Gayrisafi yurt içi hasılanın karbon yoğunluğu, ticari küreselleşme ve yeşil ticari açıklık ilişkisi: AB ve Türkiye için panel nedensellik analizi

Öz

Ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel bozulma arasındaki değiş–tokuş ilişkisi önemli bir araştırma konusudur. Bu konudaki tartışmalar kapsamında sıkça ele alınan ve mevcut yapıyla güçlü bir ilişki içerisinde olan bir diğer konu ise uluslararası ticarettir. Serbest ticaret savunucuları, ticaretin iş bölümü ve uzmanlaşmayı artırarak büyümeyi teşvik ettiğini savunurken, çevreciler ise çevresel kaynakların aşırı kullanılabileceği konusunda endişelidir. Nispeten yakın zamanlarda ele alınmaya başlanan gayrisafi yurt içi hasılanın karbon yoğunluğu (GSYH-KY) değişkeninin ilgili analizlerde kullanılabileceği düşünülebilir. Büyüme ve ticaretin karbon salınımı ile ilişkisi sıkça incelenmişken, birim büyüme başına karbon salınımını ölçen değişkenle yapacağımız analiz, konuyu verimlilik gibi farklı bir alana taşıyabilecektir. Buradan oluşan motivasyon ile çalışmamızın problemi GSYH-KY’nin, yeşil ticari açıklık ve ticari küreselleşme ile nedensel ilişkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Yirmi altı AB ülkesi ve Türkiye’nin 1995–2020 yıllarını kapsayan panel veri seti kullanılarak yapılan analizde, tüm değişkenlerin GSYH-KY ile karşılıklı bir nedensellik içerisinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Böylece ilgili modellerde yapılacak regresyon analizlerinde bu değişkenin de kullanılabileceği istatistiksel olarak kanıtlanmış olmaktadır. Çalışma bu açıdan, alanda yapılacak akademik araştırmalara yeni bir perspektif kazandırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gayrisafi Yurt İçi Hasılanın Karbon Yoğunluğu
• Yeşil Ticari Açıklık
• Ticari Küreselleşme.

The relationship between carbon entensity of gross domestic product, trade globalization and green trade openness: A panel non–causality analysis for the EU and Türkiye

Abstract

The trade–off between economic growth and environmental degradation constitutes a significant area of research. Within this context, international trade, related to the existing structure, frequently arises in related discussions. While proponents of free trade argue that it enhances global welfare by promoting specialization and division of labor, environmentalists express concerns regarding the potential overexploitation of natural resources. In this framework, the carbon intensity of gross domestic product (CIGDP) has recently been considered as a important variable in empirical analyses. Although the relationship between growth, trade, and carbon emissions has been extensively studied, analyzing carbon emissions per unit of economic growth introduces a productivity–oriented perspective. Motivated by this rationale, the present study investigates the causal relationship between CIGDP, green trade openness, and trade globalization. Using a panel dataset covering 26 EU countries and Türkiye from 1995 to 2020, the analysis identifies bidirectional causality among all variables. Thus, the statistical evidence confirms the relevance of including CIGDP in future regression models, offering a novel perspective for academic research in the field.

Keywords

• Carbon Intensity of Gross Domestic Product
• Green Trade Openness
• Trade Globalization.

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, K. R., Kirikkaleli, D. ve Altuntaş, D. (2022). Carbon dioxide intensity of GDP and environmental degradation in an emerging country. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 84451–84459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21679-9
2. Abbasi, K. R., Oyebanji, M. O. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). CO2 intensity of GDP, energy productivity and environmental degradation in Iceland: Evidence from novel fourier based estimators. Energy Sources, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2023.2214906
3. Adebayo, T. S. (2025). Transforming environmental quality: Examining the role of green production processes and trade globalization through a Kernel Regularized Quantile Regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145232
4. Ahmed, Z. ve Le, H. P. (2021). Linking information communication technology, trade globalization index, and CO2 emissions: Evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 8770–8781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11205-0
5. Ali, M., Kirikkaleli, D. ve Altuntaş, M. (2024). The nexus between CO2 intensity of GDP and environmental degradation in South European countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 11089–11100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03217-w
6. Almuhim, A. A., Qamruzzaman, M. ve Aljughaiman, A. A. (2025). The influence of green trade openness, natural resources rent, institutional quality, and R&D investment on environmental sustainability in the OECD: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses. Frontiers in Environmental Sciences, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1572439
7. Andersson, F. N. G. ve Karpestam, P. (2013). CO2 emissions and economic activity: Short– and long–run economic determinants of scale, energy intensity and carbon intensity. Energy Policy, 61(2013), 1285–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.004
8. Appannagari, R. R. (2017). Environmental pollution and consequences: A study. North Asian International Research Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 3(8), 151–161. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323944189

