Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımın Çevresel Kirlilik Üzerine Etkisi: Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezinin Türkiye için Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de 1970-2018 yılları arasında Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım (DYY) ve kişi başına GSYİH’nın çevresel kirlilik üzerine etkisini Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi (KCH) ve Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezi (ÇKH) çerçevesinde Gecikmesi Dağıtılmış Otoregresif Model (ARDL) ile test etmektedir. Çalışmada çevre kirliliğini ölçmek için ekolojik ayak izi (EF) endeksi kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre Türkiye’de DYY’deki artış EF’yi artırmaktadır. Bunun yanında kişi başına GSYİH ile EF arasında ters U şeklinde bir ilişki gözlenmektedir. Bulgular, Türkiye’de Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi’nin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmada elde edilen diğer bir sonuca göre kentleşmedeki artış EF’yi negatif etkilemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kirlilik Cenneti Hipotezi
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım
• GSYİH
• ARDL Modeli

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Environmental Degradation: Revisiting The Pollution Heaven Hypothesis for Türkiye

Öz

The aim of this study to test the impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and GDP per capita on environmental degradation in Turkey over 1970-2018 using the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model in terms of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) and the Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis (EKH). In the study, the ecological footprint (EF) index is used to measure environmental degradation. According to the findings, an increase in FDI increases the EF in Turkey. Besides, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between GDP per capita and the EF. The results show the validity of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis in Turkey. Other findings reveal that an increase in urbanization affects the EF negatively

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pollution Heaven Hypothesis
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Foreign Direct Investment
• GDP
• ARDL Model

Kaynakça

1. Abdouli, M. ve Hammami, S. (2017). Investigating the causality links between environmental quality, foreign direct investment and economic growth in MENA countries. International Business Review, 26(2), 264-278.
2. Adamu, T. M., Haq, I. U. ve Shafiq, M. (2019). Analyzing the impact of energy, export variety, and fdi on environmental degradation in the context of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a case study of India. Energies, 12(6), 1076.
3. Bakirtas, I. ve Cetin, M. A. (2017) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve and pollution haven hypotheses: MIKTA sample. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 18273-18283.
4. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N. ve Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2019). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23010-23026.
5. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M. ve Shahbaz, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries. Renewable Energy, 185, 1441-1455.
6. Bhujabal, P., Sethi, N. ve Padhan, P. C. (2021). ICT, foreign direct investment and environmental pollution in major Asia Pacific countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(31), 42649-42669.
7. Bulut, U., Ucler, G. ve Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2021). Does the pollution haven hypothesis prevail in Turkey? Empirical evidence from nonlinear smooth transition models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 38563-38572.
8. Bulut, U. (2021b). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: An environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.

