Küreselleşme ve Karbon Ayak İzi İlişkisi: E7 Ve G7 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırması

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 713 - 728, 24.07.2024

Selvi Yildirim Enver Günay

https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1486104

Öz

Ekonomik gelişmenin ülkeler için artan önemi, çevre sorunlarını merkezine alan sürdürülebilirlik tartışmalarını da popüler hale getirmiştir. Çevre sorunlarını konu edinen oldukça geniş bir literatür bulunmaktadır. İlgili literatürde genel olarak Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin test edildiği ve ekonometrik denklemlere farklı değişkenlerin de eklenerek modellerin genişletildiği görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi modeli doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve küreselleşme indeksi değişkenleriyle genişletilmiş ve panel ekonometrik testlerle E7 ile G7 ülkelerinin bir karşılaştırması yapılmıştır. Tahminlerden elde edilen sonuçlar, G7 ülkelerinde hipotezin geçerli olduğu, E7 ülkelerinde ise geçerli olmadığını ortaya koyarken, her iki ülke grubunda da küreselleşmenin çevresel sorunları azalttığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, Karbon Ayak İzi, Küreselleşme Endeksi, Panel Data

Relationship Between Globalization and Carbon Footprint: a Comparison of E7 and G7 Countries

Öz

The increasing importance of economic development for countries has also popularized sustainability debates centered on environmental issues. There is a vast literature on environmental problems. In the related literature, the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis is generally tested and the models are extended by adding different variables to the econometric equations. In this study, the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis model is extended with foreign direct investments and globalization index variables and a comparison of E7 and G7 countries is made with panel econometric tests. The results obtained from the estimations show that the hypothesis is valid in G7 countries and not valid in E7 countries, while globalization reduces environmental problems in both country groups.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Kuznets Curve, Carbon Footprint, Globalization Index, Panel Data

