ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE OF CIS COUNTRIES

Yıl 2018, 18. EYİ Özel Sayısı, 773 - 788, 20.01.2018

Esra Ballı , Çiler Sigeze Müge Manga

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.344569

Cited By: 5

Öz

An investigation of the
relationship between energy consumption and economic growth provides
information about the role of energy consumption in economic development.
Therefore, exhibiting the relationship between energy consumption and economic
growth becomes crucial to make well-targeted policies for policy makers. This study investigates the relationship between
energy consumption and economic growth utilizing Fully  Modified Least Squares Method (FMOLS)  and 
Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012)  panel
causality test for the period of 1992-2013 for Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The
results show that there is a bi-directional relationship between energy
consumption and economic growth for CIS countries. In the case of, Commonwealth
of Independent States, the amount of energy production and consumption varies
across countries. In order to implement effective energy and environmental
policies, policymakers should understand the relationship between energy
consumption and economic growth. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, Panel Data Analysis, CIS Countries

ENERJİ TÜKETİMİ VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: BDT ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Enerji tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi
ekonomik büyüme üzerinde enerji tüketiminin rolü hakkında bilgi vermesi ve
politika yapıcılarının enerji politikaları oluşturabilmeleri açısından oldukça
büyük öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, Ermenistan,
Azerbaycan, Gürcistan,  Kazakistan,
Kırgızistan, Moldova, Beyaz Rusya, Rusya, Türkmenistan, Tacikistan, Ukrayna ve
Özbekistan’dan oluşan Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu (BDT)’ndaki enerji tüketimi
ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki 1992-2013 yılları esas alınarak panel Düzeltilmiş
En Küçük Kareler Yöntemi (FMOLS) ve Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012) panel nedensellik
testi  ile analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen
sonuçlar, mevcut yıllarda BDT ülkelerinde enerji tüketimi ile ekonomik büyüme
arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bunun
yanında BDT’ye üye ülkelerin doğal kaynak zenginlikleri önemli ölçüde farklılık
göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda, politika yapıcılarının etkin ekonomik ve
çevresel politikalar oluşturabilmeleri için ekonomik büyüme ile enerji tüketimi
arasındaki ilişkinin boyutu hakkında bilgi edinmeleri önem kazanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Enerji Tüketimi, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel Veri Analizi

