KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Finansal Gelişme, Teknolojik Yenilik ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişki: E7 Ülkeleri Örneği

The Nexus Among Financial Development, Technological Innovation and Ecological Footprint: The Case of E7 Countries

Evin Akgün(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1814-6126
Arzu Özmerdivanlı(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2120-3312
Sayfa
150–165
Yayın Tarihi
2024-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Eşbütünleme test sonuçları değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmada E7 ülkelerinde finansal gelişme, teknolojik yenilik ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu bağlamda E7 ülkelerinin 1990-2019 dönemi için yıllık verileri kullanılarak LM bootstrap panel eşbütünleşme testi ve panel AMG tahmincisi yöntemleri ile analiz yapılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Eşbütünleme test sonuçları değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Teknolojik Yenilik · Finansal Gelişme · Ekolojik Ayak İzi

Özet

Bu çalışmada E7 ülkelerinde finansal gelişme, teknolojik yenilik ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda E7 ülkelerinin 1990-2019 dönemi için yıllık verileri kullanılarak LM bootstrap panel eşbütünleşme testi ve panel AMG tahmincisi yöntemleri ile analiz yapılmıştır. Eşbütünleme test sonuçları değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Panel AMG tahmincisi sonucunda panel düzeyinde elde edilen bulgular, yenilenebilir enerjinin, fosil enerjinin ve ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izini pozitif etkilediğini (artırdığını) diğer değişkenlerin ekolojik ayak izini etkilemediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Panel AMG’nin ülkeler için ayrı ayrı elde edilen bulguları ise yenilenebilir enerjinin, fosil enerjinin ve ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde genellikle pozitif bir etki yarattığına, finansal gelişmenin ve teknolojik yeniliğin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerinin ülkeler açısından farklılık gösterdiğine ilişkin kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen sonuçlar çerçevesinde, çevreye duyarlı teknolojik projelerin, finansman kaynaklarının, enerji kaynaklarının ve ekonomik faaliyetlerin çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması açısından önemli olduğu söylenebilir.

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the nexus among financial development, technological innovation and ecological footprint in E7 countries. In this context, analysis was made with LM bootstrap panes cointegration test and panel AMG estimator methods using annual data of E7 countries for the period 1990-2019. Cointegration test results show that there is a long-term relationship between the variables. As a result of the Panel AMG estimator, the data obtained at the panel level revealed that renewable energy, fossil energy and economic growth positively affects (increases) the ecological footprint and other variables do not affect the ecological footprint. Panel AMG's findings obtained separately for countries provide evidence that renewable energy, fossil energy and economic growth generally has a positive effect on the ecological footprint, and that the effects of financial development and technological innovation on the ecological footprint vary across countries. The results of study are evaluated, it can be said that eco-friendly technological projects, financial resources, energy resources and economic activities are important in ensuring environmental sustainability.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akgün, E., Özmerdivanlı, A. (2024). Finansal Gelişme, Teknolojik Yenilik ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişki: E7 Ülkeleri Örneği. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 150–165. https://ajindex.com/articles/1504260

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (67)

