EKONOMİK BÜYÜME, EKONOMİK KARMAŞIKLIK, YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ TÜKETİMİ VE CO2 EMİSYONU İLİŞKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye için 1995 – 2019 yıllarını kapsayan dönemde ekonomik büyüme, ekonomik karmaşıklık ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi analiz edilerek, ekonomik karmaşıklık ve CO2 emisyonu ilişkisinin Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezi bağlamında incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında analizlerde ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bound Test) sınır testi yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular çerçevesinde ekonomik karmaşıklık kapsamında ÇKE hipotezinin geçerli olmadığı ve ekonomik karmaşıklığın hem kısa hem uzun dönemde CO2 emisyonu üzerinde pozitif etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada ekonomik büyümenin CO2 emisyonunu artırdığı, yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ise CO2 emisyonunu azalttığı sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları değerlendirildiğinde ekonomik karmaşıklığın kısa ve uzun dönemde çevresel bozulma üzerinde önemli bir faktör olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Bu nedenle ekonomik karmaşıklık ile yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin birlikte ele alınmasının çevresel bozulmalara karşı çözüm üretmek için yararlı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar çerçevesinde ekonomik teşvik ve destek programlarında yeşil ekonominin ön planda tutulmasının, ekonomik büyümeyi etkilemeden çevre üzerindeki olumsuz baskının giderilmesine yardımcı olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürebilir Kalkınma
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekonomik Karmaşılık
• CO2 Emisyonu
• Zaman Serisi Analizi

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC GROWTH, ECONOMIC COMPLEXITY, RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CO2 EMISSION: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to analyze the relationship between economic growth, economic complexity and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emission for Turkey in the period covering the years 1995 – 2019, and to examine the relationship between economic complexity and CO2 emission in the context of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bound Test) boundary test method was used in the analysis within the scope of the study. Within the framework of the findings, it is seen that the EKC hypothesis is not valid within the scope of economic complexity and that economic complexity has a positive effect on CO2 emissions both in the short and long term. In addition, in the study, it was concluded that economic growth increased CO2 emissions, while renewable energy consumption decreased CO2 emissions. When the analysis results are evaluated, it is understood that economic complexity is an important factor on environmental degradation in the short and long term. For this reason, it is thought that considering economic complexity and renewable energy consumption together will be beneficial to produce solutions against environmental degradation. Within the framework of the results obtained, it is evaluated that keeping the green economy in the forefront in economic incentive and support programs can help to eliminate the negative pressure on the environment without affecting economic growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Development
• Economic Growth
• Economic Comlexity
• CO2 Emission
• Time Series Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Akiş, Elife - Soyyiğit Semanur. “Ekonomık Karmasıklık Düzeyı ve CO2 Emisyonu Arasındaki İlişkisinin Analizi: Asean Ülkelerı Örnegi”. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, (2020), 18(38), 865-973.
2. Boletı, Erini, Garas, Antonios, Kyrıakou, Alexandra ve Lapatınas, Athanasios. “Economic complexity and environmental performance: evidence from a world sample”. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, (2021), 26(3), 251-270.
3. Bozkurt, Cuma - Okumuş, İlyas. “Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Tüketimi, Ticari Serbestleşme ve Nüfus Yoğunluğunun CO2 Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkileri: Yapisal Kirilmali Eşbütünleşme Analizi”. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (2015), 12(32), 23-35.
4. Bucak, Çağla. “AB15 Ülkelerinde ve Türkiye’de Ekonomik Karmaşıklık Endeksi, İnsani Gelişme Endeksi ve Karbon Emisyonu: Panel Veri Analizi”. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, (2021), 12(1), 71-88.
5. Can, Muhlis - Gozgor, Giray. “Dynamic relationships among CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and economic complexity in France”. (2016), (March 30,). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2756638.
6. Destek, Mehmet Akif - Sarkodie, Samuel Asumadu. “Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development”. Science of the Total Environment, (2019), 650, 2483-2489.
