OECD Ülkelerinde Finansal Yenilik ve Çevre Kirliliği Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Çevresel bozulmalar sonucunda meydana gelen iklim değişiklikleri birçok alanda olumsuz etkiler oluşturmaktadır. Ekonomi literatüründe birçok çalışma farklı açılardan bu olumsuzlukların etkileri incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada literatürde yeni kullanılan finansal inovasyon ile CO2 emisyonu arasında ilişki OECD üyesi 14 ülke için incelenmiştir. 2009 – 2019 yılları arasındaki dönem için yapılan analizlerde LLC ve IPS birim kök testleri, Pedroni ve Kao eşbütünleşme testleri ve FMOLS tahmincisi kullanılmıştır. Analizlerden elde edilen bulgulara göre finansal inovasyon, ekonomik büyüme ve kentleşmenin CO2emisyonu üzerinde negatif etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada uygulanan Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testi sonuçlarında ekonomik büyüme, kentleşme ve CO2 emisyonu arasında çift yönlü, finansal inovasyon ile CO2 emisyonu arasında tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda firmaların ve hükümetlerin birlikte hareket etmesi gerektiği önemli görülmektedir. Finansal aracıların çevreye duyarlı projelere yönelik yeşil kredileri oluşturmaları yatırımcıları teşvik edebileceği değerlendirilmektedir. Çevresel bozulmanın bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla önlenebilmesi için ise devlet çevre dostu projeleri teşvik etmek üzere sübvansiyon ve vergi indirimleri gibi önlemleri almalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finansal İnovasyon
• CO2 Emisyonu
• Kentleşme
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Panel Veri Analizi

The Relationship Between Financial Innovation and Environmental Pollution in OECD Countries

Abstract

Climate changes as a result of environmental degradation have negative effects in many areas. Many studies in the economics literature have examined the effects of these negativities from different perspectives. In this study, the relationship between financial innovation and CO2 emission, which is newly used in the literature, is examined for 14 OECD member countries. LLC and IPS unit root tests, Pedroni and Kao cointegration tests and FMOLS estimator were used in the analyses for the period between 2009 and 2019. According to the findings obtained from the analyses, it is seen that financial innovation, economic growth and urbanization have negative effects on CO2 emissions. In addition, in the results of Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test applied in the study, it was determined that there is a bidirectional causality relationship between economic growth, urbanization and CO2 emissions, and a unidirectional causality relationship between financial innovation and CO2 emissions. In this direction, it is considered important that companies and governments should act together. It is considered that the creation of green loans by financial intermediaries for environmentally sensitive projects can encourage investors. In order to prevent environmental degradation from a holistic perspective, the government should take measures such as subsidies and tax reductions to encourage environmentally friendly projects.

Keywords

• Financial Innovation
• CO2 Emissions
• Urbanization
• Economic Growth
• Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, F., & Riaz, K. (2016). CO2 emissions and financial development in an emerging economy: An augmented VAR approach. Energy policy, 90, 102-114.
2. Acheampong, A. O. (2019). Modelling for insight: Does financial development improve environmental quality?. Energy Economics, 83, 156-179.
3. Arıcı, T. (2015). Liberalizasyon ve ekonomik büyüme: Geçiş ekonomileri. (Master dissertation, Sakarya University).
4. Çetin, M., & Ecevit, E. (2015). Urbanization, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Sub-Saharan countries: A panel cointegration and causality analysis. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 3(2), 66-76.
5. Cetin, M., & Ecevit, E. (2017). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions under the structural breaks: Empirical evidence from turkish economy. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1).
6. Çetin, M., & Yüksel, Ö. (2018). Türkiye ekonomisinde enerji tüketiminin karbon emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2) , 169-186.
7. Çetin, M., Aslan, A., & Sarıgül, S. S. (2022). Analysis of the dynamics of environmental degradation for 18 upper middle-income countries: The role of financial development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(43), 64647-64664.
8. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E., & Yucel, A. G. (2018). Structural breaks, urbanization and CO2 emissions: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics & Business Research, 8(2), 122-139.

