THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC COMPLEXITY AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN G8 COUNTRIES AND TURKEY: TODA-YAMAMOTO CAUSALITY TEST ANALYSIS

Öz

Purpose – In this paper, the relationship between economic complexity and the ecological footprint in G8 countries and Turkey is analyzed. Methodology – Economic complexity index and ecological footprint are investigated by using Toda-Yamamoto causality test during 1995-2017. Findings – It is found a bi-directional causality in Canada and Japan, a unidirectional causality from economic complexity to ecological footprint in France and Italy, a unidirectional causality from ecological footprint to economic complexity in Germany, Russia, the UK, and the USA. There is no causal relationship in Turkey. Conclusions – Increasing complexity, growth and development by polluting the environment will prevent countries from achieving sustainable development. For this reason, these countries must use renewable energy and adopt clean technologies while producing complex products. These countries’ governments should adopt laws that would prohibit firms from a production process that is harmful to the environment and must give incentives to sectors and firms that care about environment and nature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Complexity
• Ecological Footprint
• Causality Analysis

G8 ÜLKELERİNDE VE TÜRKİYE’DE EKONOMİK KARMAŞIKLIK VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: TODA-YAMAMOTO NEDENSELLİK TESTİ ANALİZİ

Öz

Amaç – Çalışmada G8 ülkeleri ve Türkiye için ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki incelenmektedir. Yöntem – 1995-2017 dönemi ekonomik karmaşıklık endeksi ve ekolojik ayak izi verileri kullanılmış, Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testinden faydalanılmıştır. Bulgular – Kanada ve Japonya için çift yönlü nedensellik; Fransa ve İtalya için ekonomik karmaşıklıktan ekolojik ayak izine doğru nedensellik; Almanya, Rusya, İngiltere ve ABD için ekolojik ayak izinden ekonomik karmaşıklığa doğru nedensellik söz konusudur. Türkiye için nedensellik ilişkisine rastlanmamıştır. Sonuç – İki değişken arasında nedensellik ilişkilerinin bulunuyor olması, ülkelerin ekonomik karmaşıklıklarını, ekonomik gelişmişliklerini artırmaları ve çevreyi kirletmeleri konusunda bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Çevreyi kirleterek ekonomik gelişmişliğe erişmek ülkelerin refah ve kalkınmalarına zarar verecek ve sürdürülebilir kalkınmaya sahip olmaları mümkün olmayacaktır. Bu nedenle bu ülkelerin karmaşık ürünler üretirken yenilenebilir enerji kullanmaları ve temiz teknolojiler benimsemeleri gereklidir. Bu ülkelerin hükümetlerinin ise firmaların çevreye zarar verecek üretim süreci gerçekleştirmelerini engelleyecek kanunlar koymaları, çevreye ve doğaya gereken önemi veren firma ve sektörlere ise teşvikler vermesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Karmaşıklık
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Nedensellik Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, M., Ahmed, Z., Majeed, A., & Huang, B. (2021). An environmental impact assessment of economic complexity and energy consumption: Does institutional quality make a difference? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106603. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106603
2. Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Dagar, V., Ahmad, M., Işık, C., Mendez, P., & Toledo, E. (2021). Ecological footprint, economic complexity and natural resources rents in. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, 128585. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128585
3. Apaydın, Ş. (2020). KÜRESELLEŞMENİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23-42.
4. Apaydin, Ş., Ursavaş, U., & Koç, Ü. (2021). The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: do convergence clubs matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15.
5. Atlas Media. (2021a). Atlas of Economic Complexity. Eylül 20, 2021 tarihinde Glossary: https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/glossary adresinden alındı
6. Atlas Media. (2021b). Atlas of Complexity. Ağustos 31, 2021 tarihinde Country & Product Complexity Rankings: https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings adresinden alındı
7. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for an. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
8. Figge L, Oebels K, & A., O. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19, 863–876.

9. Global Footprint Network. (2021). Ağustos 31, 2021 tarihinde Country Trends: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=223 adresinden alındı
10. Gülmez, A. (2015). TÜRKİYE’DE DIŞ FİNANSMAN KAYNAKLARI EKONOMİK BÜYÜME İLİŞKİSİ: ARDL SINIR TESTİ YAKLAŞIMI. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 139-152.
11. Hausmann, R., & Klinger, B. (2006). Structural transformation and patterns of comparative advantage in. Center for International Development at Harvard University, No:128, 1-35.
12. Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). Economic complexity theory andapplications. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(2), 92-113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00275-1
13. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U., & Rafique, M. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460
14. Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin genişletilmiş ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 208-231.
15. Kirikkaleli, D., Adebayo, T. S., Khan, Z., & Ali, S. (2020). Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(11), 14009-14017.
16. Kosifakis, G., Kampas, A., & Papadas, C. T. (2020). Economic complexity and the environment: some estimates on their links. Int. J. Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 6(3), 261-271.
17. Meçik, O., & Koyuncu, T. (2020). Türkiye’de Göç ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: TodaYamamoto Nedensellik Testi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 2618-2635.
18. Neagu, O. (2020). Economic Complexity and Ecological Footprint:Evidence from the Most Complex Economies in the World. Sustainability, 12, 1-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219031
19. Pata, U. K. (2021). 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, 28, 846–861. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3
20. Rafique, M., Nadeem, A., Xia, W., Ikram, M., Shoaib, H., & Shahzad, U. (2021). Does economic complexity matter for environmental. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01625-4
21. Rudolph, A., & Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization_. Ecological Indicators, 81, 348-361. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.060
22. Sezgin, A., & Sarıçoban, K. (2021). ÜLKELERİN İHRAÇ ETTİKLERİ MALLARIN ÜRETİM FAKTÖR YOĞUNLUKLARINA GÖRE UZMANLAŞMA DÜZEYLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ: G8 VE TÜRKİYE KARŞILAŞTIRMASI. XI. UMTEB INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON VOCATIONAL & TECHNICAL SCIENCES-XI (s. 109-119). Ankara: International Association of Publishers.
23. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 1-14.
24. Sharif, A. A. (2019). Idolization and ramification between globalization and ecological footprints: Evidence from quantile-on-quantile aproach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 11191-11211. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04351-7
25. Swart, J., & Brinkmann, L. (2020). Economic complexity and the environment: evidence from Brazil. W. L. Filho içinde, Universities and sustainable communities: meeting the goals of the agenda 2030 (s. 3-45). Hamburg: Springer.
26. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Process. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
27. UNDP. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İçin Küresel Amaçlar. Eylül 19, 2021 tarihinde https://www.kureselamaclar.org/ adresinden alındı
28. Usman O, Akadiri S. .S, & Adeshola, I. (2020). Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 30681–30693.
29. WWF. (2012). Türkiye'nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu. WWF & Global Footprint Network. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Turkish.pdf adresinden alındı
30. Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Does economic globalization have predictive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel causality test with a Fourier function. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(32), 40552-40562.
31. Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32683-32694. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4