  1. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817.
  2. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M. & Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 18565–18582.
  3. Ali, N., Phoungthong, K., Khan, A., Abbas, S., Dilanchiev, A., Tariq, S., & Sadiq, M. N. (2023). Does FDI foster technological innovations? Empirical evidence from BRICS economies. Plos one, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282498
  4. Aşıcı, A. A. & Acar, S. (2013). Ekolojik ayak izimiz ne söylüyor?: Türkiye'de büyüme-doğa ilişkisi. Ümit Şenesen’e Armağan Paylaşımlar: Sayılarla Türkiye Ekonomisi, 271.
  5. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Onifade, S. T., & Agboola, M. O. (2021). Beyond the environmental Kuznets Curve in E7 economies: accounting for the combined impacts of institutional quality and renewables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127924
  6. Ben Youssef, A., Boubaker, S. & Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship and sustainability: The need for innovative and institutional solutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.003
  7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The review of economic studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  8. Chen, Y., Cheng, L. & Lee, C. C. (2022). How does the use of industrial robots affect the ecological footprint? International evidence. Ecological Economics, 198, 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107483.
  9. Chu, L. K. (2022). Determinants of ecological footprint in OCED countries: Do environmental-related technologies reduce environmental degradation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29 (16), 23779–23793.
  10. Claessens, S. & Feijen, E. (2007). Financial sector development and the millennium development goals. World Bank Working Paper (No. 89). The World Bank Publications.
  11. Copeland, B. R. & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (1), 7–71.
  12. Dada, J.T., Adeiza, A., Ismail, N.A. & Arnaut, M. (2022). Financial development–ecological footprint nexus in Malaysia: The role of institutions. Management of Environmental Quality, 33(4), 913-937. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-10-2021-0251.
  13. Danish, Saud, S., Baloch, M. A. & Lodhi, R. N. (2018). The nexus between energy consumption and financial development: Estimating the role of globalization in Next-11 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(19), 18651–18661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2069-0.
  14. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M., Boamah, K. B., Ampon-Wireko, S. & Kofi Dogbe, C. S. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.125143.
  15. Destek, M. A. & Manga, M. (2021). Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: Evidence from BEM economies. Environmental. Science Pollution Research, 28 (17), 21991–22001.
  16. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
  17. Doğan, B. Ö. (2023). Ekolojik sürdürülebilirlikte finansal gelişme ve teknolojik inovasyon etkisi: Türkiye'den kanıtlar. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 10(23), 200-217.
  18. Eberhardt, M. & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. MPRA Paper (No. 17692). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/
  19. Gabriel, S. A. & Rosenthal, S. S. (2013). Urbanization, agglomeration economies, and access to mortgage credit. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(1), 42-50.
  20. Godil, D. I., Ahmad, P., Ashraf, M. S., Sarwat, S., Sharif A., Shabib-Ul-Hasan, S. & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2021). The step towards environmental mitigation in Pakistan: Do transportation services, urbanization, and financial development matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 21486–21498
  21. Gyamfi, B. A., Bein, M. A., Udemba, E. N. & Bekun, F. V. (2022). Renewable energy, economic globalization and foreign direct investment linkage for sustainable development in the E7 economies: Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis. International Social Science Journal, 72(243), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12301
  22. Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M., & Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries?. Technology in Society, 68, 101853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101853
  23. Hussain, M. & Dogan, E., (2021). The role of institutional quality and environment- related technologies in environmental degradation for BRICS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 304, 127059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127059.
  24. Ibrahiem, D. M., (2020). Do technological innovations and financial development improve environmental quality in Egypt? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27 (10), 10869–10881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07585-7.
  25. Idrees M. & Majeed, M. T. (2022). Income inequality, financial development, and ecological footprint: Fresh evidence from an asymmetric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(19), 27924-27938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18288-3
  26. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H. & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resources Policy, 76, 102569, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569.
  27. Kardaşlar, A. (2022). Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Tüketimi ve Küreselleşme Sürecinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal, 13(3), 385-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.20409/berj.2022.379
  28. Karluk, R. (2009). Uluslararası ekonomi. Ankara: Beta Yayınevi.
  29. Kihombo, S., Ahmed, Z., Chen, S., Adebayo, T. S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 61235-61245.
  30. Lai, X., Liu, J., Shi, Q., Georgiev, G. & Wu, G. (2017). Driving forces for low carbon technology innovation in the building industry: a critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74(C), 299–315.
  31. Majeed, M. T., & Mazhar, M. (2019). Financial development and ecological footprint: A global panel data analysis. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(2), 487–514. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/201002.
  32. McCoskey, S. & Kao, C. (1998). A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 17(1), 57-84
  33. Mehraaein, M., Afroz, R., Rahman, M. Z. & Muhibbullah, M. (2021). Dynamic impact of macroeconomic variables on the ecological footprint in Malaysia: Testing EKC and PHH. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(5): 583-593.
