BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Temurlenk M. Sinan (Atatürk University), Lögün Anıl (Atatürk University)
Tytuł
An Analysis of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the Context of Turkey: a Nonlinear Approach
Źródło
Economics and Business Review, 2022, vol. 8 (22), nr 1, s. 5-23, tab., bibliogr. 74 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Zanieczyszczenie środowiska, Ochrona środowiska, Inwestycje bezpośrednie, Inwestycje zagraniczne, Emisja zanieczyszczeń, Rozproszone przetwarzanie danych
Environmental pollution, Environmental protection, Direct investments, Foreign investment, Pollution emission, Data processing diffuse
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: C33, E1, Q52
summ.
Kraj/Region
Turcja
Turkey
Abstrakt
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is an important driver of countries' economic development. Factors such as looser environmental regulations may cause dirty FDI to flow mainly to developing countries. This is explained by the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. The paper aims to investigate whether the Pollution Haven Hypothesis is valid in Turkey using the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) approach for the period 1974-2017. The results show that FDI inflows and carbon emissions have asymmetric effects in both the short and long term for Turkey, supporting the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a link between carbon emissions and trade openness, manufacturing and economic growth. Policymakers should develop the policies necessary to transfer clean technologies to Turkey by providing improvements and technical advances for a more efficient energy use. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka SGH im. Profesora Andrzeja Grodka
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Akbostanci, E., Ipek Tunc, G., & Turut-Asik, S. (2007). Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the role of dirty industries in Turkey's exports. Environment and Development Economics, 12(2), 297-322.
  2. Akbostanci, E., Ipek Tunc, G., & Turut-Asik, S. (2008). Environmental impact of customs union agreement with EU on Turkey's trade in manufacturing industry. Applied Economics, 40(17), 2295-2304.
  3. Akın, C.S. (2014). Yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının CO2 emisyonu üzerine olan etkisi: Dinamik panel veri analiz. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 44, 1-15.
  4. Al-Mulali, U., & Tang, C.F. (2013). Investigating the validity of Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813-819.
  5. Ansari, M.A., Khan, N.A., & Ganaie, A.A. (2019). Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in Asian countries? A panel data analysis. OPEC Energy Review, 43(2), 109-135.
  6. Assuncao, L., & Zhang, Z. (2002). Domestic climate change policies and the WTO. (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). Retrieved from https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osgdp164_en.pdf
  7. Ayadi, F.S., Mlanga, S., Ikpor, M.I., & Nnachi, R.A. (2019). Empirical test of Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Nigeria using autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 48-58.
  8. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Saha, S. (2018). On the relation between exchange rates and stock prices: A nonlinear ARDL approach and asymmetry analysis. Journal of Economics and Finance, 42(1), 112-137.
  9. Bakirtas, I., & Cetin, M.A. (2017). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve and pollution haven hypotheses: MIKTA sample. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(22), 18273-18283.
  10. Balibey, M. (2015). Relationships among CO2 emissions, economic growth and foreign direct investment and the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Turkey. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(4), 1042-1049.
  11. 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, 23010-23026.
  12. Bayraktar, N. (2013). Foreign direct investment and investment climate. Procedia Economics and Finance, 5, 83-92.
  13. Ben-Salha, O., & Zmami, M. (2020). The impact of private capital flows on economic growth in the MENA region. Economics and Business Review, 6(3), 45-67.
  14. Bildirici, M., & Türkmen, C. (2015). The chaotic relationship between oil return, gold, silver and copper returns in Turkey: Nonlinear ARDL and augmented nonlinear Granger causality. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 397-407.
  15. BP. (2019). BP statistical review of world energy. London: BP. Retrieved from https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf
  16. Brock, W.A., Dechert, W.D., & Scheinkman, J.A. (1987). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235.
  17. Brock, W.A., Scheinkman, J.A., Dechert, W.D., & LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235.
  18. Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: An environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.
