ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS HİPOTEZİNE KÜRESELLEŞME EKSENLİ YAKLAŞIM: TÜRKİ CUMHURİYETLER ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Makroekonomi politikalarının odağındaki büyüme eksenli uygulamaların ortaya çıkardığı sorunlara yönelik ilgi son dönemlerde giderek artmıştır. Bu ilginin gerek ekonomik gerekse de siyasal, sosyal ve kültürel unsurlardan hareketle artmasının geri planında yatan dinamiklerin ortaya konulması küreselleşme olgusundan bağımsız bir biçimde ele alınmayı imkânsız hâle getirmektedir. Dolayısıyla, 20. yüzyılın sonlarından itibaren toplumun tüm katmanlarına yayılım gösteren küreselleşme ile birlikte çevresel dengenin değişimine vurgu yapan literatürün öne çıkmaya başladığı görülmektedir. Bu doğrultuda mevcut çalışmada, 1991-2014 dönemine ait verilerle panel ARDL yöntemiyle Türkiye, Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Tacikistan, Türkmenistan ve Özbekistan’dan oluşan Türki Cumhuriyetlerde Çevresel Kuznets hipotezi ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşme göstergeleri dikkate alınarak test edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, ekonomik büyümenin karbon emisyonu üzerindeki negatif yönlü etkisinin yaklaşık olarak kişi başı 2,830$ gelir düzeyinde ortaya çıktığını, sonrasında ise N tipi bir ilişkinin söz konusu olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca analiz bulguları, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin karbon emisyonunu azalttığını, ekonomik küreselleşme ve enerji kullanımını ise arttırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küreselleşme
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Enerji Kullanımı
• Panel Veri

GLOBALIZATION BASED APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS HYPOTHESIS: THE CASE OF TURKIC REPUBLICS

Öz

Recently, the interest in the problems caused by growth-oriented policy implications which are at the center of macroeconomic policies has increased gradually. Revealing the background dynamics of this interest that is increasing due to both economic and political, social and cultural factors, is impossible to discuss without taking the effects of the phenomenon of globalization. Therefore, together with the globalization that has permeated to all strata of society since the end of the 20th century, the literature which emphasises changing of environmental balance has become prominent. In this context, it he study, environmental Kuznets hypothesis is tested by taking economic, political and social globalization indicators into account for Turkic Republics that compose of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with panel ARDL methods for 1991-2014 period. The results show that the negative impact of the economic growth on carbon emission arises the per capita income level of nearly $2,830, and after that there is a N-shaped relationship between them. In addition, the findings reveal that political and social globalization reduce carbon emissions while it increases economic globalization and energy use.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Globalization
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Economic Growth
• Energy Use
• Panel Data

Kaynakça

1. Agarwal, R. N. (2012). Economic globalisation, growth and the environment: testing of environment Kuznet curve hypothesis for Malaysia. Journal of Business & Financial Affairs, 1(2), 1-8.
2. Agras, J. ve Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28, 267-277.
3. Apergis, N. ve Ozturk, I. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16-22.
4. Apergis, N. ve Payne, J. E. (2010). The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Policy, 38, 650-655.
5. Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (Third Edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
6. Bento, J. P. C. ve Moutinho, V. (2016). CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 142-155.
7. 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.
8. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.

