SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 37 Sayı: 4

ECONOMIC GROWTH, TRADE OPENNESS, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONSHIP IN BRIC-T COUNTRİES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

BRIC-T ÜLKELERİNDE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME, DIŞA AÇIKLIK, ELEKTRİK TÜKETİMİ VE ÇEVRE İLİŞKİSİNE YÖNELİK AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

İbrahim Özmen0000-0003-2632-4217
Mustafa Gerçeker
Mehmet Mucuk
Pages
675–701
Publication Date
2019-12-31
🏛️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)

Unlike these, the increase in income leads to the decrease in CO 2 in the China.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With the transition from the agricultural society to the industrial society, the production quantities have caught up a rapid growth universally.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The use of more natural resources and energy to increase production has affected ecological balances negatively and has led to a decline in quality of life.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Unlike these, the increase in income leads to the decrease in CO 2 in the China.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekonomik büyüme · Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi · Bootstrap nedensellik

Abstract

With the transition from the agricultural society to the industrial society, the production quantities have caught up a rapid growth universally. In addition to industrialization, factors such as urbanization and population growth have also played an important role in changing supply and demand magnitudes. The use of more natural resources and energy to increase production has affected ecological balances negatively and has led to a decline in quality of life. However, after reaching a certain level of income, countries are seeking solutions to reduce the environmental problems. In this study, the relationships among to economic growth, trade openness, electricity consumption and carbon dioxide emission (CO 2 ) are tested using panel data analysis for BRIC-T countries over the period 1992-2014. According to causality findings, there appears to be a bidirectional linkage between income and CO 2 in the Russia. There is unidirectional causality from the electricity consumption to CO 2 in the India and from the openness to CO 2 in the Brazil. AMG test shows that electricity consumption increases CO 2 in Brazil, China, and Turkey, trade openness increases CO 2 in Russia, and China, income increases CO 2 in the India. Unlike these, the increase in income leads to the decrease in CO 2 in the China.

Özet

Tarım toplumundan sanayi toplumuna geçiş ile birlikte üretim miktarları evrensel boyutta hız kazanan bir büyüme temposu yakalamıştır. Sanayileşmenin yanı sıra kentleşme ve nüfus artışı gibi faktörler de arz ve talep büyüklüklerinin değişiminde önemli rol oynamıştır. Üretimi artırmak için daha fazla doğal kaynak ve enerji kullanımı ise ekolojik dengeleri olumsuz yönde etkileyerek yaşam kalitesinin düşmesine neden olmuştur. Ancak belirli bir gelir düzeyine ulaştıktan sonra ülkeler, başlangıçta yarattıkları çevresel sorunları azaltmak için çözüm yolları arayışına girmektedirler. Bu çalışmada; ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık, elektrik tüketimi ve karbon dioksit salınımı (CO 2 ) arasındaki ilişki, 1992-2014 dönemine ait verilerden hareketle BRIC-T ülkeleri için panel veri analizi kullanarak test edilmektedir. Bootstrap nedensellik bulgularına göre; Rusya’da gelir ve karbondioksit salınımları arasında çift yönlü, Hindistan’da elektrik tüketiminden ve Brezilya’da ise dışa açıklıktan karbondioksit salınımlarına doğru olmak üzere tek yönlü bağıntılar bulunmaktadır. Diğer yandan AMG testi ise Brezilya, Çin ve Türkiye’de elektrik tüketiminin; Rusya ve Çin’de dışa açıklığın ve Hindistan’da da gelirin CO 2 ’yi artırdığını göstermektedir. Bunlardan farklı olarak Çin’de gelir artışı, CO 2 değerlerinin azalmasına yol açmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özmen, İ., Gerçeker, M., Mucuk, M. (2019). ECONOMIC GROWTH, TRADE OPENNESS, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONSHIP IN BRIC-T COUNTRİES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 4, 675–701. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.456607

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (80)