  34. Mishra, A. K., & Dash, A. K. (2022). Connecting the carbon ecological footprint, economic globalization, population density, financial sector development, and economic growth of five south Asian countries. Energy Research Letters, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.32627.
  35. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint and human well-being nexus: accounting for broad-based financial development, globalization, and natural resources in the Next-11 countries. Futur Business Journal, 7(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00071-y.
  36. Özkan, O. & Çoban, M. N. (2022). Türkiye'de finansal gelişmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi: Yeni dinamik ARDL simülasyon yaklaşımından ampirik kanıtlar. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3) 1293-1309.
  37. Özcan, G., & Özmen, İ. (2018). Küreselleşme yükselen ekonomilerde gelir dağılımını etkiler mi?. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 35-52.
  38. Özsoy, C. E. & Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53, 619.
  39. Pata, U.K., & Yilanci, V. (2020). Financial development, globalization and ecological footprint in G7: Further evidence from threshold cointegration and fractional frequency causality tests. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(4), 803-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00467-z.
  40. 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
  41. Pesaran, H. M., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias – adjusted LM test of error cross section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  42. Pesaran, H. M. (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
  43. PWC (2017). The long view How will the global economic order change by 2050? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-world-in-2050-summary-report-feb-2017.pdf
  44. Ramzan, M., Abbasi, K. R., Salman, A., Dagar, V., Alvarado, R. & Kagzi, M. (2023). Towards the dream of go green: An empirical importance of green innovation and financial depth for environmental neutrality in world's top 10 greenest economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, 122370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122370.
  45. Reyhan, A. S. (2014). Sürdürülebilir üretim-tüketim politikaları çerçevesinde "yeşil ekonomi" üzerine bir değerlendirme. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim (MSY), 9(22), 327-347.
  46. Saqib, N., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Secara, C. G., & Tolea, C. (2022). Revisiting EKC hypothesis in context of renewable energy, human development and moderating role of technological innovations in E-7 countries?. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1077658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077658
  47. Shahbaz, M., Khraief, N., Mahalik, M. K. & Zaman, K. U. (2014). Are fluctuations in natural gas consumption per capita transitory? Evidence from time series and panel unit root tests. Energy, 78, 183-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.080
  48. Sharif, A., Meo, M. S., Chowdhury, M. A. F. & Sohag, K. (2021). Role of solar energy in reducing ecological footprints: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126028.
  49. Song, M., Fisher, R. & Kwoh, Y. (2019). Technological challenges of green innovation and sustainable resource management with large scale data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.055.
  50. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38, 311-323.
  51. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy policy, 37(1), 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
  52. Taylor, A. J., Beaverstock, J. V., Cook G., Pandit, N. & Pain, K. (2003). Financial services clustering and its significance for London: Corporation of London.
  53. Uddin, G.A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K. & Gow, J., (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol. Indicators 77, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
  54. Ulucak R. & Khan S. U. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society. 54 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996.
  55. Usman, M., & Hammar, N. (2020). Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(12), 15519-15536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11640-z
  56. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R. & Randers, J. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266-9271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699.
  57. Wang, R., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Cifuentes-Faura, J., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2023). Achieving ecological sustainability through technological innovations, financial development, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption in developing European countries. Gondwana Research, 119, 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.023
  58. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190.
  59. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980). The World conservation strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/mml/iucn-ed-world-conservation-strategy-living-resource-conservation-sustainable-development
  60. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/media/publications/sustainable-development/brundtland-report.html
  61. World Wide Fund for Nature (2012). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu. https://wwftr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/turkiyenin_ekolojik_ayak_izi_raporu.pdf.
  62. Yasin, I., Ahmad, N. & Chaudhary, M. A. (2020). Catechizing the environmental-impression of urbanization, financial development, and political institutions: A circumstance of ecological footprints in 110 developed and less-developed countries. Social Indicators Research, 147, 621-649.
  63. Yasmeen, R., Tao, R., & Shah, W. U. H. (2023). Economic growth and environmental technology simultaneously important for reducing energy poverty and ecological footprint in E7 economies: do political institutions play a role?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(24), 65102-65118.
  64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26923-4
  65. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F. & Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: The case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428.
  66. Zhang, Y. J. (2011). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis in China. Energy Policy, 39, 2197-2203.
  67. Zhao, W. X., Samour, A., Yi, K. & Saleh Al-Faryan, M. A. (2023). Do technological innovation, natural resources and stock market development promote environmental sustainability? Novel evidence based on the load capacity factor. Resources Policy, 82, 103397. http:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103397.