/Content/Upload/Dokuman/8930/TBB_KD_040423.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 09.04.2024.
51. Uddin, I., Usman, M., Saqib, N., & Makhdum, M. S. A. (2023). The impact of geopolitical risk, governance, technological innovations, energy use, and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in the BRICS region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73714-73729.
52. Ullah, A., Dogan, M., Topcu, B. A., & Saadaoui, H. (2023). Modeling the impacts of technological innovation and financial development on environmental sustainability: New evidence from the world's top 14 financially developed countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101229.
53. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
54. UN DESA. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition - July 2023. New York, USA: UN DESA. © UN DESA. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/
55. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future: Report of the world commission on the environment and development. Brundtland Report. UN General Assembly.
56. Yazgan, A. E., Karadağ Ak, Ö., & Telli Üçler, Y. (2021). Dijitalleşmenin Türk Bankacılık Sektörüne Yansımaları. FiveZero, 2(1), 48-59.
57. Yıldırım, U. ve Göktürk, İ. (2004). “Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma”, Mehmet C. Marin, Uğur Yıldırım (ed.), Çevre Sorunlarına Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar-Ekolojik, Ekonomik, Politik ve Yönetsel Perspektifler, Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul, ss. 456.
58. Yılmaz, V. M., Karaca, Z., Yaylalı, M., & Doğan, E. M. (2015). The Examination of Relationship Between Foreign Direct Investments and Carbondioxide Emissions in Turkey with ARDL Approach. Alphanumeric Journal, 3(2), 107-112.
59. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Sinha, A., Gedikli, A., & Hou, F. (2019). The role of stock market and banking sector development, and renewable energy consumption in carbon emissions: Insights from G-7 and N-11 countries. Resources Policy, 62, 427-436.
60. Zhang, Y. J. (2011). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis in China. Energy policy, 39(4), 2197-2203.
61. Zubair, A. O., Samad, A. R. A., & Dankumo, A. M. (2020). Does gross domestic income, trade integration, FDI inflows, GDP, and capital reduces CO2 emissions? An empirical evidence from Nigeria. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 100009.