  1. Acaravcı, A., C. Bozkurt, S. Erdoğan (2015), “MENA Ülkelerinde Demokrasi-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi”, İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 3(4), 2015, 119-129.
  2. Altıntaş, H., M. Mercan (2015), “Ar-Ge Harcamaları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi”, Ankara Üniversitesi, S.B.F Dergisi, 70(2), 345-376.
  3. Ang, J.B. (2008), “Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consumption in Malaysia”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 30, 271-278.
  4. Apergis, N., J.E. Payne (2009), “CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America”, Energy Policy, 37, 3282-3286.
  5. Apergis, N., İ. Öztürk (2015), “Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Asian Countries”, Ecological Indicators, (52), 16-22. Arı, A., F. Zeren (2011), “CO2 Emisyonu ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Veri Analizi”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 18(2), 37-47.
  6. Atasoy, B.S. (2017), “Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Across the U.S.: Evidence From Panel Mean Group Estimators”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 731-747.
  7. Aytun, C. (2014), “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi: Panel Veri Analizi”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 44.
  8. Blackburne, III. E.F., M.W. Frank (2007), “Estimation of nonstationary heterogeneous panels”, The Stata Journal, 7(2), 197-208.
  9. Breusch T.S., A.R. Pagan (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  10. Carson, R.T. (2010), “The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Seeking Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4(1), 3-23.
  11. Cebeci, A., E. Torres, H.G. Beken (2018), Current Debates in Economics, London: IJOPEC Publication.
  12. Ching-Chih, C. (2010), “A multivariate causality test of carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China”, Applied Energy, 87, 3533-3537.
  13. Dasgupta, S., B. Laplante, H. Wang, D. Wheeler, (2002), “Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147-168.
  14. Delice, G., M. Mercan, S. Sezer (2012), Dış Borç Stokunun İhracat Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisine AB Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Perspektifinden Bir Bakış, http://teacongress.org/papers2012/DELICE-MERCANSEZER.pdf, E.T.:04.02.2018.
  15. Dinda, S. (2004), “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey”, Ecological Economics, 49, 431-455.
  16. Eberhardt, M., S. Bond (2009), Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator, MPRA Paper No. 17692, University Library of Munich.
  17. Eberhardt, M., F. Teal (2010), Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production, Discussion Paper 515, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
  18. Eberhardt, M., F. Teal (2011), “Econometrics for Grumblers: A new look at the Literature on Crosscountry Growth Empirics”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 109-155. Eberhardt, M. (2012), “Estimating Panel Time-Series Models with Heterogeneous Slopes, The Stata Journal, 12(1), 61-71.
  19. Ehrlich, P. (1968), The Population Bomb, New York: Ballentine.
  20. Erol, E.D., F. Erataş, H.B. (2013), “Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi’nin Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerindeki Geçerliliği: Panel Veri Analizi”, Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 400-415.
  21. Ertugrul H.M., M. Cetin, F. Seker, E. Doğan (2016), “The Impact of Trade Openness on Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence From The Top Ten Emitters Among Developing Countries”, Ecological Indicators, 67, 543-555.
  22. Farhani, S., S. Mrizak, A. Chaibi, C. Rault (2014), “The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainability: A Panel Data Analysis”, Energy Policy, 71, 189-198.
  23. Gashi, J., E. Guma (2017), The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): An Analysıs for the Balkans, 13th International Conference of ASECU, Durres, www.asecu.gr/files/13th_conf_files/13th-conf-asecu-proceedings.pdf, E.T.:01.02.2018.
  24. Gönel, F.D. (2010), Kalkınma Ekonomisi, Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
  25. Grossman, G.M., A.B. Krueger (1991), Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Aggrement, NBER Working Paper No. 3914, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
  26. Grossman, G.M., A.B. Krueger (1994), Economic Growth and the Environment, NBER Working Paper No. 4634, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
  27. Grossman, G.M., A.B. Krueger (1995), “Economic Growth and the Environment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
  28. Haq, I.U., S. Zhu, M. Shafiq (2016), “Empirical Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emission in Morocco”, Ecological Indicators, 67, 491-496.