  19. Caporale, G.M., Ntantamis, C., Pantelidis, T., & Pittis, N. (2005). The BDS test as a test for the adequacy of a GARCH (1, 1) specification: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 3(2), 282-309.
  20. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2012). Turkiye Cumhuriyeti İklim Değişikliği Eylem Planı 2011-2023. Retrieved April 7, 2021 from https://www.csb.gov.tr/db/iklim/banner/banner591
  21. Chmielewska, A., & Sławiński, A. (2021). Climate crisis, central banks and the IMF reform. Economics and Business Review, 7(4), 7-27.
  22. De Graaff, T., Florax, R.J., Nijkamp, P., & Reggiani, A. (2001). A general misspecification test for spatial regression models: Dependence, heterogeneity, and nonlinearity. Journal of Regional Science, 41(2), 255-276.
  23. 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.
  24. Dhrifi, A., Jaziri, R., & Alnahdi, S. (2020). Does foreign direct investment and environmental degradation matter for poverty? Evidence from developing countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 13-21.
  25. Doytch, N., & Uctum, M. (2016). Globalization and the environmental impact of sectoral FDI. Economic Systems, 40(4), 582-594.
  26. Gill, F.L., Viswanathan, K.K., & Abdul Karim, M.Z. (2018). The critical review of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167-174.
  27. Gokmenoglu, K., & Taspinar, N. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: The case of Turkey. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706-723.
  28. Gür, B. (2019). Relationship between foreign direct investment and carbon dioxide emissions: Evaluation of the hypothesis of pollution haven for Turkey. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Empirical Economics Journal, 13, 1-13.
  29. Haug, A.A., & Ucal, M. (2019). The role of trade and FDI for CO2 emissions in Turkey: Nonlinear relationships. Energy Economics, 81, 297-307.
  30. Hoffmann, R., Lee, C.G., Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 17(3), 311-317.
  31. Huang, Y., Chen, X., Zhu, H., Huang, C., & Tian, Z. (2019). The heterogeneous effects of FDI and foreign trade on CO2 emissions: Evidence from China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 1-14.
  32. Iamsiraroj, S. (2016). The foreign direct investment - economic growth nexus. International Review of Economics & Finance, 42, 116-133.
  33. Ibrahim, M.H. (2015). Oil and food prices in Malaysia: A nonlinear ARDL analysis. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3(1), 1-14.
  34. IEA. (2016). Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Turkey 2016 Review. Paris: The International Energy Agency.
  35. IEA. (2021). Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Turkey 2021 Review. Paris: The International Energy Agency.
  36. Isiksal, A.Z., Samour, A., & Resatoglu, N.G. (2019). Testing the impact of real interest rate, income, and energy consumption on Turkey's CO2 emissions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20219-20231.
  37. Kathuria, V. (2018). Does environmental governance matter for foreign direct investment? Testing the Pollution Haven Hypothesis for Indian States. Asian Development Review, 35(1), 81-107.
  38. Kaya, G., Kayalica, M.Ö., Kumaş, M., & Ulengin, B. (2017). The role of foreign direct investment and trade on carbon emissions in Turkey. Environmental Economics, 8(1), 8-17.
  39. Kılıçarslan, Z., & Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: The case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647-660.
  40. Kivyiro, P., & Arminen, H. (2014). Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: Causality analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy, 74(1), 595-606.
  41. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: New evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(1), 790-804.
  42. Lee, J. W. (2013). The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483-489.
  43. Mert, M., & Caglar, A.E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: A new perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32933-32943.
  44. Mutafoglu, T.H. (2012). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and economic growth: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281-297.
  45. Neequaye, N.A., & Oladi, R. (2015). Environment, growth, and FDI revisited. International Review of Economics & Finance, 39, 47-56.
  46. Opoku, E.E.O., & Boachie, M.K. (2020). The environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment. Energy Policy, 137(C).
