SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: "Cumhuriyet'in 100. Yılında Türkiye'nin Sosyo-Ekonomisi" Özel Sayısı Özel Sayı

Stochastic Convergence of Ecological Balance in CIVETS Countries: The Fourier Quantile Unit Root Test Approach

CIVETS Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Dengenin Stokastik Yakınsaması: Fourier Kantil Birim Kök Testi Yaklaşımı

Zerrin Dürrü(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7013-7550
Gökhan Konat(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0964-7893
Pages
137–152
Publication Date
2023-10-29
🏛️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)

As a result, factors affecting the ecological balance in CIVETS countries such as population growth, rapid industrialization and fossil fuel use have been identified as key policy areas in balancing and equalizing the ecosystem.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the ecosystem through ecological equilibrium, which deals with the ecosystem in two directions, unlike studies that examine it in one direction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the period 1961-2018, CIVETS countries with dynamic populations and a strong domestic economic structure were selected for the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, factors affecting the ecological balance in CIVETS countries such as population growth, rapid industrialization and fossil fuel use have been identified as key policy areas in balancing and equalizing the ecosystem.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik denge · ekolojik ayak izi · biyokapasite

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the ecosystem through ecological equilibrium, which deals with the ecosystem in two directions, unlike studies that examine it in one direction. Stochastic convergence method is used in the analysis. For the period 1961-2018, CIVETS countries with dynamic populations and a strong domestic economic structure were selected for the study. Ecological balance convergence is tested by taking the difference between biocapacity per capita and ecological footprint per capita. In addition to the traditional ADF unit root test, Fourier ADF, Quantile and Fourier Quantile unit root tests were used to robustify the results. The results of the Fourier QKS (Quantile Kolmogorov-Simirnov) unit root tests show more convergence than the standard QKS test results. The results of Fourier quantile unit root tests indicate that convergence in ecological balance has been realized for all CIVETS countries. As a result, factors affecting the ecological balance in CIVETS countries such as population growth, rapid industrialization and fossil fuel use have been identified as key policy areas in balancing and equalizing the ecosystem.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ekosistemi tek yönlü inceleyen çalışmalardan farklı olarak iki yönlü ele alan ekolojik denge aracılığıyla incelemektir. İncelemede stokastik yakınsama metodu kullanılmıştır. 1961-2018 dönemi için dinamik nüfus ve güçlü bir iç ekonomik yapıya sahip CIVETS ülkeleri araştırma için seçilmiştir. Kişi başı biyokapasite ile kişi başı ekolojik ayak izi farkı alınarak ekolojik denge yakınsaması test edilmiştir. Geleneksel birim kök testi ADF’nin yanında sonuçları sağlamlaştırmak adına Fourier ADF, farklı kantillerde durum tespiti için Kantil ve Fourier Kantil birim kök testleri kullanılarak araştırma yapılmıştır. Fourier QKS (Quantile Kolmogorov-Simirnov) birim kök testleri sonuçlarında, standart QKS test sonuçlarına nispeten daha fazla yakınsaklık bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Fourier kantil birim kök testi sonuçları, incelenen tüm CIVETS ülkeleri için ekolojik dengede yakınsamanın gerçekleştiğine işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, CIVETS ülkelerindeki ekolojik dengeyi etkileyen nüfus artışı, hızlı sanayileşme, fosil yakıt kullanımı gibi unsurların, ekosistemi dengelemede ve eşitlemede temel politika alanları olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dürrü, Z., Konat, G. (2023). Stochastic Convergence of Ecological Balance in CIVETS Countries: The Fourier Quantile Unit Root Test Approach. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: "Cumhuriyet'in 100. Yılında Türkiye'nin Sosyo-Ekonomisi" Özel Sayısı Özel Sayı, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1149267

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (76)

