İhracat Ürün Çeşitlendirmesinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 26, 47 - 58, 25.05.2022

İhsan Güzel , İhsan Oluç

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437

Cited By: 8

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye örnekleminde ticaret ile çevresel bozulmayı ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesi ve ekolojik ayak izi bağlamında değerlendirmektir.
Tasarım/Yöntem: Çalışmada 1962-2014 dönemini kapsayan veriler kullanılarak ekonometrik analizler yapılmıştır. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) ve Phillips Perron (PP) ile birim kök analizleri yapılmıştır. Çalışmada birim kök sonuçlarına göre Johansen eş bütünleşme analizinin kullanılmasına karar verilmiştir. Son olarak modeldeli uzun dönem katsayılarının tahmini için Tam Düzeltilmiş En Küçük Kareler Yöntemi (FMOLS ) kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Analizler sonucunda; seriler arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin var olduğu tespit edilmiştir. FMOLS ile yapılan uzun dönem katsayı sonuçları ise enerji tüketimi ile yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin istatistiksel olarak anlamsız olduğunu göstermektedir. Diğer değişkenler için ise bulgular göstermektedir ki ekonomik büyüme ve ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesi değişkenlerinde meydana gelen %1’lik artış ekolojik ayak izini sırasıyla, %0.21 ve %0.17 arttırmaktadır.
Sınırlılıklar: IMF tarafından yayınlanan ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesi verisi 2014 yılına kadar mevcut olduğundan çalışma 2014 ile sınırlandırılmıştır.
Özgünlük/Değer: İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesi dış ticaretin özelliklerini diğer ticaret değişkenlerine göre daha iyi yansıtmakta olup son yıllarda literatürde fazla kabul görmektedir. Benzer şekilde çevre değişkeni olarak da ekolojik ayak izi karbon emisyonlarına göre daha kapsayıcı olduğu için tercih edilmiştir. Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izi ile ihracat ürün çeşitlendirmesi arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koyan ilk çalışma olması dolayısıyla bu çalışma literatürde önemli bir katkı sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre, İhracat Ürün Çeşitlendirmesi, Ekolojik Ayak İzi

The Effect of Export Product Diversification on Ecological Footprint

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate trade and environmental degradation in the context of export product diversification and ecological footprint in the sample of Turkey.
Design/Methodology: In the study, econometric analyzes were carried out by using the data covering the period 1962-2014. Unit root analyzes were performed with Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips Perron (PP). In the study, it was decided to use the Johansen cointegration analysis according to the unit root results. Finally, the Fully Modified Least Squares Method (FMOLS) was used for the estimation of the long-term coefficients in the model.
Findings: As a result of the analysis; it has been determined that there is a cointegration relationship between the series. Long-term coefficient results with FMOLS show that energy consumption and renewable energy consumption are statistically insignificant. For other variables, the findings show that a 1% increase in economic growth and export product diversification variables increases the ecological footprint by 0.21% and 0.17%, respectively.
Limitations: Since the export product diversification data published by the IMF is available until 2014, the study is limited to 2014.
Originality/Value: Export product diversification reflects the characteristics of foreign trade better than other trade variables and has been widely accepted in the literature in recent years. Similarly, the ecological footprint was chosen as an environmental variable because it is more inclusive than the carbon emissions. Since it is the first study to reveal the relationship between ecological footprint and export product diversification in Turkey, this study will make an important contribution to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environment, Ecological Footprint, Export Product Diversification