9. Bulut, U., Ucler, G., Aksoz-Yilmaz, H. ve Basaran, D. N. (2022). Is there a trade-off between financing current account deficits and environmental deterioration in developing countries? an empirical investigation for the validity of the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56090-56097.
10. Çağlar, A. E. (2022). Türkiye'de çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin araştirilmasinda çevresel patentlerin rolü: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile kanıtlar. Omer Halisdemir Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4).
11. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A. ve Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? new evidence from the panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 14372-14385.
12. Cil, N. (2023). Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with fourier approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 10024-10036.
13. Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2019). Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? evidence from ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23689-23695.
14. Doytch, N. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecological footprints of nations. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 8, 100085.
15. Effiong, E. (2016). Urbanization and environmental quality in Africa. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73224 Fan, Y., Liu, L. C., Wu, G. ve Wei, Y. M. (2006). Analysing impact factors of CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 26, 377–395.
16. Gasimli, O., Haq, I. U., Naradda, G., S. K., Shihadeh, F., Rajapakshe, P. S. K. ve Shafiq, M. (2019). Energy, trade, urbanization and environmental degradation nexus in Sri Lanka: Bounds testing approach. Energies, 12(9), 1655.
17. Gökmenoğlu, K. ve Taspinar, N. (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
18. Guzel, A. E. ve Okumus, İ. (2020). Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis in ASEAN-5 countries: new insights from panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 18157-18167.
19. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2022). BRICS-T ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme, doğrudan yabancı yatırım ve çevresel kirlilik ilişkisi: çevresel kuznets eğrisi ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezlerinin ampirik analizi. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1457-1478.
20. Harris, R. ve Sollis, R. (2003). applied time series modelling and forecasting. Wiley.
21. Hoffmann, R., Lee, C. G., Ramasamy, B. ve Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: a granger causality test using panel data. The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 17(3), 311-317.
22. Ünal, H. ve Aktuğ, M. (2022). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi kapsamında Türkiye’de çevre kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. İnsan ve Toplum, 12(1), 113-136.
23. Karimov, M. (2020). An empirical analysis of the relationship among foreign direct investment, gross domestic product, CO2 emissions, renewable energy contribution in the context of the environmental Kuznets curve and pollution haven hypothesis regarding Turkey. European Journal of Formal Sciences and Engineering, 3(2), 23-42.
24. Khan, M. A. ve Özturk, I. (2020). Examining foreign direct investment and environmental pollution linkage in Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 7244-7255.
25. Koçak, E. ve Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804.
26. Mert, M. ve Caglar, A. E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: A new perspective”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32933-32943.
27. Mike, F. (2020). Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi Türkiye için geçerli mi? ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımından bulgular. Dogus University Journal, 21(2).
28. Minh, N. N. (2020). Foreign direct investment and carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from capital of Vietnam. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 76-83
29. Muhammad, B., Khan, M. K., Khan, M. I. ve 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. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 21789-21798.
30. Murshed, M., Elheddad, M., Ahmed, R., Bassim, M. and, Than, E. T. (2021). Foreign direct investments, renewable electricity output, and ecological footprints: do financial globalization facilitate renewable energy transition and environmental welfare in Bangladesh?. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 1-46.
31. Murshed, M., Nurmakhanova, M., Al-Tal, R., Mahmood, H., Elheddad, M. ve Ahmed, R. (2022). Can intra-regional trade, renewable energy use, foreign direct investments, and economic growth mitigate ecological footprints in South Asia?. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 17(1), 2038730.
32. Nguyen, D. P. ve Tuyen, L. T. M. (2018). The relationship between foreign direct investment, economic growth and environmental pollution in Vietnam: An autoregressive distributed lags approach. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(5), 138.
33. Omri, A., Nguyen, D. K. ve Rault, C. (2014). Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Economic Modelling, 42, 382-389.
34. Özsoy, F. (2021).Türkiye’de yolsuzluk ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 353-361.
35. Pao, H. T. ve Tsai, C. M. (2011). Multivariate granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, fdi and gdp: evidence from a panel of BRIC countries. Energy, 36(1), 685-693.
36. Pavlović, A., Njegovan, M., Ivanišević, A., Radišić, M., Takači, A., Lošonc, A. ve Kot, S. (2021). The impact of foreign direct investments and economic growth on environmental degradation: the case of the Balkans. Energies, 14(3), 566
37. Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (1995). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration. Cambridge, UK: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.
38. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and, Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
39. Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X. ve Chen, X. (2014). International trade, FDI and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of China’s industrial sectors. China Economic Review, 28, 123-134.
40. Rudolph, A. ve Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: what is the role of globalization?. Ecological Indicators, 81, 348-361.
41. Sapkota, P. ve Bastola, U. (2017). Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics, 64, 206-212.
42. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M. ve 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.
43. Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M. A. ve Roubaud, D. (2018). Environmental degradation in France: The effects of fdi, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Economics, 74, 843-857.
44. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F. ve Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality, in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?. Energy Economics, 51, 275-287.
45. Shao, Q., Wang, X., Zhou, Q. ve Balogh, L. (2019). Pollution haven hypothesis revisited: a comparison of the BRICS and MINT countries based on VECM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 724-738.
46. Solarin, S. A. ve Al-Mulali, U. (2018). Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 24845-24859.
47. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I. ve Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719.
48. Temurlenk, M. S. ve Lögün, A. (2022). An analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis in the context of Turkey: A nonlinear approach. Economics and Business Review, 8(1), 5-23.
49. Terzi, H. ve Pata, U. (2020). Is the pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) valid for Turkey?. Panoeconomicus, 67(1).
50. To, A. H., Ha, D. T. T., Nguyen, H. M. ve Vo, D. H. (2019). The impact of foreign direct investment on environment degradation: evidence from emerging markets in Asia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(9), 1636.
51. Tupy, M. (2017). Urbanization is good for the environment. https://www.cato.org/blog/urbanization-good-environment
52. Udemba, E. N. (2021). Nexus of ecological footprint and foreign direct investment pattern in carbon neutrality: new insight for United Arab Emirates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 34367-34385.
53. Usman, M., Jahanger, A., Makhdum, M. S. A., Radulescu, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D. ve Jianu, E. (2022). An empirical investigation of ecological footprint using nuclear energy, industrialization, fossil fuels and foreign direct investment. Energies, 15(17), 6442.
54. Wang, C. M. ve Jiayu, C. (2019). Analyzing on the impact mechanism of foreign direct investment to energy consumption. Energy Procedia, 159, 515–520
55. Waqih, M. A. U., Bhutto, N. A., Ghumro, N. H., Kumar, S. ve Salam, M. A. (2019). Rising environmental degradation and impact of foreign direct investment: an empirical evidence from SAARC region. Journal of Environmental Management, 243, 472-480.
56. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). Türkiye’de çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi’nin testi: temiz enerji tüketiminin rolü. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 570-589.
57. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F. ve Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 101428.
58. Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, halos and spaghetti: untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. Foreign direct Investment and the Environment, 13(8), 47-74.