SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Politik Ekonomik Kuram / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

Testing the Material Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Turkey: The Role of Mineral Resources and Urbanization

Türkiye'de Materyal Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi: Maden Kaynakları ve Kentleşmenin Rolü

Sinem Gözde Beşballı(ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2367-7252
Pages
1114–1126
Publication Date
2026-09-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results suggest active policy interventions necessary for decoupling economic growth from material consumption, particularly targeting resource governance and infrastructure development aligned with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption) and SDG 8 (Sustainable Growth).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study tests the Material Kuznets Curve (MKC) hypothesis for Turkey (2000-2021) using ARDL bounds testing, examining relationships between material footprint per capita, economic growth, mineral rents, and urbanization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Utilizing UNEP Global Material Flows Database and World Bank indicators, we estimate ARDL(1,1,1,1,1) specification.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results suggest active policy interventions necessary for decoupling economic growth from material consumption, particularly targeting resource governance and infrastructure development aligned with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption) and SDG 8 (Sustainable Growth).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2000-2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Materyal Kuznets Eğrisi · Materyal Ayak İzi · ARDL

Abstract

This study tests the Material Kuznets Curve (MKC) hypothesis for Turkey (2000-2021) using ARDL bounds testing, examining relationships between material footprint per capita, economic growth, mineral rents, and urbanization. Utilizing UNEP Global Material Flows Database and World Bank indicators, we estimate ARDL(1,1,1,1,1) specification. The bounds F-statistic (57.71) substantially exceeds critical values, confirming robust cointegration. The error correction term (ECT = -0.955, p < 0.001) indicates 95.5% annual disequilibrium correction. Long-run results reveal mineral rents exhibit strong positive effect on material footprint (β = 3.919, p = 0.004), supporting resource curse hypothesis in environmental context. GDP per capita shows significant positive relationship (β = 0.003, p = 0.011), while GDP² remains insignificant (p = 0.328), indicating Turkey has not reached MKC turning point. Findings provide first joint analysis of material footprint, mineral rents, and urbanization for Turkey, with important implications for sustainable resource management and circular economy transitions in rapidly industrializing economies. Results suggest active policy interventions necessary for decoupling economic growth from material consumption, particularly targeting resource governance and infrastructure development aligned with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption) and SDG 8 (Sustainable Growth).

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye için (2000-2021 dönemi) Materyal Kuznets Eğrisi (MKC) hipotezini ARDL sınır testi yöntemiyle incelemekte; kişi başına materyal ayak izi, ekonomik büyüme, mineral rantları ve kentleşme arasındaki ilişkileri analiz etmektedir. UNEP Küresel Materyal Akışları Veri Tabanı ve Dünya Bankası göstergeleri kullanılarak ARDL(1,1,1,1,1) modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Sınır testi F-istatistiğinin (57.71) kritik değerleri önemli ölçüde aşması, güçlü bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisini doğrulamaktadır. Hata düzeltme terimi (ECT = -0.955, p < 0.001), dengesizliklerin yıllık %95.5 oranında düzeltildiğini göstermektedir. Uzun dönem sonuçları, mineral rantlarının materyal ayak izi üzerinde güçlü ve pozitif bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır (β = 3.919, p = 0.004); bu durum çevresel bağlamda kaynak laneti hipotezini desteklemektedir. Kişi başına düşen GSYH anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki sergilerken (β = 0.003, p = 0.011), GSYH² değişkeni anlamsız bulunmuştur (p = 0.328). Bu sonuç, Türkiye’nin henüz MKC dönüm noktasına ulaşmadığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, Türkiye için materyal ayak izi, mineral rantları ve kentleşmeyi birlikte ele alan ilk çalışma olma özelliği taşımakta; hızlı sanayileşen ekonomilerde sürdürülebilir kaynak yönetimi ve döngüsel ekonomi dönüşümleri açısından önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır. Sonuçlar, ekonomik büyümenin materyal tüketiminden ayrıştırılması için özellikle kaynak yönetişimi ve altyapı gelişimini hedefleyen aktif politika müdahalelerinin gerekli olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu politikaların, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları arasında yer alan SKA 12 (Sorumlu Tüketim ve Üretim) ve SKA 8 (İnsana Yakışır İş ve Ekonomik Büyüme) ile uyumlu olması önem taşımaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Beşballı, S. G. (2026). Testing the Material Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Turkey: The Role of Mineral Resources and Urbanization. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 1114–1126. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1959100

