SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Yasar University / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62

Is Per Capita Energy Use Stationary in Turkey?

Türkiye’de Kişi Başına Enerji Kullanımı Durağan Mıdır?

ASİYE TÜTÜNCÜ
Nazife Özge BEŞER
Pages
683–697
DOI
—
🏛️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)

According to the results, the seriesof energyusefor Turkey located between developing countries hasnot been found to be stable.Thus, it has been determined that the effect of shocks occurring in energy use is permanent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Energy use is one of the most important indicators used in determining the level of development of countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of thisstudy is to investigate the stationarityof per capita energy use based on annual data of Turkey from 1960 to 2015, and, to get information about the economic development situation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the seriesof energyusefor Turkey located between developing countries hasnot been found to be stable.Thus, it has been determined that the effect of shocks occurring in energy use is permanent.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Energy use is one of the most important indicators used in determining the level of development of countries. The aim of thisstudy is to investigate the stationarityof per capita energy use based on annual data of Turkey from 1960 to 2015, and, to get information about the economic development situation. For this purpose, unit root tests that take into account different structural changes as well as traditional unit root tests are used in the study. According to the results, the seriesof energyusefor Turkey located between developing countries hasnot been found to be stable.Thus, it has been determined that the effect of shocks occurring in energy use is permanent.

Özet

Enerji kullanımı ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeyini belirlemede kullanılan en önemli göstergelerden birisidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1960-2015 dönemi yıllık verileri kullanarak Türkiye’de kişi başına enerji kullanımının durağanlığınıincelemekve böylece ekonomik gelişme durumu hakkında bilgi edinebilmektir. Bu amaçla çalışmada geleneksel birim kök testlerinin yanı sıra farklı yapısal değişimleri dikkate alan birim kök testleri kullanılmıştır.Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, gelişmekte olan ülkeler arasında yer alan Türkiye içinenerji kullanımı serisinin durağan olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Böylece enerji kullanımında meydana gelen şoklarınetkisi kalıcıolduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜTÜNCÜ, A., BEŞER, N. Ö. (2021). Is Per Capita Energy Use Stationary in Turkey?. Journal of Yasar University, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62, 683–697. https://ajindex.com/articles/220336

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Agnolucci, Paolo ve Andrew Venn 2011. “Industrial Energy Intensities in the UK: Is there a Deterministic or Stochastic Difference among Sectors?” Applied Economics 43(12): 1447-1462.
  2. Gil-Alana, Luis A., David Loomis ve James E. Payne 2010 “Does Energy Consumption by the US Electric Power Sector Exhibit Long Memory Behavior?” Energy Policy 38(11): 7512-7518.
  3. Altınay, Galip ve Karagöl, Erdal 2004. “Structural Break, Unit Root, and the Causality between Energy Consumption and GDP in Turkey.” Energy Economics 26: 985–994.
  4. Al-Iriani, Mahmoud A. 2006. “Energy–GDP Relationship Revisited: An Example from GCC Countries U sing Panel Causality.” Energy Policy 34(17): 3342–3350.
  5. Arslan, Erdal ve Solak, Aysun 2019. “Türkiye’de Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketiminin İthalat Üzerindeki Etkisi.” Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 10(17): 1380-1407.
  6. Başol, Koray 1994.
  7. Doğal Kaynaklar Ekonomisi, Doğal Kaynaklar, Enerji ve Çevre Sorunları. İzmir: Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı Bolat, Süleyman, Belke, Murat ve Kovaci, Süreyya 2013. “The Stationarity of Electricity Consumption in Selected European Countries.” European Scientific Journal 9(19): 79-87.
  8. Cheng, Benjamin. S. ve Lai, Tin, Wei 1997. “An Investigation of Cointegration and Causality Between Energy Consumption and Economic Activity in Taiwan.”, Energy Economics 19(4): 435–444.
  9. Chen, Pei-Fen ve Lee, Chien-Chiang 2007. “Is Energy Consumption Per Capita Broken Stationary? New Evidence from Regional-Based Panels.” Energy Policy 35(6): 3526-3540.
  10. Christopoulos, Dimitris K. ve Ledesma, Miguel A. L. 2010. “Smooth Breaks and Non-Linear Mean Reversion: Post-Bretton Woods Real Exchange Rates.” Journal of International Money and Finance 29: 1076-1093.
  11. Dickey, David A. ve Fuller, Wayne A. 1981. “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.” Econometrica 49(4): 1057- 1072. Doğan, Eyup 2016. “Are Shocks to Electricity Consumption Transitory or Permanent? Sub-National Evidence from Turkey.” Utilities Policy 41: 77-84.
  12. Enders, Walter ve Lee, Junsoo 2004. Testing for a Unit Root with a Nonlinear Fourier Function. University of Alabama, Mimeo. Fallahi Firouz, Karimi Mohammad ve Voia Marcel Cristian 2014. “Are Shocks to Energy Consumption Persistent? Evidence from Subsampling Confidence Intervals.” Carleton Economic Papers CEP 14-02.
  13. Glasure, Yong U. ve Lee, Aie Rie 1997. “Cointegration, Error-Correction, and the Relationship between GDP and Electricity: The Case of South Korea and Singapore.” Resource and Electri