  1. Alper, A. E. ve Alper, Ö. (2021). Persistence of policy shocks to the ecological footprint of MINT countries. Ege Akademik Bakış, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1015635
  2. Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Cuesta, L., Pinzon, S., Alvarado Lopez, M. R., Işık, C. ve Dagar, V. (2022). Biocapacity convergence clubs in Latin America: An analysis of their determining factors using Quantile regressions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20567-6
  3. Aslan, A. (2009). Kişi başına karbondioksit emisyon yakınsama analizi: 1950- 2004. Ege Akademik Bakış, 9(4), 1427-1439. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/558181
  4. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T., Chen, T. H. ve Tzeng, H. W. (2017). Revisiting purchasing power parity in Eastern European countries: Quantile unit root tests. Empirical Economics, 52, 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1099-z
  5. Barassi, M. R., Cole, M. A. ve Elliott, R. J. R. (2008). Stochastic divergence or convergence of per capita carbondioxide emissions: Re-examining the evidence. Environment Resources Economics, 40 (1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007- 9144-1
  6. Barro, R. J. ve Sala-i-Martin, X. (1990). Economic growth and convergence across the United States. NBER Working Paper Series, Paper No: 3419.
  7. Barro, R. J. ve Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economics, 100 (2), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1086/261816.
  8. Baumol, W. J. (1986). Productivity growth, convergence and welfare: What the long-run data show. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072-1085.
  9. Becker, R., Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2006). A stationary test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
  10. Bello, M. O., Erdogan, S. ve Ch’Ng, K. S. (2022). On the convergence of ecological footprint in African countries: New evidences from panel stationarity tests with factors and gradual shifts, Journal of Environmental Management, 322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116061
  11. Bernard, A. B. ve Durlauf, S. N. (1995). Convergence in international output. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3950100202
  12. Bigerna S., Bollinoa, C. A. ve Polinoria, P. (2022). Convergence of ecological footprint and sustainable policy options. Journal of Policy Modeling, (44), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.07.001
  13. Bilgili, F. ve Ulucak, R. (2018). Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, (25), 35404–35419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3457-1
  14. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R. ve Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of environmental convergence: Continental evidence based: Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization. Springer, Cham. 133–165.
  15. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M. ve Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Journal of Ecological Indicators, (24), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
  16. Cai, Y., Chang, T. ve Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2018). Asymmetric persistence in convergence for carbon dioxide emissions based on quantile unit root test with Fourier function. Energy, (161), 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.125
  17. Christidou, M., Panagiotidis, T. ve Sharma, A. (2013). On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century. Economic Modelling, (33), 918–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.05.024
  18. Christopoulos, D. K. ve León-Ledesma, M. A. (2010). Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6), 1076-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2010.02.003
  19. Churchill, S.A., Inekwe, J. ve Ivanovski, K. (2020). Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: Evidence from emerging economies, 1921–2014. Energy Economics, (86), 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Eneco.2019.104659
  20. Çağlar, A. E. ve Mert, M. (2022). Türkiye’de karbon histeri hipotezi geçerli midir?: Fourier birim kök testlerinden kanıtlar. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1587-1610. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1119030
  21. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of The Econometric Society, 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517.
  22. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081.
  23. Erdogan, S. Pata, U. K., Solarin, S. A. ve Okumus, I. (2022). On the persistence of shocks to global CO2 emissions: A historical data perspective (0 to 2014). Environment Science Pollution Research. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-022-21278-8
  24. Erdogan, S. ve Okumus, I. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: An empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, (121) 107123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123
  25. Fallahi, F. (2020) Persistence and unit root in 〖CO〗_2 emissions: Evidence from disaggregated global and regional data. Empirical Economics, (58), 2155–2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1608-3
  26. Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics, (67). 519-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023
  27. Gabbi, G., Massimo, M., Patrizi, N., Pulselli, F. M. ve Bastianoni, S. (2021). The biocapacity adjusted economic growth developing a new indicator. Ecological Indicators, (122), 107318. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolind.2020.107318
  28. GFN. (2022). What is the ecological footprint? Earth overshoot day. https://www.overshootday.org/kids-and-teachers-corner/what-is-an-ecological-footprint/
  29. Greenwood, J. (2011). Moving on from BRICS are the CIVETS group of countries the next big investment opportunity or nothing more than a convenient acronym? Wall Street Journal. https://Www.Wsj.Com/Articles/Sb1000142405311190471660457654449233492826
  30. Herrerias, M. J. (2013). The environmental convergence hypothesis: Carbon dioxide emissions according to the source of energy. Energy Policy, (61), 1140–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.120
  31. Islam, N. (2003). What have we learnt from the convergence debate?. Journal of Economics Surveys, 17(3), 309–362.
  32. Knowledge At Wharton, (2011). The new BRICS on the block: Which emerging markets are up and coming? http://knowledge.wharton. upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2679.
  33. Koenker, R. ve Xiao, Z. (2004). Unit root quantile autoregression inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467), 775-787. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001114
  34. Laurent, A. ve Owsianiak, M. (2017). Potentials and limitations of footprints for gauging environmental sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, (25), 20–27. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.003
  35. Marti, L., Puertas, R. (2020). Analysis of the efficiency of African countries through their ecological footprint and biocapacity. Science of the Total Environment, (722), 137504.
  36. Matsuki, T. ve Pan, L. (2021). Per capita carbon emissions convergence in developing Asia: A century of evidence from covariate unit root test with endogenous structural breaks. Energy Economics (99). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105326
  37. Moore, E. (2012). CIVETS, BRICS and the Next 11. Financial Times (Online). https://www.Ft.Com/Content/C14730ae-Aff3-11e1-Ad0b-00144feabdc0.
  38. Muddyman, G. (2012). The rise of CIVETS economies. https://multilingual.com/articles/the-rise-of-civets-economies/