Kaynakça

• Ahlat, A. ve Çelik, K. 2022. Çevresel Kirlilik ve Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımı: N-11 Ülkeleri için Ampirik Bir Uygulama, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (34): 1-18.
• Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M. ve Ali, N. 2019. Does Globalization Increase The Ecological Footprint? Empirical Evidence From Malaysia, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 18565-18582.
• Ajam, N., Moghaddasi, R. ve Mohammadinejad, A. 2021. Environmental Impacts of Globalization (An Empirical Examination of Iran’s Agriculture). Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 56(4), 199-210.
• Behera, S.R. ve Dash, D.P. 2017. The Effect of Urbanization, Energy Consumption, and Foreign Direct Investment on The Carbon Dioxide Emission in The Sea (South And Southeast Asian) Region, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70: 96-106.
• Birdsall, N. ve Wheeler, D. 1993. Trade Policy and Industrial Pollution in Latin America: Where are The Pollution Havens?, The Journal of Environment & Development, 2(1): 137-149.
• Boulatoff, C. ve Jenkins, M. 2010. Long-Term Nexus Between Openness, Income, and Environmental Quality, International Advances in Economic Research, 16(4): 410-418.
• Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1): 239-253.
• Damirova, S. ve Yayla, N. 2021. Çevre Kirliliği ile Makroekonomik Belirleyicileri Arasındaki İlişki: Seçilmiş Ülkeler için Bir Panel Veri Analizi, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (30): 107-126.
• Dında, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey, Ecological Economics, 49(4): 431–55. Dreher, A., Gaston, N. ve Martens, P. 2008. Measuring Globalization: Gauging it’s Consequences. New York: Springer.
• Efeoğlu, R. 2022. Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Çerçevesinde Sanayileşme, Yenilenebilir Enerji, Enerji Tüketimi ve Finansal Gelişmenin CO2 Salınımı Üzerindeki Etkisi, Alanya Akademik Bakış, 6 (2): 2103-2115
• Emirmahmutoğlu, F. ve Köse, N. 2011. Testing for Granger Causality in Heterogeneous Mixed Panels, Economic Modelling, 28 (3): 870-876.
• Http- 2. Global Footprint Network, Https://Www.Footprintnetwork.Org/, 10.02.2023
• Grossman, G.M. ve Krueger, A.B. 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, (No. W3914). DOI 10.3386/w3914, National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J. E. 2019. The KOF Globalisation Index-Revisited, The Review of International Organizations, 14: 543-574.
• Hashmi, R. ve Alam, K. 2019. Dynamic Relationship Among Environmental Regulation, Innovation, CO2 Emissions, Population and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: A Panel Investigation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 231: 1100-1109.
• 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.
• Http- 1. KOF Küreselleşme İndeksi, İsviçre Ekonomi Enstitüsü, Https://Kof.Ethz.Ch/En/Forecasts-And-İndicators/İndicators/Kof-Globalisation-İndex.Html, 02.02.2023
• Ibrahim, M. ve Vo, X.V. 2021. Exploring the Relationships Among Innovation, Financial Sector Development and Environmental Pollution in Selected Industrialized Countries, Journal of Environmental Management, 284, 112057.
• Jaunky, V.C. 2011. The CO2 Emissions - Income Nexus: Evidence From Rich Countries, Energy Policy, 39(3): 1228-1240.
• Jebli, M.B., Ben, Youssef, S.B. ve Öztürk, İ. 2016. Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypotesis: The Role of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Trade in OECD Countries, Ecological Indicators, 60: 824-831.
• Karakaş, A. 2016. Yaklaşan Tehlikenin Farkına Varmak: İktisadi Büyüme, Nüfus ve Çevre Kirliliği İlişkisi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 57-73.
• Karasoy, A. 2020. Globalleşme, Sanayileşme ve Şehirleşmenin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisinin İncelenmesi: Türkiye için Ekonometrik Bir Uygulama, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Doktora Tezi.
• Kılıçarslan, Z. ve Dumrul, Y. 2017. Foreign Direct Investments and CO2 Emissions Relationship: The Case of Turkey, İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8 (4): 647 – 660.
• Kingsland, H. 2012. Accounting For Demand A,and Supply of The Biosphere’s Regenerative Capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ Underlying Methodology and Framework, Ecological Indicators 24:518–533.
• Kuznets, S. 1955. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1): 1-28.
• Li, Z., Shao, S., Shi, X., Sun, Y. ve Zhang, X. 2019. Structural Transformation of Manufacturing, Natural Resource Dependence, and Carbon Emissions Reduction: Evidence of a Threshold Effect From China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 206: 920-927.
• Manga, M. ve Cengiz, O. 2020. Çevresel Kuznets Hipotezine Küreselleşme Eksenli Yaklaşım: Türki Cumhuriyetler Örneği, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi,Vizyoner Dergisi, 11(28): 738-752.
• Mealy, P. ve Teytelboym, A. 2022. Economic Complexity and The Green Economy, Research Policy, 51(8): 1-24, No. 103948.
• Meyer, A.L., Van Kooten, G.C. ve Wang, S. 2003. Institutional, Social and Economic Roots of Deforestation: A Cross-Country Comparison, International Forestry Review, 5(1): 29-37.