7. Dickey, David. A.- Fuller, Wayne. A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, (1979), 74(366a), 427-431.
8. Doğan, Buhari - Saboori, Behnaz - Can, Muhlis. “Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? An empirical analysis for different stages of development”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (2019), 26(31), 31900-31912.

9. Grossman, Gene. M. - Krueger, Alan. B. “Economic growth and the environment”. The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, (1995), 110(2), 353-377.
10. Hausmann, Ricardo, vd., The Atlas of Economic Complexity Mapping Paths to Prosperity. (2011), Mit Press
11. Hausmann, Ricardo, vd., The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. (2014), Mit Press.
12. Hıdalgo, Cesar. A. “The dynamics of economic complexity and the product space over a 42 year period”. Center for International Development at Harvard University, Working Paper, (2009), No:189.
13. Ikram, Majid vd. “Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: contextual evidences from Japan”. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, (2021), 47, 101460.
14. Kuznets, Simon. “Economic growth and income inequality”. Am Econ Rev (1955), 45(1):1–28 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581Accessed 3 Dec 2019.
15. Lapatınas, Athanasios vd. “Economic complexity andenvironmental performance: Evidence from a world sample”, (2019), MPRA Paper No. 92833 (https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/92833).
16. Laverde-Rojas, Henry. vd.“Economic growth, economic complexity, and carbon dioxide emissions: The case of Colombia”. Heliyon, (2021), 7(6), e07188.
17. MIT Observatory of Economic Complexity (2023), https://oec.world/en/rankings/country/eci/ (Erişim tarihi: 26.03.2023).
18. Nathanıel, Solomon. P. “Economic complexity versus ecological footprint in the era of globalization: evidence from ASEAN countries”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (2021), 28(45), 64871-64881.
19. Neagu, Olimpia - Negau, Madalin-Ioan. “The Environmental Kuznets Curve revisited: economic complexity and ecological footprint in the most complex economies of the World”. Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldiș Arad, Seria Științe Economice, (2022), 32(1), 78-99.
20. Neagu, Olimpia. - Teodoru, Mircea. C. “The relationship between economic complexity, energy consumption structure and greenhouse gas emission: Heterogeneous panel evidence from the EU countries”. Sustainability, (2019), 11(2), 497.
21. NEAGU, Olimpia. “The link between economic complexity and carbon emissions in the European Union countries: a model based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) approach”. Sustainability, (2019), 11(17), 4753.
22. Özbek, Sefa.- Naimoğlu, Mustafa. “Çevre Kalitesi-Ekonomik Karmaşıklık İlişkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Fourier Eşbütünleşme Analizi”. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, (2022), 72(1), 407-431.
23. Pata, Ugur K. “Environmental Kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (2019), 26(20), 20264-20276.
24. Pata, Ugur. K. “Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (2021), 28(1), 846-861.
25. Pesaran, M. Hashem. vd. “Bound Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Long Run Relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, (2001), Special İssue, Vol.16, 289-326.
26. Phillips, Peter. C.-Perron, Pierre. “Testing for a unit root in time series regression”. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
27. Rafıque, Muhammad. Z., vd. “Does economic complexity matter for environmental sustainability? Using ecological footprint as an indicator”. Environment, Development and Sustainability, (2022), 24(4), 4623-4640.
28. Shahzad, Umer, vd.. “Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods”. Journal of Cleaner Production, (2021), 279, 123806.
29. Swart, Julia.- Brinkmann, Lisa. “Economic complexity and the environment: Evidence from Brazil. In Universities and sustainable communities: meeting the goals of the agenda 2030” (2020),(pp. 3-45). Springer, Cham.
30. Turgut, E., vd, “Turizm sektörünün Türkiye ekonomisine etkisi: ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (2021), (45), 144-159.
31. World Bank (WDI), (2023). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. (Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2023)
32. Yıldız, Barış.- Yıldız, Gizem. A. “Ekonomik Karmaşıklık İle Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Bootstrap Granger Nedensellik Analizi”. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, (2019), 15(2), 329-340.
33. Yilanci, Veli - Pata, Ugur. K. “Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (2020), 27(26), 32683-32694.