SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

International Transfer of Ecological Footprint: An Analysis for the Countries with Different Income Levels

Erdal Alancıoğlu(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, BOZOVA MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-5008-4957
Yusuf Bayraktutan(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4453-3701
Maya Moalla(MERSIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4076-2790
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-03-31
🏛️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)

Moreover, policymakers must ensure considering environmental values in foreign direct investments in developing countries, supporting this through regulations, and preventing the exploitation of low environmental quality for export advantages.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environmental repercussions driven by economic activities have caused developed nations to incur higher costs depending on the adherence to environmental standards adopted along with public pressure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The primary aim of this study is to examine the effects of economic variables that seem to contribute to the carbon footprint, utilizing data from 10 developed and developing countries.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, policymakers must ensure considering environmental values in foreign direct investments in developing countries, supporting this through regulations, and preventing the exploitation of low environmental quality for export advantages.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ecological Footprint · Economic Growth · Foreign Direct Investment

Abstract

Environmental repercussions driven by economic activities have caused developed nations to incur higher costs depending on the adherence to environmental standards adopted along with public pressure. Because of their lower environmental standards, developing countries have secured a competitive cost edge in polluting sectors, attracting foreign direct investment and triggering debates about pollution havens. Such a scenario poses a potential risk of amplified carbon releases (CR) in developing nations. However, foreign direct investments originating from developed nations can enhance management practices, disseminate environmentally friendly advanced technologies, and ultimately reduce CR in developing nations. The primary aim of this study is to examine the effects of economic variables that seem to contribute to the carbon footprint, utilizing data from 10 developed and developing countries. This study investigates the impacts of foreign direct investment, national income, and export variables on the ecological footprint during the period spanning from 2000 to 2022, making use of the CS-ARDL method. The results revealed that the ecological footprint is affected by foreign direct investments, increased national income, and the expansion of exports. It is essential to raise environmental standards to an international level and promote eco-friendly production and growth approaches to reduce the ecological footprint and protect environmental values globally, not just in developed countries. Moreover, policymakers must ensure considering environmental values in foreign direct investments in developing countries, supporting this through regulations, and preventing the exploitation of low environmental quality for export advantages.

Özet

Environmental repercussions driven by economic activities have caused developed nations to incur higher costs depending on the adherence to environmental standards adopted along with public pressure. Because of their lower environmental standards, developing countries have secured a competitive cost edge in polluting sectors, attracting foreign direct investment and triggering debates about pollution havens. Such a scenario poses a potential risk of amplified carbon releases (CR) in developing nations. However, foreign direct investments originating from developed nations can enhance management practices, disseminate environmentally friendly advanced technologies, and ultimately reduce CR in developing nations. The primary aim of this study is to examine the effects of economic variables that seem to contribute to the carbon footprint, utilizing data from 10 developed and developing countries. This study investigates the impacts of foreign direct investment, national income, and export variables on the ecological footprint during the period spanning from 2000 to 2022, making use of the CS-ARDL method. The results revealed that the ecological footprint is affected by foreign direct investments, increased national income, and the expansion of exports. It is essential to raise environmental standards to an international level and promote eco-friendly production and growth approaches to reduce the ecological footprint and protect environmental values globally, not just in developed countries. Moreover, policymakers must ensure considering environmental values in foreign direct investments in developing countries, supporting this through regulations, and preventing the exploitation of low environmental quality for export advantages.

🔖

Cite This Article

Alancıoğlu, E., Bayraktutan, Y., Moalla, M. (2025). International Transfer of Ecological Footprint: An Analysis for the Countries with Different Income Levels. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1511290

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Al-mulali, U., & Foon Tang, C. (2013). Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.055
  2. Aliyu, M. A. (2005, June 9–11). Foreign direct investment and the environment: Pollution haven hypothesis revisited. In Eighth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Lübeck, Germany.
  3. Arslan, H. M., Bilal & Bashir, M. (2021). Contemporary research on spillover effects of COVID-19 in stock markets. A systematic and bibliometric review. In The 3rd International Electronic Conference on Environmental Research and Public Health —Public Health Issues in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecerph-3-09103
  4. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N., & Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2019). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 23010–23026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05446-x
  5. Bayraktutan, Y. (2022). Uluslararası iktisat. Umuttepe Y.
  6. Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2013). Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: A survey. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2319840
  7. Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
  8. Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M. H., & Raissi, M. (2016). Long-run effects in large heterogeneous panel data models with cross-sectionally correlated errors. In Advances in Econometrics (pp. 85-135). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0731-905320160000036013
  9. Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.09.007
  10. Destek, M. A., & Okumus, I. (2019). Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(23), 23689-23695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05614-z
  11. Farooq, T. H., Xincheng, X., Shakoor, A., Rashid, M. H. U., Bashir, M. F., Nawaz, M. F., Kumar, U., Shahzad, S. M., & Yan, W. (2021). Spatial distribution of carbon dynamics and nutrient enrichment capacity in different layers and tree tissues of Castanopsis eyeri natural forest ecosystem. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 10250-10262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16400-1
  12. Haisheng, Y., Jia, J., Yongzhang, Z., & Shugong, W. (2005). The impact on environmental Kuznets curve by trade and foreign direct investment in China. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 3(2), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2005.10677410
  13. He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.008
  14. Honglei, C., Xiaorong, Z., & Qiufeng, C. (2011). Export-oriented economy & environmental pollution in China: The empirical study by simultaneous equation model. Energy Procedia, 5, 884-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.156
  15. Mike, F. (2020). Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi türkiye için geçerli mi ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımından bulgular. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 21(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.31671/dogus.2020.452
  16. Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., Boateng, F., Nyeadi, J. D., & Coffie, C. P. K. (2022). Reinvestigating the pollution haven hypothesis: The nexus between foreign direct investments and environmental quality in G-20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 31330–31347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17508-0
  17. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.005
  18. Neequaye, N. A., & Oladi, R. (2015). Environment, growth, and FDI revisited. International Review of Economics & Finance, 39, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2015.06.002
  19. Liobikienė, G., & Butkus, M. (2019). Scale, composition, and technique effects through which the economic growth, foreign direct investment, urbanization, and trade affect greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable Energy, 132, 1310–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.032
  20. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
  21. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  22. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423x.2007.00227.x
  23. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  24. Rafindadi, A. A., Muye, I. M., & Kaita, R. A. (2018). The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 25, 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.12.008
  25. Sapkota, P., & Bastola, U. (2017). Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: Panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics, 64, 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.001
  26. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., & Anis, O. (2015). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?. Energy Economics, 51, 275-287
  27. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., & Afza, T. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: Evidence from panel data analysis. MPRA Paper No. 32547. University Library of Munich, Germany. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32547/
  28. Singhania, M., & Saini, N. (2021). Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal of Business Research, 123, 516-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.007
  29. Terzi, H., & Pata, U. (2020). Is the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) valid for Turkey? Panoeconomicus, 67(1), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.2298/pan161229016t
  30. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
  31. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967