9. Awosusi, A. A., Xulu, N. G., Ahmadi, M., Rjoub, H., Altuntaş, M., Uhunamure, S. E., Akadiri, S. S. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). The sustainable environment in Uruguay: The roles of financial development, natural resources, and trade globalization. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.875577
10. Baltagi, B., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange multiplier test for cross–sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Center for Policy Research Working Paper, no. 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004
11. Batabyal, A. A., ve Beladi, H. (2001). Introduction and overview. In A. A. Batabyal ve H. Beladi (Eds.), The economics of international trade and the environment (s. 1–23) içinde. CRC Press.
12. Bersvendsen, T., ve Ditzen, J. (2020). xthst: Testing for slope homogeneity in Stata (The Stata Journal Working Paper No. 112904).
13. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., Koçak, E. ve İlkay, S. Ç. (2019). Does globalization matter for environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06996-w
14. Can, M., Ben Jebli, M. ve Brusselaers, J. (2022a). Can green trade save the environment? Introducing the green (trade) openness index. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022(29), 44091–44102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18920-w
15. Can, B., Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M. ve Can, M. (2022b). Do renewable energy consumption and green trade openness matter for human well–being? Empirical evidence from European Union countries. Social Indicators Research, 164, 1043–1059.
16. Carey, J. (2016). Are we in the “anthropocene”?. PNAS, 113(15), 3908–3909. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603152113
17. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring, Boston.
18. Charnovitz, S. (1994). Free trade, fair trade, green trade: Defogging the debate. Cornell International Law Journal, 27(3), 459–525. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol27/iss3/2
19. Copeland, B. R. ve Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, XLII, 7–71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3217036
20. De Hoyos, R. E. ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross–sectional dependence in panel–data models, The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496.
21. Dumitrescu, E.–I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non–causality in heterogeneous panels, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
22. Dünya Bankası. (2025a). Economy: overview. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world–development–indicators/themes/economy.html adresinden 19 Şubat 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
23. Dünya Bankası. (2025b). World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world–development–indicators adresinden 20 Şubat 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
24. Erkman, S. (1997). Industrial ecology: An historical view. Journal of Cleaner Production, 5(1–2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(97)00003-6
25. Fan, Y., Liu, L.–C., Wu, G., Tsai, H.–T. ve Wei, Y.–M. (2006). Changes in carbon intensity in China: Empirical findings from 1980–2003. Ecological Economics, 62(2007), 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.016
26. Fankhauser, S. ve Jotzo, F. (2017). Economic growth and development with low–carbon energy. EEG State–of–Knowledge Paper Series No: Climate Theme. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.495
27. Fujii, E. (2019). What does trade openness measure? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12275
28. Georgescu–Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process, London. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4224243
29. Göran Mäler, K. ve Vincent, J. R. (2003). Handbook of environmental economics: environmental degradation and instutional responses, North Holland.
30. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross–spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
31. Granger, C. W. J. (1980). Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2(1980), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(80)90069-X
32. Granger, C. W. J. (2003). Some aspects of causal relationship. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2003), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00148-3
33. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a north free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper Series No. 3914.
34. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J.–E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index–revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 2019(14), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
35. Harris, J. M. (2004). Trade and the environment, Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute.
36. International Monetary Fund [IMF] (2021). Trade in environmental goods. Environmental Goods Trade Indicators Methodology, IMF Statistics.
37. Iyer, E. S. ve Walker Reczek, R. (2017). The intersection of sustainability, marketing, and public policy: Introduction to the special section on sustainability. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 36(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.36.250
38. Kartal, M. T. ve Pata, U. K. (2023). Impacts of renewable energy, trade globalization, and technological innovation on environmental development in China: Evidence from various environmental indicators and novel quantile methods. Environmental Development, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100923
39. Khan, M. K., Khan, M. I. ve Rehan, M. (2020). The relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan. Financial Innovation, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-019-0162-0
40. Kim, D. H. (2011). Trade, growth, and income. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 20(5), 677–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2011.538966
41. Kirikkaleli, D., Abbasi, K. R. ve Oyebanji, M. O. (2023a). The asymmetric and long–run effect of environmental innovation and CO2 intensity of GDP on consumption based CO2 emissions in Denmark. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 50110–50124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25811-1
42. Kirikkaleli, D., Awosusi, A. A., Adebayo, T. S. ve Otrakçı, C. (2023b). Enhancing environmental quality in Portugal: Can CO2 intensity of GDP and renewable energy consumption be the solution? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 53796–53806. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-023-26191-2