9. Chishti, M. Z., & Sinha, A. (2022). Do the shocks in technological and financial innovation influence the environmental quality? Evidence from BRICS economies. Technology in Society, 68, 101828.
10. Dagar, V., Khan, M. K., Alvarado, R., Rehman, A., Irfan, M., Adekoya, O. B., & Fahad, S. (2022). Impact of renewable energy consumption, financial development and natural resources on environmental degradation in OECD countries with dynamic panel data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 18202-18212.
11. Doğan, M., Raikhan, S., Zhanar, N., & Gulbagda, B. (2023). Analysis of dynamic connectedness relationships among clean energy, carbon emission allowance, and BIST indexes. Sustainability, 15(7), 6025.
12. Dong, K., Sun, R., Jiang, H., & Zeng, X. (2018). CO2 emissions, economic growth, and the environmental kuznets curve in China: What roles can nuclear energy and renewable energy play?. Journal of cleaner production, 196, 51-63.
13. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
14. Erdogan, S., Ahmed, M. Y., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2022). Analyzing asymmetric effects of cryptocurrency demand on environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-11.
15. Erdogan, S., Okumus, I., & Guzel, A. E. (2020). Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in OECD countries: the role of renewable, non-renewable energy, and oil prices. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 23655-23663.
16. Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., & Solarin, S. A. (2023). Towards carbon-neutral world: the effect of renewable energy investments and technologies in G7 countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 186, 113683.
17. Ertugrul, H. M., Cetin, M., Seker, F., & Dogan, E. (2016). The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 543-555.
18. Ganda, F. (2019). The environmental impacts of financial development in OECD countries: a panel GMM approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(7), 6758-6772.
19. Ganda, F. (2020). Effect of foreign direct investment, financial development, and economic growth on environmental quality in OECD economies using panel quantile regressions. Environmental Quality Management, 30(2), 89-118.
20. Halkos, G. E., & Polemis, M. L. (2017). Does financial development affect environmental degradation? Evidence from the OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1162-1180.
21. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 53-74.
22. Jianguo, D., Ali, K., Alnori, F., & Ullah, S. (2022). The nexus of financial development, technological innovation, institutional quality and environmental quality: Evidence from OECD economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(38), 58179-58200.
23. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
24. Khan, A. B., Fareed, M., Salameh, A. A., & Hussain, H. (2021). Financial innovation, sustainable economic growth, and credit risk: A case of the ASEAN banking sector. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 729922.
25. Khan, M., & Ozturk, I. (2021). Examining the direct and indirect effects of financial development on CO2 emissions for 88 developing countries. Journal of environmental management, 293, 112812.
26. Khezri, M., Karimi, M. S., Khan, Y. A., & Abbas, S. Z. (2021). The spillover of financial development on CO2 emission: A spatial econometric analysis of Asia-Pacific countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111110.
27. Kılavuz, E., Oralhan, B., Sarigül, S. S., & Uluğ, E. E. (2021). The validity of the tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 3(2), 124-138.
28. Lee, J. M., Chen, K. H., & Cho, C. H. (2015). The relationship between CO2 emissions and financial development: Evidence from OECD countries. The Singapore Economic Review, 60(05), 1550117.
29. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
30. Lv, Z., & Li, S. (2021). How financial development affects CO2 emissions: A spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 277, 111397.
31. Mohammed Saud M, A., Guo, P., Haq, I. U., Pan, G., & Khan, A. (2019). Do government expenditure and financial development impede environmental degradation in Venezuela?. PloS one, 14(1), e0210255.
32. OECD,(2023).https://stats.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=BERD_INDU&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en, Date of Access: 01.05.2023.
33. Okumus, I., & Erdogan, S. (2021). Analyzing the tourism development and ecological footprint nexus: evidence from the countries with fastest-growing rate of tourism GDP. Strategies in Sustainable Tourism, Economic Growth and Clean Energy, 141-154.
34. Omri, A., Daly, S., Rault, C., & Chaibi, A. (2015). Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: What causes what in MENA countries. Energy Economics, 48, 242-252.
35. Ozturk, S., Cetin, M., & Demir, H. (2022). Income inequality and CO2 emissions: Nonlinear evidence from Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11911-11928.