• Moomaw, W.R. ve Unruh, G.C. 1997. Are Environmental Kuznets Curves Misleading Us? The Case of CO2 Emissions, Environment and Development Economics, 2(4): 451-463.
• Nazlıoglu, S. ve Karul, C. 2017. Panel LM Unit Root Test with Gradual Structural Shifts, 40th International Panel Data Conference, July 7-8, 2017, Thessaloniki-Greece.
• Nazlıoğlu, Ş. 2010. Makro İktisat Politikalarının Tarım Sektörü Üzerindeki Etkileri: Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler için Bir Karşılaştırma, Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kayseri.
• Özsoy, F. N. 2015. Sanayileşme Olgusunun Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi ve Çevresel Vergiler Açısından Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi.
• Panayotou, T. 2000. Globalization and Environment, CID Working Paper Series 53, Center for International Development at Harward University.
• Pehlivanoğlu, F. ve Solmaz, A.R. 2021. Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi: BRIC ve MIST Ülkeleri için Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi, Bingöl Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2): 471-493.
• Pesaran, M.H. 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No.0435.
• Pesaran, M.H. 2006. Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure, Econometrica, 74 (4): 967–1012.
• Pesaran, M.H., ve Yamagata, T. 2008. Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels, Journal of Econometrics, 142: 50–93.
• Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. 2008. A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence, Econometrics Journal, 11: 105-127.
• Richmond, A.K., ve Kaufmann, R.K. 2006. Is There a Turning Point in The Relationship Between Income and Energy Use and/or Carbon Emissions?, Ecological Economics, 56(2): 176-189.
• Rose, N.L.; Boyle, J.F.; Du, Y.; Yi, C. ve Dai, X. 2004. Sedimentary Evidence for Changes in The Pollution Status of Taihu in The Jiangsu Region of Eastern China, Journal of Paleolimnology, 32: 41-51.
• Rudolph, A. ve Figge, L. 2017. Determinants of Ecological Footprints: What is The Role of Globalization?, Ecological Indicators, 81: 348-361.
• Selden, T. ve Song, D. 1994. Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Managment, 27: 147-162.
• Shafik, N. ve Bandyopadhyay, S. 1992. Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Time Series and Cross- Country Evidence, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1- 50.
• Shahbaz, M., Hoang, T. H., Mahalik, M. K. ve Roubaud, D. 2017. Energy Consumption, Financial Development and Economic Growth in India: New Evidence from a Nonlinear and Asiymetric Analysis, Energy Economics, 63(3): 199-212.
• Shahbaz, M., Kumar Tiwari, A. ve Nasir, M. 2013. The Effects of Financial Development, Economic Growth, Coal Consumption and Trade Openness on CO2 Emissions in South Africa, Energy Policy, 61: 1452–1459. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Enpol.2013.07.006
• 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, 1- 35, Doi: 10.1016/J.Eneco.2015.06.014.
• Sharif, A., Afshan, S. ve Qureshi, M.A. 2019. Idolization and Ramification Between Globalization and Ecological Footprints: Evidence from Quantile-on-Quantile Approach, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(11): 11191-11211.
• Suri, V. ve Chapman, D. 1998. Economic Growth, Trade and Energy: Implications for The Environmental Kuznets Curve, Ecological Economics, 25(2): 195-208.
• Tenaw, D. ve Beyene, A. D. 2021. Environmental Sustainability and Economic Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Modified EKC Hypothesis, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110897. Doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Rser.2021.110897
• Toebelmann, D. ve Wendler, T. 2020. The impact of Environmental Innovation on Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118787.
• Topal, M. H. 2017). Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri için Testi: Panel Eş bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi, The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 1-20.
• Torun, M., Yücesan, M., ve Yağış, O. 2019. Ekonomik Büyüme ve Enerji Tüketiminin CO2 Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkileri: Seçilmiş MENA Ülkeleri için Panel Veri Analizi, Yönetim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 17(4): 351-368.
• Tunçbilek, N. ve Ulucak, R.U. 2021. “elişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Küreselleşmenin Çevre Üzerine Etkileri, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2): 452-465. Https://Doi.Org/10.21547/Jss.790690
• Twerefou, D.K., Danso-Mensah, K. ve Bokpin, G.A. 2017. The Environmental Effects of Economic Growth and Globalization in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Panel General Method of Moments Approach, Research in International Business and Finance, 42: 939-949.
• Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D.L. 2008. A Simple Test for Cointegration in Dependent Panels with Structural Breaks, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70: 665-704.
• Zarsky, L. 1999. Havens, Halos and Spaghetti: Untangling the Evidence About Foreign Direct Investment and The Environment, Environment Science, Economics, 13(8): 47-74.