DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIMLAR VE ÇEVRE KİRLİLİĞİ İLİŞKİSİ: TÜRKİYE İÇİN DOĞRUSAL OLMAYAN YUMUŞAK GEÇİŞ MODELLERİNDEN AMPİRİK KANITLAR

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 22 - 39, 29.06.2022

Fıkrat Abasov , Gülbahar Üçler

Öz

Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar (DYY), özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerin ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınma sürecinde oldukça önemli bir sermaye kaynağıdır. Türkiye’ de son yıllarda yüksek miktarda doğrudan yabancı yatırım girişine sahip gelişmekte olan ülkeler arasındadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’ de DYY girişlerinin çevre üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. 1971-2015 dönemi verileri ile yapılan çalışmada, öncelikle modele dahil edilen değişkenlere ilişkin doğrusallık testi, doğrusal olmayan yumuşak geçiş modellerine dayalı birim kök ve Hepsağ (2021b) tarafından önerilen asimetrik doğrusal olmayan bir eşbütünleşme testi kullanılmaktadır. Makalenin ampirik bulgularına göre, Türkiye’ de Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi (KSH) geçerlidir Ayrıca kişi başına düşen gelir, kentleşme ve enerji kullanımı da CO2 emisyonunu artırarak uzun dönemde çevresel kalite üzerinde olumsuz etkilere neden olmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Çevresel Kalite, Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi, Doğrusal Olmayan Yumuşak Geçiş Modeller

