Is Per Capita Energy Use Stationary in Turkey?

Öz

Energy use is one of the most important indicators used in determining the level of development of countries. The aim of this study is to investigate the stationarity of per capita energy use based on annual data of Turkey from 1960 to 2015, and, to get information about the economic development situation. For this purpose, unit root tests that take into account different structural changes as well as traditional unit root tests are used in the study. According to the results, the series of energy use for Turkey located between developing countries has not been found to be stable. Thus, it has been determined that the effect of shocks occurring in energy use ispermanent.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Energy Use
• Traditional Unit Root Tests
• Structural Break Unit Root Tests

Türkiye’de Kişi Başına Enerji Kullanımı Durağan Mıdır?

Öz

Enerji kullanımı ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeyini belirlemede kullanılan en önemli göstergelerden birisidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1960-2015 dönemi yıllık verileri kullanarak Türkiye’de kişi başına enerji kullanımının durağanlığını incelemek ve böylece ekonomik gelişme durumu hakkında bilgi edinebilmektir. Bu amaçla çalışmada geleneksel birim kök testlerinin yanı sıra farklı yapısal değişimleri dikkate alan birim kök testleri kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, gelişmekte olan ülkeler arasında yer alan Türkiye için enerji kullanımı serisinin durağan olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Böylece enerji kullanımında meydana gelen şokların etkisi kalıcı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enerji Kullanımı
• Birim Kök Testleri
• Yapısal Kırılmalı Birim Kök Testleri

Kaynakça

1. Agnolucci, Paolo ve Andrew Venn 2011. “Industrial Energy Intensities in the UK: Is there a Deterministic or Stochastic Difference among Sectors?” Applied Economics 43(12): 1447-1462.
2. Gil-Alana, Luis A., David Loomis ve James E. Payne 2010 “Does Energy Consumption by the US Electric Power Sector Exhibit Long Memory Behavior?” Energy Policy 38(11): 7512-7518.
3. Altınay, Galip ve Karagöl, Erdal 2004. “Structural Break, Unit Root, and the Causality between Energy Consumption and GDP in Turkey.” Energy Economics 26: 985–994.
4. Al-Iriani, Mahmoud A. 2006. “Energy–GDP Relationship Revisited: An Example from GCC Countries U sing Panel Causality.” Energy Policy 34(17): 3342–3350.
5. Arslan, Erdal ve Solak, Aysun 2019. “Türkiye’de Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketiminin İthalat Üzerindeki Etkisi.” Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 10(17): 1380-1407.
6. Başol, Koray 1994. Doğal Kaynaklar Ekonomisi, Doğal Kaynaklar, Enerji ve Çevre Sorunları. İzmir: Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı
7. Bolat, Süleyman, Belke, Murat ve Kovaci, Süreyya 2013. “The Stationarity of Electricity Consumption in Selected European Countries.” European Scientific Journal 9(19): 79-87.
8. Cheng, Benjamin. S. ve Lai, Tin, Wei 1997. “An Investigation of Cointegration and Causality Between Energy Consumption and Economic Activity in Taiwan.”, Energy Economics 19(4): 435–444.

