SavedAdd your journal

Journals / NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Economy Development: Selected European Countries in the Context of Infrastructure, E-Commerce, and Security Factors

FİNANSAL GELİŞME, BÜYÜME VE EKOLOJİK BASKILAR: KİRLİLİK HİPOTEZLERİ ÜZERİNE PANEL KANITLARI

Asuman Erben Yavuz(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1934-5055
Pages
254–266
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️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)

To address cross-sectional dependence and heteroskedasticity in the panel structure, the analysis employs the Panel-Corrected Standard Errors (PCSE) estimation technique.The empirical findings reveal that both FDI and FD have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI), financial development (FD), and economic growth (GDP) on the ecological footprint (EF), using a panel dataset covering 28 OECD countries over the period 2000–2023.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To address cross-sectional dependence and heteroskedasticity in the panel structure, the analysis employs the Panel-Corrected Standard Errors (PCSE) estimation technique.The empirical findings reveal that both FDI and FD have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the findings emphasize the necessity of evaluating environmental sustainability within a broader macroeconomic framework
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2000–2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik Ayak İzi · Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar · Finansal Gelişme

Abstract

This study examines the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI), financial development (FD), and economic growth (GDP) on the ecological footprint (EF), using a panel dataset covering 28 OECD countries over the period 2000–2023. Unlike traditional environmental indicators, the ecological footprint offers a more comprehensive measure of environmental degradation by accounting for resource use, energy consumption, and land demand. To address cross-sectional dependence and heteroskedasticity in the panel structure, the analysis employs the Panel-Corrected Standard Errors (PCSE) estimation technique.The empirical findings reveal that both FDI and FD have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint. These results suggest that increasing capital mobility and financial expansion may intensify environmental pressures. In contrast, GDP does not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with the ecological footprint, indicating that the impact of economic growth on environmental sustainability may depend on structural factors such as sectoral composition and environmental regulations. Moreover, the results of the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test indicate that environmental degradation is causally influenced by economic and financial factors, particularly FDI and FD. Overall, the findings emphasize the necessity of evaluating environmental sustainability within a broader macroeconomic framework

Özet

Bu çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin çok boyutlu doğasını dikkate alarak, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar (FDI), finansal gelişme (FD) ve ekonomik büyümenin (GDP) ekolojik ayak izi (EF) üzerindeki etkilerini 2000–2023 döneminde 28 OECD ülkesini kapsayan panel veri seti kullanarak incelemektedir. Çalışmada, çevresel bozulmayı yalnızca karbon salımı ile değil, daha bütüncül bir gösterge olan ekolojik ayak izi ile değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Analiz yöntemi olarak, panel veride yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heteroskedastisite gibi sorunları dikkate alabilen Panel-Corrected Standard Errors (PCSE) yöntemi tercih edilmiştir.Elde edilen bulgular, FDI ve FD değişkenlerinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı etkilere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum, hem sermaye hareketliliğinin hem de finansal sistemin genişlemesinin çevresel baskıları artırabileceğine işaret etmektedir. Diğer yandan, GDP değişkeninin çevresel etki açısından anlamlı bir belirleyici olmadığı saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel nedensellik testi sonuçları, çevresel bozulmanın özellikle FDI ve FD gibi ekonomik ve finansal faktörlerden kaynaklandığını ortaya koymuştur.Elde edilen sonuçlar, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin yalnızca büyüme oranlarıyla değil, finansal yapı, sermaye akımları ve yatırım biçimleriyle birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, A. E. (2025). Economy Development: Selected European Countries in the Context of Infrastructure, E-Commerce, and Security Factors. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1754353