Kaynakça

• Acharrya, J. (2009). FDI, Growth and Environment; Evidence from India on CO2 Emission during the Last Two Decades. Journal of Economic Development, 34(1), 43–58.
• Al-Mulali, U. ve Tang, C. F. (2013). Investigating the Validity of Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813-819.
• Baek, J. (2016). A New Look at the FDI-Income, Energy-Environment Nexus: Dynamic Panel Data Analysis of ASEAN, Energy Policy 91, 22- 27.
• Bulut, Ü. (2021). Environmental Sustainability in Turkey: An Environmental Kuznets Curve Estimation for Ecological Footprint, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.
• Bulut, U., Ucler, G. ve Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2021). Does the Pollution Haven Hypothesis Prevail in Turkey? Empirical Evidence from Nonlinear Smooth Transition Models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-10.
• Chichilnisky, G. (1994). North-South Trade and the Global Environment. The American Economic Review, 851-874.
• Cole, M.A., Elliott, R.J.ve Okubo, T. (2010). Trade, Environmental Regulations and Industrial Mobility: an Industry-Level Study of Japan. Ecological Economics, 69 (10), 1995-2002. Cuestas, J. C., ve Ordóñez, J. (2014). Smooth Transitions, Asymmetric Adjustment and Unit Roots. Applied Economics Letters, 21(14), 969-972.
• Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2019). Does Pollution Haven Hypothesis Hold in Newly Industrialized Countries? Evidence from Ecological Footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(23), 23689-23695.
• Enders, W. (2008). Applied Econometric Time Series. John Wiley & Sons.
• Eskeland, G. S. ve Harrison, A.E. (1997). Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution-Haven Hypothesis, World Bank Working Paper Series, No.1744.
• Gökmenoğlu, K. ve Taspinar, N. (2016). The Relationship between CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and FDI: The Case of Turkey. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706-723.
• Graham E.M. ve Krugman, P. (1993). The Surge in Foreign Direct Investment in the 1980s. Foreign Direct Investment, Editor: Kenneth A. Froot, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 13-36.
• Gray, K. R. (2002). Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Impacts—Is the Debate Over?. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11(3), 306–313.
• Harvey, D. I. ve Leybourne, S. J. (2007). Testing for Time Series Linearity. The Econometrics Journal, 10(1), 149-165.
• Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J., ve Xiao, B. (2008). A Powerful test for Linearity when the Order of Integration is Unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3).
• Hepsağ, A. (2021a). A Unit Root Test Based on Smooth Transitions and Nonlinear Adjustment. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 50(3), 625-632.
• Hepsag, A. (2021b). Testing for Cointegration in Nonlinear Asymmetric Smooth Transition Error Correction Models. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 50(2), 400-412.
• Hoffman, A. R. (2005). A More Cooperative EU Policy Towards MERCOSUR? The Case of Foreign Direct Investment (1980-2000). CIES e-Working Paper, No: 6/2005.
• Işık, N., ve Işık, A. Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi ve Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar: Orta Asya Türk Cumhuriyetleri Örneği. In Book of Proceedıngs 3rd Internatıonal Congress on Economıcs, Fınance and Energy, ISBN: 978-601-7805-32-6, 88.
• Jalil, A., ve Feridun, M. (2011). The Impact of Growth, Energy and Financial Development on the Environment in China: A Cointegration Analysis. Energy Economics, 33(2), 284-291.
• Kellenberg, D. K. (2009). An Empirical Investigation of the Pollution Haven Effect with Strategic Environment and Trade Policy. Journal of International Economics, 78, 242-255.
• Kim, M. H. ve Adilov, N.. (2012). The Lesser of Two Evils: An Empirical Investigation of Foreign Direct Investment-Pollution Tradeoff. Applied Economics, 44: 2597-2606.
• Kisswani, K. M., ve Zaitouni, M. (2021). Does FDI Affect Environmental Degradation? Examining Pollution Haven and Pollution Halo Hypotheses Using ARDL Modelling. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 1-27.
• Koçak, E., ve Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on CO2 Emissions in Turkey: New Evidence from Cointegration and Bootstrap Causality Analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(1), 790-804.
• Köksal, C. ve Çetin, G. (2021). The International Trade Analysis of Turkey’s Polluting Industres. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 8(2), 257-275.
• Lan, J., Kakinaka, M., ve Huang, X. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment, Human Capital and Environmental Pollution in China. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(2), 255-275.
• Leybourne, S., Newbold, P., ve Vougas, D. (1998). Unit Roots and Smooth Transitions. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83-97.
• Leybourne, S., Newbold, P. ve Vougas, D. (1998). Unit Roots and Smooth Transitions. Journal of time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83-97.
• Liu, J., Qu, J., ve Zhao, K. (2019). Is China's Development Conforms to the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 787-796.
• Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P., ve Teräsvirta, T. (1988). Testing Linearity in Univariate Time Series Models. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 161-175.
• Mike, F. (2020). Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi Türkiye için Geçerli mi? ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımından Bulgular. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 21(2), 107-121. Mutafoglu, T. H. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment, Pollution, and Economic Growth: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281-297.
• Özsoy, F.N. (2015). Sanayileşme Olgusunun Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi ve Çevresel Vergiler Açısından Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi”, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi.
• Pehlivanoğlu, F., ve Solmaz, A. R. (2021). Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi: BRIC ve MIST Ülkeleri için Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 471-493.
• Sabir, S., Qayyum, U., ve Majeed, T. (2020). FDI and Environmental Degradation: The Role of Political Institutions in South Asian Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32544-32553.
• Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M. ve 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.
• 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, 51:275–287.
• Solarin, S. A. ve Al-Mulali, U. (2018). Influence of Foreign Direct Investment on Indicators of Environmental Degradation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(25), 24845-24859.
• Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I. ve Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Ghana: An Empirical Investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719. Sun, C., Zhang, F. ve Xu, M. (2017). Investigation of Pollution Haven Hypothesis for China: An ARDL Approach with Breakpoint Unit Root Tests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 153-164.
• Şahinöz, A. ve Fotourehchi, Z. (2014). Kirlilik Emisyonu ve Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları: Türkiye için “Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi” Testi, Sosyo Ekonomi, (1), 187-210.
• Şahin, G., Gökdemir, L. ve Ayyıldız, F.V. (2019). Türkiye Örneğinde Kirlilik Sığınağı ve Kirlenme Hale Hipotezleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33, 104-140.
• Terzi, H., ve Pata, U. (2020). Is the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) Valid for Turkey?. Panoeconomicus, 67(1).
• Tsay, R. S. (1986). Nonlinearity Tests for Time Series. Biometrika, 73(2), 461-466.
• Walter, I., ve Ugelow, J. L. (1979). Environmental Policies in Developing Countries. Ambio, 102-109.
• Yılmaz, M., Destek, M.A. ve Özsoy, F.N. (2018). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar ve Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111.
• Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Türkiye’de Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi Geçerli mi? Fourier Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Yöntemlerinden Kanıtlar. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13(24), 61-77.
• Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, Halos and Spaghetti: Untangling the Evidence about Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment. Foreign direct Investment and the Environment, 13(8), 47-74.