9. Cialani, C. (2007). Economic growth and environmental quality: an econometric and a decomposition analysis. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(5), 568-577.
10. Cole, M. A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the environmental Kuznets curve?. Environment and Development Economics, 8, 557-580.
11. Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J. ve Bates, J. M. (1997). The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 401-416.
12. Dijkgraaf, E. ve Vollebergh, H. R. J. (2005). A test for parameter homogeneity in CO2 panel EKC estimations. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 229-239.
13. Dinda, S. (2006). Globalization and environment: can pollution haven hypothesis alone explain the impact of globalization on environment?. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 50590, 1-19.
14. Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091-1110.
15. Dreher, A., Gaston, N. ve Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalisation-gauging its consequences. New York: Springer.
16. Ekins, P. (1997). The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic growth: examining the evidence. Environment and Planning A, 29(5), 805-830.
17. Friedl, B. ve Getzner, M. (2002). Environment and growth in a small open economy: an EKC case-study for Austrian CO2 emissions. Univ. Klagenfurt, Inst. für Wirtschaftswiss.
18. Galeotti, M. ve Lanza, A. (1999). Richer and cleaner? a study on carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries. Energy Policy, 27, 565-573.
19. Gallagher, K. P. (2009). Economic globalization and the environment. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 279-304.
20. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 3914, 1-39.
21. Günel, T. (2019). Türk Cumhuriyetleri’nde CO2 emisyonu ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: panel nedensellik analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 27(40), 151-164.
22. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index-revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 543-574.
23. Hossain, Md. S. (2011). Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, 39, 6991-6999.
24. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/, (15 Aralık 2019).
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.
26. Işık, N. (2019). The pollution haven hypothesis and foreign direct investments: evidence from the Central Asian Turkic Republics. Eurasian Research Journal, 1(1), 34-50.
27. Karhan, G. (2016). Türki Cumhuriyetlerde çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi testi: panel veri analizi. TURAN-SAM Uluslararası Bilimsel Hakemli Dergisi, 8(32), 11-17.
28. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
29. Lebe, F. (2016). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi: Türkiye için eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 17(2), 177-194.
30. Maddala, G. S. ve Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-52.
31. Marques, L. M., Fuinhas, J. A. ve Marques, A. C. (2017). Augmented energy-growth nexus: economic, political and social globalization impacts. Energy Procedia, 136, 97-101.
32. Martinez-Zarzoso, I. ve Maruotti, A. (2011). The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: Evidence from developing countries. Ecological Economics, 70, 1344-1353.
33. Menegaki, A. N. ve Tsagarakis, K. P. (2015). Rich enough to go renewable, but too early to leave fossil energy?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1465-1477.
34. Meyerson, F. A., Merino, L. ve Durand, J. (2007). Migration and environment in the context of globalization. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment, 5(4), 182-190.
35. Mikayilov, J. I., Galeotti, M. ve Hasanov, F. J. (2018). The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1558-1572.
36. Narayan, P. K. ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38, 661-666.
37. Nasir, M. ve Rehman, F. U. (2011). Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: An Empirical Investigation. Energy Policy, 39, 1857-1864.
38. Neumayer, E. (2002). Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions?. Energy Policy, 30, 7-12.
39. Pesaran, H. ve Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1),79-113.
40. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
41. Rafindadi, A. A. ve Usman, O. (2019). Globalization, energy use, and environmental degradation in South Africa: startling empirical evidence from the maki-cointegration test. Journal of Environmental Management, 244, 265-275.
42. 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, 176-189.
43. Schmalensee, R., Stoker, T. M. ve Judson, R. A. (1998). World carbon dioxide emissions: 1950-2050. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 15-27.
44. Sebri, M. ve Ben-Salha, O. (2014). On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 14-23.
45. Shaari, M. S., Hussain, N. E., Abdullah, H. ve Kamil, S. (2014). Relationship among foreign direct investment, economic growth and CO2 emission: a panel data analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(4), 706-715.
46. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757-773.
47. Shafik, N. ve Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and crosscountry evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 904.
48. Shahbaz, M., Khan, S., Ali, A. ve Bhattacharya, M. (2015). The impact of globalization on CO2 emissions in China. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 64450, 1-28.
49. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S. A. ve Ozturk, I. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 623-636.
50. Spilker, G. (2013). Globalization, political institutions and the environment in developing countries. New York: Routledge.
51. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
52. Tatoğlu, F. (2017). Panel zaman serileri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
53. Uchiyama, K. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and carbon dioxide emissions. Tokyo: Springer.
54. Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P. ve Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39, 4870-4875.