  29. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2009), “An Econometric study of CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Income and Foreign Trade in Turkey”, Energy Policy, 37, 1156-1164.
  30. Halkos, G.E. (2003), “Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulfur: Evidence Using GMM Estimation and Random Coefficient Panel Data Models”, Environment and Development Economics, 8(4), 581-601.
  31. Hanif, I., P. Gago-de-Santos (2017), “The Importance of Population Control and Macroeconomic Stability to Reducing Environmental Degradation: An Empirical Test of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Developing Countries”, Environmental Development, 23, 1-9.
  32. Holtz-Eakin, D., T.M. Selden (1992), Stoking The Fires? CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth, NBER Working Paper No. 4248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
  33. Kanjilal, K., S. Ghosh (2013), “Environmental Kuznet’s Curve for India: Evidence From Tests For Cointegration With Unknown Structural Breaks”, Energy Policy, 56, 509-515.
  34. Kar, M., Ş. Nazlıoğlu, H. Ağır (2011), “Financial Development and Economic Growth Nexus in the MENA Countries: Bootsrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis”, Economic Modelling, 28, 685-693.
  35. Kılıc, N.O., B. Açdoyuran, H.S. Calhan (2017), “Information Communication Technologies Export and Economic Growth Relationship: An Analysıs on Selected Countries”, Journal of Business, Economics and Finance (JBEF), 6(4), 328-335.
  36. Koçbulut, Ö, H. Altıntaş (2016), “İkı̇z Açıklar ve Feldstein-Horioka Hı̇potezı̇: OECD Ülkelerı̇ Üzerı̇ne Yatay Kesı̇t Bağımlılığı Altında Yapısal Kırılmalı Panel Eşbütünleşme Analı̇zı̇”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 48, 145-174.
  37. Kohler, M. (2013), CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Income and Foreign Trade: A South African Perspective, ERSA Working Paper 356, July.
  38. Kónya, L. (2006), “Exports and growth: Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Approach”, Economic Modelling, 23, 978-92.
  39. Kuznets, S. (1955), “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.
  40. Lapinskienė, G., M. Tvaronavičienė, P. Vaitkus (2013), “Analysis of the Validity of Environmental Kuznets Curve for the Baltic States”, Environmental and Climate Technologies, 12, 41-46.
  41. Lora, J.C.T, B.C. Bermúdez, C.A.C. Vizcaíno, W.J.I. Pinedo (2013), “The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC): An Analysis Landfilled Solid Waste in Colombia”, Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y Reflexión, 21(2), 7-16.
  42. Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, W.W. Behrens (1972), The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
  43. Nasir, M., F.U. Rehman (2011), “Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emissions in Pakistan: An Empirical Investigation”, Energy Policy, 39, 1857-1864.
  44. Nazlıoğlu, Ş. (2010), Makro İktisat Politikalarının Tarım Sektörü Üzerindeki Etkileri: Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler için Bir Karşılaştırması, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Kayseri.
  45. Nazlıoğlu, S., F. Lebe, S. Kayhan (2011), “Nuclear Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: Cross-Sectionally Dependent Heterogeneous Panel Causality Analysis”, Energy Policy, 39, 6615-6621.
  46. Nugent, J.B. (1983), “An Alternative Source of Measurement Error as an Explanation for the Inverted-U Hypothesis”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 31(2), 385-396.
  47. Omri, A. (2013), CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Nexus in MENA countries: Evidence from Simultaneous Equations Models, Munich Personal RePEc Arcive, MPRA Paper No. 82501. April.
  48. Özkan, G., E. Karakaş, (2018), “ÇKE’nin 25 OECD Ülkesinde Panel Veri Analizi ile Test Edilmesi: 1990-2014 Yılları”, International Journal of Academic Value Studies (Javstudies), 4(20), 631-641.
  49. Özşahin, Ş. (2017), “An Examination of Bilateral J-curve: Evidence from Turkey and her 20 Major Trading Partner”, Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2(611), 221-236.
  50. Özşahin, Ş., M. Gömleksiz (2016), “Ekonomı̇k Gelı̇şmı̇şlı̇k ve Ar-Ge Harcamaları: Yükselen Pı̇yasa Ekonomı̇lerı̇ Üzerı̇ne Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellı̇k Analı̇zı̇”, Uluslararası Yönetı̇m, Ekonomı̇ ve Polı̇tı̇ka Kongresı̇, 4, 3702-3717.
  51. Panayotou, T. (1993), Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development, World Employment Programme Research, Working Paper, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
  52. Panayotou, T. (1997), “Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a Black Box into a Policy Tool”, Environment and Development Economics, 2, 465-484.