Kaynakça

• Al-Iriani, M. A. (2006). Energy–GDP Relationship Revisited: An Example From GCC Countries Using Panel Causality. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3342-3350.
• Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2009). Energy Consumption And Economic Growth: Evidence From The Commonwealth of Independent States. Energy Economics, 31(5), 641-647.
• Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2010). The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Policy, 38(1), 650-655.
• Ashraf, Z., Javid, A. Y. ve Javid, M. (2013). Electricity Consumption And Economic Growth: Evidence From Pakistan. Economics and Business Letters, 2(1), 21-32.
• Azam, M., Khan, A. Q., Bakhtyar, B. ve Emirullah, C. (2015). The Causal Relationship Between Energy Consumption And Economic Growth İn The ASEAN-5 Countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 732-745.
• Baltagi, B. H., (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd,.
• Basher, S. A. ve Mohsin, M. (2004). PPP Tests İn Cointegrated Panels: Evidence From Asian Developing Countries. Applied Economics Letters, 11(3), 163-166.
• Bowden, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2009). The Causal Relationship Between US Energy Consumption And Real Output: A Disaggregated Analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31(2), 180-188.
• Chandran, V. G. R., Sharma, S. ve Madhavan, K. (2010). Electricity Consumption–Growth Nexus: The Case Of Malaysia. Energy Policy, 38(1), 606-612.
• Chen, S. T., Kuo, H. I. ve Chen, C. C. (2007). The Relationship Between GDP and Electricity Consumption in 10 Asian Countries. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2611-2621.
• Cheng, B. S. (1995). An Investigation of Cointegration and Causality Between Energy Consumption And Economic Growth. The Journal Of Energy and Development, 21(1), 73-84.
• Cheng, B. S. (1999). Causality Between Energy Consumption And Economic Growth in India: An Application of Cointegration and Error-Correction Modeling. Indian Economic Review, 39-49.
• Chiou-Wei, S. Z., Chen, C. F. ve Zhu, Z. (2008). Economic Growth And Energy Consumption Revisited—Evidence From Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality. Energy Economics, 30(6), 3063-3076.
• Chontanawat, J., Hunt, L. C. ve Pierse, R. (2008). Does Energy Consumption Cause Economic Growth?: Evidence From A Systematic Study of Over 100 Countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(2), 209-220.
• Dedeoglu, D. ve Piskin, A. (2014). A Dynamic Panel Study of Energy Consumption–Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence From The Former Soviet Union Countries. OPEC Energy Review, 38(1), 75-106.
• Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlın, C., (2012),Testing for Granger noncausality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
• Dünya Bankası, 2017,World Bank Indicator, http://www.worldbank.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05.10.2017).
• Energy Information Agency (EIA), (2016), Annual Energy Outlook 2016. Erişim adresi https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf
• Energy Information Agency (EIA), 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
• Enerji ve Tabi kaynaklar Bakanlığı (ETKB), (2017), http://www.enerji.gov.tr/tr-TR/Anasayfa
• Farhani, S. ve Ben Rejeb, J. (2012). Energy Consumption, Economic Growth And CO2 Emissions: Evidence From Panel Data For MENA Region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(2), 71-81.
• Feenstra, Inklaar ve Timmer (2013).The Next Generation of the Penn World Table" available for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt
• Glasure, Y. U. ve Lee, A. R. (1998). Cointegration, Error-Correction, and The Relationship Between GDP and Energy: The Case of South Korea And Singapore. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(1), 17-25.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., ve Shin, Y. (2003). Testing For Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Kao, C. (1999). Spurious Regression And Residual-Based Tests For Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal Of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
• Kaplan, M., Ozturk, I. ve Kalyoncu, H. (2011). Energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey: cointegration and causality analysis. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 2(31), 31-41.
• Lean, H. H. ve Smyth, R. (2010a). On The Dynamics Of Aggregate Output, Electricity Consumption And Exports In Malaysia: Evidence From Multivariate Granger Causality Tests. Applied Energy, 87(6), 1963-1971.
• Lean, H. H. ve Smyth, R. (2010b). CO 2 Emissions, Electricity Consumption and Output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87(6), 1858-1864.
• Lee, C. C. (2005). Energy Consumption and GDP in Developing Countries: A Cointegrated Panel Analysis. Energy economics, 27(3), 415-427.
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F. ve Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Mahadevan, R. ve Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2007). Energy Consumption, Economic Growth And Prices: A Reassessment Using Panel VECM For Developed and Developing Countries. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2481-2490.
• Mehrara, M. (2007). Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: The Case Of Oil Exporting Countries. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2939-2945.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Database, https://data.oecd.org/
• Oh, W. ve Lee, K. (2004). Causal Relationship Between Energy Consumption and GDP Revisited: The Case of Korea 1970–1999. Energy Economics, 26(1), 51-59.
• Ouedraogo, N. S. (2013). Energy Consumption And Economic Growth: Evidence From The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Energy Economics, 36, 637-647.
• Paul, S. ve Bhattacharya, R. N. (2004). Causality Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in India: A Note On Conflicting Results. Energy Economics, 26(6), 977-983.
• Payne, J. E. (2009). On The Dynamics Of Energy Consumption And Output in The US. Applied Energy, 86(4), 575-577.
• Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical Values For Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels With Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin Of Economics And Statistics, 61(S1), 653-670.
• Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests With An Application To The PPP Hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing Weak Cross-Sectional Dependence in Large Panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117.
• Quang, C, L. (2013). Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in Vietnam: A Cointegration and Causality Analysis. Journal of Economics and Development, 13(3), 24-36.
• Shahateet, M. I. (2014). Modeling Economic Growth And Energy Consumption in Arab Countries: Cointegration and Causality Analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(3), 349.
• Soytas, U. ve Sari, R. (2003). Energy Consumption and GDP: Causality Relationship in G-7 Countries and Emerging Markets. Energy Economics, 25(1), 33-37.
• Tang, C. F. (2008). A Re-Examination of The Relationship Between Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in Malaysia. Energy Policy, 36(8), 3077-3085.
• Tang, C. F., & Tan, E. C. (2012). Electricity Consumption And Economic Growth İn Portugal: Evidence from a Multivariate Framework Analysis. The Energy Journal, 33(4), 23-48.
• Tang, C. F., Tan, B. W. Ve Ozturk, I. (2016). Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in Vietnam. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1506-1514.
• Yoo, S. H. (2006). The Causal Relationship Between Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in The ASEAN Countries. Energy policy, 34(18), 3573-3582.
• Zhang, Y. J. (2011). Interpreting The Dynamic Nexus Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Russia. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2265-2272.