9. Chen, Pei-Fen ve Lee, Chien-Chiang 2007. “Is Energy Consumption Per Capita Broken Stationary? New Evidence from Regional-Based Panels.” Energy Policy 35(6): 3526-3540.
10. Christopoulos, Dimitris K. ve Ledesma, Miguel A. L. 2010. “Smooth Breaks and Non-Linear Mean Reversion: Post-Bretton Woods Real Exchange Rates.” Journal of International Money and Finance 29: 1076-1093.
11. Dickey, David A. ve Fuller, Wayne A. 1981. “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.” Econometrica 49(4): 1057- 1072.
12. Doğan, Eyup 2016. “Are Shocks to Electricity Consumption Transitory or Permanent? Sub-National Evidence from Turkey.” Utilities Policy 41: 77-84.
13. Enders, Walter ve Lee, Junsoo 2004. Testing for a Unit Root with a Nonlinear Fourier Function. University of Alabama, Mimeo.
14. Fallahi Firouz, Karimi Mohammad ve Voia Marcel Cristian 2014. “Are Shocks to Energy Consumption Persistent? Evidence from Subsampling Confidence Intervals.” Carleton Economic Papers CEP 14-02.
15. Glasure, Yong U. ve Lee, Aie Rie 1997. “Cointegration, Error-Correction, and the Relationship between GDP and Electricity: The Case of South Korea and Singapore.” Resource and Electricity Economics 20: 17–25.
16. Hasanov, Mübariz ve Telatar, Erdinç 2011. “Are-Examination of Stationarity of Energy Consumption: Evidence from New Unit Root Tests.” Energy Policy 39(12): 7726-7738.
17. Hsu, Yi Chung, Lee, Chien Chinag ve Lee, Chi Chuan 2008. “Revisited: Are Shocks to Energy Consumption Permanent or Temporary? New Evidence from a Panel SURADF Approach.” Energy Economics 30(5): 2314-2330.
18. Joyeux, Roselyne ve Ripple Ronald D. 2007. “Household Energy Consumption versus Income and Relative Standard of Living: A Panel Approach”, Energy Policy 35, 50–60.
19. Karluk Rıdvan 2014. Türkiye Ekonomisi Cumhuriyet’in İlanından Günümüze Yapısal Dönüşüm. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım.
20. Khraief, Naceur, Omoju, Omoju E. ve Shahbaz, Muhammed 2016. “Are Fluctuations in Electricity Consumption Per Capita in Sub-Saharan Africa Countries Transitory or Permanent?” Energy Strategy Reviews 13: 86-96.
21. Kızılkaya, Oktay ve Konat, Gökhan 2019. “Elektrik Tüketimindeki Dalgalanmalar Geçici mi Yoksa Kalıcı mı? Türkiye İçin Ampirik Bir Analiz.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 31: 53-62.
22. Koç, Erdem ve Şenel, Mahmut Can 2013. “Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Enerji Durumu-Genel Değerlendirme.” Mühendis ve Makine 54(634): 33.
23. Kula, Ferit, Aslan, Alper ve Öztürk, İlhan 2012. “Is Per Capita Electricity Consumption Stationary? Time Series Evidence from OECD Countries.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 501-503.
24. Kum, Hakan (2012), “Are Fluctuations in Energy Consumption Transitory or Permanent? Evidence from a Panel of East Asian and Pacific Countries”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(3):92-96.
25. Lee, Junsoo ve Strazicich, Mark C 2004. “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break.” Boone, North Carolina: Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Working Paper 04-17.
26. Magazzino, Cosimo 2016, “Is Per Capita Energy Use Stationary? Panel Data Evidence for the EMU Countries.” Energy, Exploration ve Exploitation 34(3): 440-448.
27. Magazzino, Cosimo 2017. “Is Per Capita Energy Use Stationary? Time Series Evidence for the EMU Countries.” Energy, Exploration ve Exploitation 35(1): 24-32.
28. Masih, Abul M. M. ve Masih, Rumi 1996. “Energy Consumption, Real Income and Temporal Causality: Results from a Multi-Country Study Based on Cointegration and Error-Correction Modelling Techniques.” Energy Economics 18(3): 165-183.
29. Mishra, Vinod, Sharma, Susan ve Smyth, Russell 2009. “Are Fuctuations in Energy Consumption Per Capita Transitory? Evidence from a Panel of Pacific Island Countries.” Energy Policy 37: 2318-2326.
30. Narayan, Paresh K. ve Smyth, Russell 2007. “Are Shocks to Energy Consumption Permanent or Temporary? Evidence from 182 Countries.” Energy Policy 35: 333-341.
31. Öztürk, İlhan, Aslan, Alper ve Kalyoncu Hüseyin 2010. “Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Relationship: Evidence from Panel Data for Low and Middle Income Countries.” Energy Policy 38: 4422-4428.
32. Öztürk, İlhan ve Aslan, Alper 2015. “Are Fluctuations in Electricity Consumption Permanent or Transitory? Evidence from a Nonlinear Unit Root Test in High-Income OECD Countries.” Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 10(3): 257-262.
33. Pereira, Alfredo Marvao ve Belbute, Jose Manuel 2011. “Final Energy Demand in Portugal: How Persistent it is and Why it Matters for Environmental Policy.” International Economic Journal 28(4): 661-677.
34. Perron, Pierre 1989. “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Econometrica 57: 1361-1401.
35. Phillips, Peter, C. B. ve Perron, Pierre 1988. “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression.” Biometrika, 75(2): 335-346.
36. Romano, Joseph P. ve Wolf, Michael 2001. “Subsampling Intervals in Autoregressive Models with Linear Time Trend.” Econometrica 69: 1283-1341.
37. Shahbaz, Muhammad, Tiwari, Aviral K. ve Khan, Saleheen 2016. “Is Energy Consumption Per Capita Stationary? Evidence from Frst and Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests”, MPRA Paper 41607: September.
38. Soytaş, Uğur ve Sarı, Ramazan 2003. “Energy Consumption and GDP: Causality Relationship in G-7 Countries and Emerging Markets.” Energy Economics 25: 33-37.
39. Yang, Hao Yen 2000. “A Note on the Causal Relationship between Energy and GDP in Taiwan.” Energy Economics 22: 309-317.
40. Yılancı, Veli 2009. “Yapısal Kırılmalar Altında Türkiye İçin İşsizlik Histerisinin Sınanması.” Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 10(2): 324-335.
41. Yılmaz Alper, Kelleci, Ürüt Serap ve Bostan, Aziz 2016. “Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sektörel Enerji Tüketiminin Ayrıştırma Yöntemiyle Analizi.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 31(2): 1-27. http://www.yegm.gov.tr/verimlilik/sunum2017/8.Bildiriler/T%C3%BCrkiye'nin%20Mevcut%20Enerji%20Durumu.pdf, Yılmaz, Zinnur (2017).
42. Yoo, S.-H. 2006. “The Causal Relationship between Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in the ASEAN Countries.” Energy Policy 34: 3573-3582.
43. Yurdakul, Funda 2018. “Kişi Başına Enerji Tüketimi ile Büyüme Oranı Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneği.” Ekonomik Yaklaşım 29(107): 49-76.
44. Zachariadis, Theodoros ve Pashourtidou, Nicoletta 2007. “An Empirical Analysis of Electricity Consumption in Cyprus.” Energy Economics 29: 183-198.
45. Zivot, Eric ve Andrews, Donald W. K. 1992. “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shocks and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10: 251-270.