  53. Panayotou, T. (2003), “Economic Growth and the Environment”, in Secretariat of the Economic Comission for Europe Geneva (ed.), Economic Survey of Europe, Geneva: United Nations, 45-72.
  54. Pata, U.K., H. Terzi (2017), “The Relationship between Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Consumption and Economic growth in G7 Countries: Evidence from Bootstrap Panel Causality Test”, Economica, 13(5), 243-252.
  55. Pesaran, M.H., R. Smith (1995), “Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79-113.
  56. Pesaran, H.M. (2004), General Diagnostic Test for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, IZA Discussion Paper 1240, Institute for the Study of Labor.
  57. Pesaran, M.H. (2006), “Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure”, Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
  58. Pesaran H.M., A. Ullah, T. Yamagata (2008), “A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence”, Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127.
  59. Pesaran H.M., T. Yamagata (2008), “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
  60. Piketty, T. (2013), Yirmi Birinci Yüzyılda Kapital, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  61. Podkorytova, O., Y. Raskina (2014), Trade and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Panel Data Approach, CEEES Paper Series CE3S-04/14, European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics.
  62. Polat, M., A. Uslu (2017), İşletmelerin Finansal Performanslarının Hisse Senedi Fiyatı Üzerindeki Etkisi, Uluslararası Ekonomı̇, Sı̇yaset ve Yönetı̇m Sempozyumu, Ankara: Ekin Yayınevi.
  63. Rostow, W.W. (1966), İktisadi Gelişmenin Merhaleleri ‘Komünist Olmayan Bir Manifesto’, İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  64. Saboori, B., J.B. Sulaiman, S. Mohd (2012), “An Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve For CO2 Emissions in Indonesia: The Role of Energy Consumption and Foreign Trade”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(2), 243-251.
  65. Sambodo, M.T., E. Lestari (2012), “Environmental Kuznets Curve: Panel Data Evidence from Developing Countries”, Economics and Finance in Indonesia, 60, 175-196.
  66. Selden, T.M., D. Song (1994), “Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162.
  67. Shafik, N., S. Bandyopadhyay (1992), Economic Growth and Enviromental Quality Time-Series and Cross-Country Evidence, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS 904.
  68. Shahbaz, M., H.H. Lean, M.S. Shabbir (2012), “Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger causality”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 2947-2953.
  69. Shahbaz, M., N. Khraief, G.S. Uddin, I. Ozturk (2014), “Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: A bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 325-336.
  70. Shahbaz, M., Q.M.A. Hyei, A.K. Tivari, N.C. Leitão (2013), “Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121.
  71. Shahbaz, M., S.J.H. Shahzad, M.K. Mahalik, P. Sadorsky (2017), How Strong is the Causal Relationship between Globalization and Energy Consumption in Developed Economies? A Country-Spesific Time-Series and Panel Analysis, MPRA Paper No. 80718, Munich.
  72. Sommerova, L. (2018), Environmental Kuznetz Curve – The Studies for the Czech Republic and Finland, Masaryk University Faculty of Economics and Administration, Master Thesis.
  73. Songur, Y.D. (2017), “Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar ve Dış Ticaret’in Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla Üzerine Etkisi: Avrasya Ülkeleri Örneği”, Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 2(2), 117-133.
  74. Stern, D.I. (2004a), “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439.
  75. Stern, D.I. (2004b), “Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Encyclopedia of Energy, 2, 517-525.
  76. Topallı, N. (2017), “Ekonomı̇k Büyüme, İhracat ve C02 Arasındakı̇ Eşbütünleşme İlı̇şkı̇sı̇: BRICS ve Türkı̇ye Örneğı̇”, Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(12), 685-698.
  77. Topaloğlu, E.E. (2017), “Bankalarda Finansal Kırılganlığı Etkileyen Faktörleri Panel Veri Analizi ile Belirlenmesi”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 13(1), 15-38.
  78. Torras, M., J.K. Boyce (1998), “Income, Inequality, and Pollution: A Reassessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Ecological Economics, 25, 147-160.
  79. United Nations (1987), Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. Switzerland: WCED.
  80. Zaman, K., M.A. Moemen (2017), “Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Development: Evaluating Alternative and Plausible Environmental Hypotesis for Sustainable Growth”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 1119-1130.