SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4

POLLUTION HAVEN HYPOTHESIS, FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY

KİRLİLİK SIĞINAĞI HİPOTEZİ, DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIMLAR VE KAMU POLİTİKALARI

Mine YILMAZER
Bernur AÇIKGÖZ ERSOY
Pages
1441–1462
Publication Date
2009-11-01
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)

Contrary to the findings of Merican et al, a cointegration relationship between variables does not exist

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The developing countries are not willing to endanger the goals of industrialization and avoid foreign direct investment by implementing strict environmental policies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the pollution haven hypothesis, analyzed in the literature by Merican et all, is tested by using panel cointegration technique and 1975-2006 data sets of six emerging markets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Contrary to the findings of Merican et al, a cointegration relationship between variables does not exist
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Panel Eşbütünleşim · Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar · Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma

Abstract

The developing countries are not willing to endanger the goals of industrialization and avoid foreign direct investment by implementing strict environmental policies. This situation causes industries which create pollution, to move to developing countries which are perceived as pollution havens. In this study, the pollution haven hypothesis, analyzed in the literature by Merican et all, is tested by using panel cointegration technique and 1975-2006 data sets of six emerging markets. Contrary to the findings of Merican et al, a cointegration relationship between variables does not exist

Özet

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler katı çevre politikaları uygulayarak sanayileşme hedeflerini tehlikeye atmaktan ve yabancı sermayeyi kaçırmaktan çekinmektedirler. Bu durum, kirlilik yaratan endüstrilerin gelişmiş ülkelerden, kirlilik sığınağı olarak gördükleri gelişmekte olan ülkelere kaymasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, literatürde Merican ve diğerleri tarafından analiz edilen “kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi”, altı gelişen piyasa ekonomisi için 1975–2006 dönemi verileri kullanılarak, panel eşbütünleşim yöntemi ile test edilmiştir. Merican ve diğerlerinin çalışma bulgularının aksine değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşim ilişkisi saptanamamıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

YILMAZER, M., ERSOY, B. A. (2009). POLLUTION HAVEN HYPOTHESIS, FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4, 1441–1462. https://ajindex.com/articles/752196

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. ACAR A., “Vergilendirmede Tahsis İlkesinin Çevre Vergileri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”, S.D.Ü. İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 1, 2006.
  2. AKBOSTANCI, E.; G.İ. TUNÇ ve S. TÜRÜT AŞIK (2004) “İmalat Sanayi ve Kirlilik: Bir kirli Endüstri Sığınağı Olarak Türkiye”, ERC Working Paper in Economic 04/03 T, Ankara.
  3. ALFARO, L.; A. CHANDA; S. KALEMLİ-OZCAN ve S. SAYEK (2004) “FDI and Economic Growth: The Role of Local Financial Markets”, Journal of International Economics 64: 89–112.
  4. AMINU, A.M. (2005) “Foreign Direct Investment and The Environment: Pollution Haven Hypothesis Revisited”, Paper prepared for the Eight Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Lübeck, Germany, June 9 - 11, 2005.
  5. BACON, R.W. ve S. BHATTACHARYA. (2007) “Growth and CO2 Emmisions How Do Different Countries Fare?”, Environment Department Papers Paper Number 113, World Bank, 2007.
  6. BALASUBRAMANYAM, V. N.; M. SALISU ve D. SAPSFORD (1996) “Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries”, Economic Journal, (1), 92-105.
  7. BALTAGI, B.H. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd ed. John Willey&Sons,, s.37-38.
  8. BIRDSALL, N. ve D. WHEELER (1993) Trade Policy and Industrial Pollution in Latin America: Where Are the Pollution Havens?”, Journal of Environment & Development 2(1), 137-147.
  9. BORENSZTEIN, E.; J. De GREGORIO and J-W. LEE (1998) “How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 45: 115-135.
  10. CARKOVIC, M. and R. LEVINE (2005) “Does Foreign Direct Investment Accelerate economic growth?, in: Moran, H., Graham, E.M. (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development? Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. CHAREMZA W.W., D. DEADMAN, New Directions in Econometric Practice, Second Edition,
  11. Edward Elgar Press, UK, 1997, s.19. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Communication from the Commission on the Sixth Environment Action Programme of the EC, Brussels, December 2000, s.3-4.
  12. CUADROS, A.; V. ORTS and M. ALGUACİL (2004) “Openness and Growth: Re-examining Foreign Direct Investment, Trade and Output Linkages in Latin America”, Journal of Development Studies, 26: 167–92.
  13. DÇKK (1989) “Ortak Geleceğimiz”, (Çev. Belkıs ÇORAKÇI), Türkiye Çevre Sorunları Vakfı Yayını, Ankara, 496 s. DJANKOV, S. and B. HOEKMAN (2000) “Foreign Investment and Productivity Growth in Czech Enterprises”. The World Bank Economic Review, 14/1: 49–64.
  14. DPT (2006) “Arazi Kullanımı ve Kıyı Alanlarının Yönetimi, Ulusal Çevre Eylem Planı”, Mart 19