Kaynakça

• Acemoglu, D. (2012). Introduction to economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 147(2), 545-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2012.01.023
• Aditya, A., & Acharyya, R. (2013). Export diversification, composition, and economic growth: Evidence from cross-country analysis. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 22(7), 959-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2011.619009
• Ahmed, F., Raza, H., Hussain, A., & Lal, I. (2013). Determinant of inflation in Pakistan: An econometrics analysis, using Johansen cointegration approach. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(30), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6437-3
• Ali, H. S., Law, S. H., & Zannah, T. I. (2016). Dynamic impact of urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness on CO 2 emissions in Nigeria. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(12), 12435-12443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6437-3
• Al-Majali, A. A., & Al-Assaf, G. I. (2014). Long-run and short-run relationship between stock market index and main macroeconomic variables performance in Jordan. European Scientific Journal, 10(10), 156-171. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2014.v10n10p%25p
• Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Dagar, V., Ahmad, M., Işık, C., Méndez, P., & Toledo, E. (2021). Ecological footprint, economic complexity and natural resources rents in Latin America: Empirical evidence using quantile regressions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128585
• Andersson, J. O., & Lindroth, M. (2001). Ecologically unsustainable trade. Ecological Economics, 37, 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00272-X
• Apergis, N., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026
• Atıcı, C., & Kurt, F. (2007). Türkiye’nin dış ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi yaklaşımı. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(1 ve 2), 61-69. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tarekoder/issue/25831/272359
• Chai, J. C. H. (2002). Trade and environment: Evidence from China’s manufacturing sector. Sustainable Development, 10(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.174
• Choi, E., Heshmati, A., & Cho, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the relationships between CO2 emissions, economic growth and openness. IZA DP No-5304, 3-37. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201118750324227.pdf
• Cole, M. A. (2003). Development, trade, and the environment: How robust is the environmental Kuznets curve?. Environment and Development Economics, 8(4), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X0300305
• Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-71. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205104773558047
• Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M., Boamah, K. B., Ampon-Wireko, S., & Kofi Dogbe, C. S. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125143
• Dessus, S., & Bussolo, M. (1998). Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and pollution abatement?. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(1), 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-8938(96)00092-0
• Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387-29396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2911-4
• Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
• Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
• Dumrul, Y., & Kiliçarslan, Z. (2020). Türkiye’nin uluslararası ticareti ve ekolojik ayak izi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(3), 1589-1597. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.558346
• Gözgör, G., & Can, M. (2016). Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 21594-21603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7403-9
• Grossman, G., & Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
• Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012
• IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. In Ipcc-Sr15 2(October). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/
• Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with appucations to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169-210. https://digidownload.libero.it/rocco.mosconi/JohansenJuselius1990.pdf
• Keeble, B. R. (1988). The brundtland report: “Our common future.” In Medicine and War, 4(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783
• Kopuk, E., & Özçelik, Ö. (2021). Covid-19 sürecinde ikiz açık ve büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13(25), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.963311
• Kumbur, H., Özer, Z., Duygu Özsoy, H., & Avci, E. D. (2005). Türkiye’de geleneksel ve yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının potansiyeli ve çevresel etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. 19-21. https://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/3f445b0ff5a783e_ek.pdf
• Lebe, F. (2016). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi: Türkiye için eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 2(17). https://doi.org/10.31671/dogus.2018.50
• Li, M., Ahmad, M., Fareed, Z., Hassan, T., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Role of trade openness, export diversification, and renewable electricity output in realizing carbon neutrality dream of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113419
• Liu, H., Kim, H., & Choe, J. (2019). Export diversification, CO2 emissions and EKC: Panel data analysis of 125 countries. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 3(2), 361-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-018-0099-8
• Liu, H., Kim, H., Liang, S., & Kwon, O.-S. (2018). Export diversification and ecological footprint: A comparative study on EKC theory among Korea, Japan, and China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103657
• Mahmood, H., Maalel, N., & Zarrad, O. (2019). Trade openness and CO2 emissions: Evidence from Tunisia. Sustainability, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123295
• Mania, E. (2020). Export diversification and CO2 emissions: An augmented environmental Kuznets curve. Journal-of International Development, 32(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3441
• McGinnis, R., Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behren, W. W. (1973). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Demography, 10(2), 295-299. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060820
• Naranpanawa, A. (2011). Does trade openness promote carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(10), 973-986. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/42748/74339_1.pdf?sequence=1
• Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86(5), 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7
• Öcal, O., Altınöz, B., & Aslan, A. (2020). Ekonomik büyüme ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izi ve karbon emisyonları üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 667-681. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.773461
• Oluwatobi, S. O., & Ogunrinola, O. I. (2011). Government expenditure on human capital development: Implications for economic growth in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n3p72
• Omer, A. M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9), 2265-2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.001
• Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
• Ruževičius, J. (2010). Ecological footprint as an indicator of sustainable development. Economics and Management, 15(3), 711-718. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.5827&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Shahzad, U., Ferraz, D., Doğan, B., & Aparecida do Nascimento Rebelatto, D. (2020). Export product diversification and CO2 emissions: Contextual evidences from developing and developed economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124146
• Sharma, R., Kautish, P., & Uddin, G. S. (2020). Do the international economic endeavors affect CO2 emissions in open economies of South Asia? An empirical examination under nonlinearity. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-05-2019-0099
• Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021). Examining the nexus between export diversification and environmental pollution: Evidence from BRICS nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 61732-61747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14889-0
• The World Bank. (2021). CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production, total (% of total fuel combustion). The World Bank Based on IEA Statistics, OECD/IEA 2014. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.CO2.ETOT.ZS
• UNIDO. (2016). Industrial development report 2016 : The role of technology and innovation in inclusive and sustainable industrial development. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2015-12/EBOOK_IDR2016_FULLREPORT_0.pdf
• Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., & Meredith Burke, B. (1997). M. Wackernagel, & W. Rees. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, C. Population and Environment, 19(160). http://w.tboake.com/2013/EF_Reading_Assignment_1of2.pdf