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Acar, S., & Aşıcı, A. A. (2017). Nature and economic growth in Turkey: What does ecological footprint imply? Middle East Development Journal, 9(1), 101-115.
  2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint. Resources Policy, 69, 101817. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817.
  3. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., & Eren, A. A. (2023). Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: New insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 22100-22114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23763-6
  4. Ampofo, G. K. M., Cheng, J., Asante, D. A., & Bosah, C. P. (2020). Total natural resource rents, trade openness and economic growth. Resources Policy, 68, 101710. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101710
  5. Arslan, H. M., Khan, I., Latif, M. I., Komal, B., & Chen, S. (2022). Understanding the dynamics of natural resources rents, environmental sustainability, and sustainable economic growth. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 58746-58761. 10.1007/s11356-022-19952-y
  6. 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
  7. D'Odorico, P., Davis, K. F., Rosa, L., et al. (2018). The global food-energy-water nexus. Reviews of Geophysics, 56(3), 456-531.
  8. Focacci, A. (2005). Empirical relationship between total consumption-GDP ratio and per capita income for different metals of a series of industrialised nations. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 5(4), 347-377.
  9. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. 3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
  10. Gylfason, T. (2001). Natural resources, education, and economic development. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 847-859. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00127-1
  11. Hosseinzadeh, M., Saghaian, S., Nematollahi, Z., & Shahnooshi, N. (2022). Water consumption and economic growth: Evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve. Water International, 47(8), 1333-1348. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2022.2091398
  12. Jaunky, V. C. (2012). Is there a material Kuznets curve for aluminium? Evidence from rich countries. Resources Policy, 37(3), 296-307.
  13. Jia, S., Yang, H., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Xia, J. (2006). Industrial water use Kuznets curve: Evidence from industrialized countries and implications for developing countries. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 132(3), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(183)
  14. Kirikkaleli, D. (2024). Factors influencing the material footprint in the USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 20(5), 1217-1224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4922
  15. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
  16. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
  17. Öcal, O., Altınöz, B., & Aslan, A. (2020). The effects of economic growth and energy consumption on ecological footprint and carbon emissions: Evidence from Turkey. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 667-681.
  18. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
  19. Qian, J., & Chen, L. (2025). Impact of natural resources rents on green growth: Evidence from G7 countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, 1482812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1482812
  20. Rahman, M. M., Kilic, C., Akcan, A. T., & Kazak, H. (2025). Factors affecting the material footprint in G7 countries: Panel cointegration approach with Fourier function. Environmental Quality Management, 34, e70067. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.70067
  21. Ren, Q., & Albrecht, J. (2023). Toward circular economy: The impact of policy instruments on circular economy innovation for European small medium enterprises. Ecological Economics, 207, 107761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107761
  22. Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. NBER Working Paper No. 5398.
  23. Safarzynska, K., Di Domenico, L., & Raberto, M. (2023). The leakage effect may undermine the circular economy efforts. Scientific Reports, 13, 17249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44004-x
  24. Schandl, H., Marcos-Martinez, R., West, J., Miatto, A., Lutter, S., Lieber, M., Giljum, S., Lenzen, M., Li, M., Wang, H., Tanikawa, H., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2024). Global material flows and resource productivity: Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28(6), 2012-2031. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13593
  25. Shahbaz, M., & Sinha, A. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A literature survey. Journal of Economic Studies, 46(1), 106-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-09-2017-0249
  26. Shi, J., Liu, Y., Sadowski, B. M., Alemzero, D., Dou, S., Sun, H., & Naseem, S. (2023). The role of economic growth and governance on mineral rents in main critical minerals countries. Resources Policy, 83, 103718.
  27. Singh, S., Bhardwaj, M., Mahendru, M., Bansal, P., & Roszko-Wójtowicz, E. (2024). Exploring economic development and mineral rents nexus across BRICS nations: Fresh insights from multiple threshold panel analysis. Resources Policy, 88, 104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104537
  28. Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
  29. Turgut, E., & Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2023). Panel data analysis for material footprint as an indicator of environmental pollution. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(1), 20-29.
  30. Ulucak, R., Koçak, E., Erdoğan, S., & Kassouri, Y. (2020). Investigating the non-linear effects of globalization on material consumption in the EU countries: Evidence from PSTR estimation. Resources Policy, 67, 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101667
  31. Ulussever, T., Pata, U. K., & Kartal, M. T. (2024). Evaluating the influence of technology, energy consumption, and financial progress on material footprint in GCC countries. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 23, 100447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100447
  32. Ullah, A., Topal, M., & Demirel, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
  33. UNEP. (2015). Options for decoupling economic growth from water use and water pollution. Report of the International Resource Panel Working Group on Sustainable Water Management. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/options-decoupling-economic-growth-water-use-and-water-pollutionWagner, M. (2008). The carbon Kuznets curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics? Resource and Energy Economics, 30(3), 388-408.
  34. Wagner, M., & Hong, S. H. (2016). Cointegrating polynomial regressions: Fully modified OLS estimation and inference. Econometric Theory, 32(5), 1289-1315.
  35. Wang, Q., Li, Y., & Li, R. (2024a). Rethinking the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across 214 countries: the impacts of 12 economic, institutional, technological, resource, and social factors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 292. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02736-9
  36. Wang, Q., Wang, X., Li, R., & Jiang, X. (2024b). Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: a matter of trade protectionism. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02639-9
  37. Zheng, Y., Tarczyński, W., Jamróz, P., Ali Raza, S., & Tiwari, S. (2024). Impacts of mineral resources, economic growth and energy consumption on environmental sustainability: Novel findings from global south region. Resources Policy, 92, 105019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105019