  39. Nazlioglu, S., Payne, J. E., Lee, J., Velazquez, M. R. ve Karul, C. (2021). Convergence in OPEC carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from new panel stationarity tests with factors and breaks, Economic Modelling, (100),105498. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Econmod.2021.105498
  40. Nguyen Van, P. (2005). Distribution dynamics of CO2 emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, (32), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-7687-6
  41. Niccolucci, V., Tiezzi, E., Pulselli, F.M. ve Capineri, C. (2012). Biocapacity vs ecological footprint of world regions: A geopolitical interpretation. Ecological Indicators, (16), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.002
  42. Ozcan, B., Khan, D. ve Bozoklu, S. (2021). Dynamics of ecological balance in OECD countries: Sustainable or unsustainable?. Sustainable Production and Consumption, (26), 638-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.014
  43. Pata, U. K. ve Aydin, M. (2022). Persistence of CO2 emissions in G7 countries: A different outlook from wavelet-based linear and nonlinear unit root tests. Environment Science Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23284-2
  44. Pata, U. K. ve Yilanci, V. (2021). Investigating the persistence of shocks on the ecological balance: Evidence from G10 and N11 countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, (28), 624-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.027
  45. Payne, J. E. ve Apergis, N. (2020). Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions among developing countries: Evidence from stochastic and club convergence tests. Environment Science Pollution Research. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09506-5
  46. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401
  47. Presno, J., Landajo, M. ve Fernández, G. F. (2018). Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis. Energy Economics, (70), 563-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.10.001
  48. Rassekh, F. (1998). The convergence hypothesis: History, theory, and evidence. Open Economics Review, (9), 85-105.
  49. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4 (2), 121–130.
  50. Sarkodie, S. A. (2021). Environmental performance, biocapacity, carbon & ecological footprint of nations: Drivers, trends and mitigation options. Science of the Total Environment, (751), 141912. https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.Scitotenv.2020.141912
  51. Siche, R., Pereira, L. Agostinho, F. ve Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(10). 3182-3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
  52. Solarin, S. A. ve Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: The case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Journal of Ecological Indicators, (89), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolind.2018.01.064.
  53. Solarin, S. A., Tiwarib, A. K. ve Bello, M. O. (2019). A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Journal of Sustainable Cities and Society, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101422
  54. Solarin, S.A. (2019). Convergence in CO2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: Evidence from OECD countries. Environment Science Pollution Research, 26(6). 6167-6181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3993-8
  55. Strazicich, M., List, C. ve August, J. (2003). Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environment Resource Economics, 24 (3), 263–271.
  56. Świąder, M., Lin, D., Szewrański, S. Kazak, K. J., Iha, K., Hoof, J. V., Belčáková,I. ve Altiok, S. (2020). The application of ecological footprint and biocapacity for environmental carrying capacity assessment: A new approach for European cities, Environmental Science & Policy, (105), 56-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Envsci.2019.12.010
  57. Syrovátka, M. (2020). On sustainability interpretations of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, (169),106543. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2019.106543
  58. Tamburino, L. ve Bravo, G. (2021). Reconciling a positive ecological balance with human development: A quantitative assessment. Journal of Ecological Indicators, (129). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107973
  59. Tillaguango, B., Alvarado, R., Dagar, V., Murshed, M., Pinzón, Y. ve Méndez, P. (2021). Convergence of the ecological footprint in Latin America: The role of the productive structure. Journal of Environment Science Pollution Research. 1–13.
  60. Topallı, N. (2021). Düşük gelirli ülkelerde kişi başına karbondioksit emisyonu durağanlığının test edilmesi: Doğrusal olmayan birim kök analizi. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 608-626. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.899797
  61. Ulucak, R. ve Apergis, N. (2018). Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environment Science Policy, (80), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Envsci. 2017.11.002
  62. Ulucak, R. ve Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Journal of Ecological Indicators, (80), 337-343.
  63. United Nations Environment Programme. (2022, 21-26 Haziran). Convention on biological diversity. report of the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework on its fourth meeting (s. 41-45). Nairobi, Kenya. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3303/d892/4fd11c27963bd3f826a961e1/wg2020-04-04-en.pdf
  64. Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M. ve Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, (29). 61–72.
  65. Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: A tool for planning toward sustainability (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia. USA. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0088048
  66. Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. The new catalyst bioregional series, New Society Publishers.
  67. Wackernagel, M. ve Silverstein, J. (2000). Big things first: Focusing on the scale imperative with the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics. 32 (3), 391–394.
  68. World Population Review. (2023). World population statistics by country. https://worldpopulationreview.com/
  69. WWF. (2012). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayakizi raporu. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Turkish.pdf
  70. WWF. (2022). Yaşayan gezegen raporu 2022-Doğa ile uyumlu bir toplum inşa etmek. Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. ve Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, İsviçre.
  71. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U. K. (2020a). Are shocks to ecological balance permanent or temporary? Evidence from LM unit root tests, Journal of Cleaner Production, (276),124294. https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jclepro.2020.124294
  72. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U. K. (2020b). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological Indicators, (113), 106178. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ecolind.2020.106178
  73. Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S. ve Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary? Journal of Cleaner Production, (212), 270–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00391-5
  74. Yilanci, V., Ursavaş, U. ve Ursavaş, N. (2022). Convergence in ecological footprint across the member states of ECOWAS: Evidence from a novel panel unit root test. Environment Science Pollution Research, (29), 79241–79252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21441
  75. Yurtkuran, S. (2019). N11 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6 (2), 191-210.
  76. Zerbo, E. ve Darné, O. (2019). On the stationarity of CO2 emissions in OECD and BRICS countries: A sequential testing approach. Energy Economics, (83), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.07.013