36. Pata, U. K., Erdogan, S., & Ozcan, B. (2023). Evaluating the role of the share and intensity of renewable energy for sustainable development in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138482.
37. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(1): 653- 570.
38. Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully modified ols for heterogeneous cointegrated panels, in Baltagi, Badi H. (Ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels (Advances in Econometrics), New York: Elsevier Science Inc. 93–130.
39. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 727-931.
40. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration, asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the purchasing power parity hypothesis, Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625.
41. Rasool, S. F., Zaman, S., Jehan, N., Chin, T., Khan, S., & uz Zaman, Q. (2022). Investigating the role of the tech industry, renewable energy, and urbanization in sustainable environment: Policy directions in the context of developing economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121935.
42. Raza, M. Y., Hasan, M. M., & Chen, Y. (2023). Role of economic growth, urbanization and energy consumption on climate change in Bangladesh. Energy Strategy Reviews, 47, 101088.
43. Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., Ozturk, I., & Sohag, K. (2018). The effects of electricity consumption, economic growth, financial development and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Kuwait. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2002-2010.
44. Secretary-General, U. N. (2022). Progress towards the sustainable development goals: Report of the secretary-general. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2022/secretary-general-sdg-report-2022--EN.pdf, Date of Access: 04.05.2023.
45. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., & 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.
46. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023a). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: Evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16.
47. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Muzaffar, A. T., Ahmed, K., & Jabran, M. A. (2016). How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 83-93.
48. Shahbaz, M., Topcu, B. A., Sarıgül, S. S., & Doğan, M. (2023b). Energy imports as inhibitor of economic growth: The role of impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 1-26.
49. Shobande, O. A., & Ogbeifun, L. (2022). The criticality of financial development and energy consumption for environmental sustainability in OECD countries: Evidence from dynamic panel analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(2), 153-163.
50. Szymczyk, K., Şahin, D., Bağcı, H., & Kaygın, C. Y. (2021). The effect of energy usage, economic growth, and financial development on CO2 emission management: An analysis of OECD countries with a high environmental performance index. Energies, 14(15), 4671.
51. Topcu, B. A. (2023). An Empirical Analysis of the impact of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on environmental quality: Evidence from twelve selected countries. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 5(2), 98-108.
52. Tufano, P. (2003). Financial innovation. Handbook of the economics of finance, 1, 307-335.
53. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
54. United Nations Secretary-General, (2013). Initial input of the secretary-general to the open working group on SDGs https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/owg1.html, Date of Access: 04.05.2023.
55. United Nations, (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. outcome document for the un summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda: draft for adoption, New York
56. Worldbank, (2023). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators , Date of Access: 01.05.2023.
57. Ye, Y., Khan, Y. A., Wu, C., Shah, E. A., & Abbas, S. Z. (2021). The impact of financial development on environmental quality: Evidence from Malaysia. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 14, 1233-1246.
58. Yuan, G., Ye, Q., & Sun, Y. (2021). Financial innovation, information screening and industries green innovation-industry-level evidence from the OECD. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 120998.
59. Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., & Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: Evidence from selected countries in the organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 13246-13262.
60. Zhao, B., & Yang, W. (2020). Does financial development influence CO2 emissions? A chinese province-level study. Energy, 200, 117523.
61. Zheng, S., Irfan, M., Ai, F., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Do renewable energy, urbanisation, and natural resources enhance environmental quality in China? Evidence from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles. Resources Policy, 81, 103354.