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Acheampong, A. O. (2023). Environmental degradation and economic growth: Investigating linkages and potential pathways. Energy Economics, 123, 106734.
  2. Ahmad, M., vd. (2021). Foreign direct investment and environmental sustainability in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 1234–1249.
  3. Aliyu, A. (2005). Foreign direct investment and the environment: Pollution haven hypothesis revisited. Proceedings of the Nigerian Economic Society Conference, 213–230.
  4. Al-Mulali, U., Fereidouni, H. G. ve Lee, J. Y. (2015). Electricity consumption from renewable and non-renewable sources and economic growth: Evidence from Latin American countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 1323–1331.
  5. Ang, J. B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772–4778.
  6. Aragundade, O., vd. (2022). Does FDI affect ecological footprint in Africa? Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 24(3), 345–368.
  7. Bakkal, F. (2022). Comparative analysis of ecological footprint: USA vs China. Energy Reports, 8, 1123–1135.
  8. Baloch, M. A., vd. (2019). The effect of economic growth and FDI on environmental degradation. Sustainability, 11(5), 1413.
  9. Beck, N. ve Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979
  10. Beck, T., Levine, R. ve Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1-2), 261–300.
  11. Chandran, V. G. R.ve Tang, C. F. (2013). The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 445–453.
  12. Chowdhury, M. A. F. vd. (2021). The impacts of economic growth and FDI on ecological footprint: Global evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128827.
  13. Destek, M. A. ve Okumuş, I. (2019). Do foreign investments and energy consumption improve environmental quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(21), 21813–21822.
  14. Doytch, N. (2020). Sectoral FDI and ecological footprint. Ecological Indicators, 117, 106640.
  15. Doytch, N. ve Uctum, M. (2016). Globalization and the environment: Sectoral analysis using dynamic panel data. Ecological Economics, 123, 135–144.
  16. Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460.
  17. Eskeland, G. S. ve Harrison, A. E. (2003). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics, 70(1), 1–23.
  18. Eweade, O. (2023). FDI and environmental degradation in Mexico. Environmental Research, 214, 113162.
  19. Farooq, A. vd. (2020). Globalization, FDI, and environmental sustainability in OIC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(4), 3894–3905.
  20. Farouq, A. T. M. ve Chowdhury, M. A. R. (2025). Financial Markets and ESG: How Big Data is Transforming Sustainable Investing in Developing countries.
  21. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.
  22. Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156–1164.
  23. Khan, I. vd.(2019). Financial development, energy consumption and ecological footprint: Empirical evidence from BRI countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(3), 3451–3464.
  24. Khan, I., Hou, F. ve Le, H. P. (2020). The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: Fresh evidence from the United States of America. Science of The Total Environment, 754, 142222.
  25. Levine, R. (2005). Finance and growth: Theory and evidence. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Vol. 1, pp. 865–934). Elsevier.
  26. Li, K. vd. (2023). FDI, renewable energy and environmental quality in China. Renewable Energy, 201, 238–247.
  27. Li, K., Ma, C. ve Wang, Z. (2019). Foreign direct investment and environmental performance: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(12), 12355–12367.
  28. Liu, Y. ve Kim, J. (2018). FDI and ecological footprint: Evidence from Belt and Road Initiative countries. Sustainability, 10(11), 4093.
  29. Majeed, M. T. ve Mazhar, M. (2024). Modeling the ecological footprint and assessing its influential factors: A systematic review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(13), 15702–15724.
  30. Mert, M. ve Çağlar, A. E. (2020). FDI and environmental degradation in Turkey: Evidence from ARDL approach. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 4(2), 42–58.
  31. Nathaniel, S. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Brazil: Do environmental regulations matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 70581–70590.
  32. Nathaniel, S. ve Khan, S. A. R. (2021). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 125291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125291
  33. Rehman, A., Ma, H. ve Ozturk, I. (2022). Investigating the environmental effects of economic complexity, financial development and energy use: A panel data analysis for selected countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 24539–24554.
  34. Roy, P. (2024). Trade openness, FDI and ecological footprint in India. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(1), 83–100.
  35. Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2528–2535.
  36. Saqip, M. vd. (2023). FDI and ecological footprint in European countries: Evidence from panel data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(2), 1245–1259.
  37. Tamazian, A. ve Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137–15.
  38. Tüfekçi, M., ve Yücel, A. (2024). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve modified with HDI. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(5), 4478-4502.
  39. United Nations. (2019). Paris Agreement: Climate Action and Support Trends. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
  40. Van Tran, D.ve (2024). Does FDI increase ecological degradation? Evidence from Indonesia. Energy Economics, 132, 106852.
  41. Wackernagel, M., ve Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers.
  42. Zafar, M. W., vd. (2019). FDI, renewable energy and environmental quality. Renewable Energy, 132, 186–195.
  43. Zaidi, S. A. H., Wei, Z., Gedikli, A., Zafar, M. W., Hou, F., ve Iqbal, W. (2021). The impact of globalization, natural resources abundance, and environmental regulatory quality on ecological footprint: Evidence from the EKC hypothesis in regional analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 14190–14201.