43. Krugman, P. ve Obstfeld, M. (2009). International economics, Boston.
44. Kuik, O. ve Gerlagh, R. (2003). Trade liberalization and carbon leakage. The Energy Journal, 24(3), 97–120. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41323001
45. Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern economic growth: findings and reflections. The American Economic Review, 63(3), 247–258. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914358
46. Le, H. P. ve Ozturk, I. (2020). The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(18), 22680–22697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08812-2
47. Leitão, N. C. (2021). Testing the role of trade on carbon dioxide emissions in Portugal. Economies, 9(22), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010022
48. Lekakis, J. N. (1998). Introduction–trade, sustainability, and the primary production sector: a southern EU perspective. J. N. Lekakis (Ed), In Freer trade, sustainability, and the primary production sector in the southern EU: unraveling the evidence from Greece (s. 1–19) içinde. Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1609-3_1
49. Long, R., Yang, R., Song, M. ve Ma, L. (2015). Measurement and calculation of carbon intensity based on imPACT model and scenario analysis:
50. A case of three regions of Jiangsu Province. Ecological Indicators, 51, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.048
51. Lopez, L. ve Weber, S. (2017). Testing for Granger causality in panel data. The Stata Journal, 17(4), 972–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801700412
52. Managi, S. (2004). Trade liberalization and the environment: carbon dioxide for 1960–1999. Economics Bulletin, 17(1), 1–6.
53. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. ve Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: a report for THE CLUB OF ROME’S project on the predicament of mankind, New York.
54. Messerli, B., Grosjean, M., Hofer, T., Núñez, L. ve Pfister, C. (2000). From nature–dominated to human–dominated environmental changes. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19(1–5), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00075-X
55. Mishkin, F. S. (2009). Globalization, macroeconomic performance, and monetary policy. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 41(1), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00204.x
56. Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., Ahmad, P., Rehman, A. ve Alam, M. S. (2022). Pathways to Argentina’s 2050 carbon‑neutrality agenda: The roles of renewable energy transition and trade globalization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(20), 29949–29966. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17903-7
57. Nadiri, A., Gündüz, V. ve Adebayo, T. S. (2024). The role of financial and trade globalization in enhancing environmental sustainability: Evaluating the effectiveness of carbon taxation and renewable energy in EU member countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 24(2024), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.01.004
58. Najam, A., Halle, M. ve Melendez–Ortiz, R. (2007). Trade and environment: a resource book, IISD, ICTSD, The Ring.
59. Our World in Data. (2024). Fossil fuel consumption. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil–fuels adresinden 13 Ocak 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
60. Panayotou, T. (2000). Economic growth and the environment, CID Working Paper Series No. 56.
61. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240.
62. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross–section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
63. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels, Journal of Econometrics, 142(2008), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
64. Rüttimann, B. G. (2017). Evolution of trade globalization from 2003 to 2014: Weakening dynamics of world trade confirms globalization postulates. N. Tsounis ve A. Vlachvei (Ed), In Advances in applied economic research: proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied Economics (ICOAE) (s. 465–486) içinde. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48454-9_31
65. Schlegel, R., Pfouts, R. W., Hochwald, W. ve Johnson, G. L. (1973). Four reviews of Nicholas Georgescu–Roegen: “the entropy law and the economic process”, Journal of Economic Issues, 7(3), 475–499. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4224243
66. Seltenrich, N. (2018). Down to earth: The emerging field of planetary health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(7). doi: 10.1289/EHP2374
67. Stevens, C. (1993). The environmental effects of trade. The World Economy, 16(4), 439–451.
68. Tariq, M., Xu, Y., Ullah, K. ve Dong, B. (2024). Toward low–carbon emissions and green growth for sustainable development in emerging economies: Do green trade openness, eco–innovation, and carbon price matter?, Sustainable Development, 2024(32), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2711
69. Trinks, A., Ibikunle, G., Mulder, M. ve Scholtens, B. (2022). Carbon intensity and the cost of equity capital. The Energy Journal, 43(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.43.2.atri
70. van Hinsberg, N. ve Can, M. (2024). The impact of green trade openness on air quality. Ekonomikalia/Journal of Economics, 2(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.60084/eje.v2i2.198
71. Wang, Q. ve ve Wang, L. (2021). How does trade openness impact carbon intensity? Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126370
72. Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. (2018). Environmental and social footprints of international trade, Nature Geoscience, 11, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9
73. Xepapadeas, A. (2004). Economic growth and the environment, Handbook of Environmental Economics, 3, 1219–1271.
74. Xu, A., Tresa, E., Bacchetta, M., Bellelli, F. ve Monteiro, J.–A. (2021). Trade and climate change: The carbon content of international trade, Information Brief No 4.
75. Zürih Federal Teknoloji Enstitüsü Ekonomik Araştırma Merkezi [ETHZ–KOF]. (2025). 2024 globalisation index: structure, variables and weights. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special–interest/dual/kof–dam/documents/Globalization/2024/KOFGI_website_structure_variables.pdf adresinden 20 Şubat 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.