  47. Ozatac, N., Gokmenoglu, K.K., & Taspinar, N. (2017). Testing the EKC hypothesis by considering trade openness, urbanization, and financial development: The case of Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(20), 16690-16701.
  48. Ozturk, S., & Saygin, S. (2020). Türkiye'de 1974-2016 Döneminde Yapısal Kırılma Altında Kişi Başına Reel Gelir, Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Ticari Açıklık ve Karbon Emisyonları Arasındaki İlişki. Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 69-90.
  49. Pao, H.T., & Tsai, C.M. (2011). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): Evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 36(1), 685-693.
  50. Rasit, N.B., & Aralas, S.B. (2017). The Pollution Haven Hypothesis: An analysis of ASEAN and OECD countries. (Proceedings of International Conference on Economics 2017), 96-109.
  51. Şahin, G., Gökdemir, L., & Ayyıldız, F.V. (2019). Türkiye Örneğinde Kirlilik Siğinaği Ve Kirlenme Hale Hipotezleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştirma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(33), 104-140.
  52. 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.
  53. Sat, N.A. (2016). Multinational corporations and their effects on environment: Pollution Haven Hypothesis testing in the case of Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 4(2), 25-36.
  54. Sbia, R., Shahbaz, M., & Helmi, H. (2014). A contribution of foreign direct investment, clean energy, trade openness, carbon emissions and economic growth to energy demand in UAE. Economic Modelling, 36, 191-197.
  55. Seker, F., Ertugrul, H.M., & Cetin, M. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: A bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347-356.
  56. 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.
  57. Shao, Q., Wang, X., Zhou, Q., & Balogh, L. (2019). Pollution Haven Hypothesis revisited: A comparison of the BRICS and MINT countries based on VECM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 724-738.
  58. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In W.C. Horrace & R.C. Sickles (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric methods and applications (pp. 281-314). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
  59. Solarin, S.A., Al-Mulali, U., Musah, I., & Ozturk, I. (2017). Investigating the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation. Energy, 124, 706-719.
  60. Sun, C., Zhang, F., & Xu, M. (2017). Investigation of Pollution Haven Hypothesis for China: An ARDL approach with breakpoint unit root tests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 153-164.
  61. Sung, B., Song, W.Y., & Park, S.D. (2018). How foreign direct investment affects CO2 emission levels in the Chinese manufacturing industry: Evidence from panel data. Economic Systems, 42(2), 320-331.
  62. Tang, C.F., & Tan, B.W. (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447-454.
  63. Taylor, M.S. (2004). Unbundling the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(2), 1-26.
  64. Terzi, H., & Pata, U.K. (2019). Is the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) valid for Turkey?. Panoeconomicus, 67(1), 93-109.
  65. Udemba, E.N. (2020). Ecological implication of offshored economic activities in Turkey: Foreign direct investment perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(30), 38015-38028.
  66. Ur Rahman, Z., Chongbo, W., & Ahmad, M. (2019). An (a)symmetric analysis of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the context of Pakistan: A nonlinear approach. Carbon Management, 10(3), 227-239.
  67. Üzar, U. (2019). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım, Büyüme ve Çevresel Kalite İlişkisi: Türkiye "Dibe Yarışan" Bir Ülke Mi?. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 439-451.
  68. Weng, Y.C., Chang, N.B., & Lee, T.Y. (2008). Nonlinear time series analysis of ground-level ozone dynamics in Southern Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(3), 405-414.
  69. WTO/UNEP. (2009). Trade and climate change: A report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization. Geneva: World Trade Organization.
  70. Yacouba, K., & Altintas, H. (2019). The asymmetric impact of macroeconomic shocks on stock returns in Turkey: A nonlinear ARDL approach. Journal for Economic Forecasting, 22, 98-116.
  71. Yıldırım, M., Destek, M.A., & Özsoy, F.N. (2017). Doğrudan Yabanci Yatirimlar Ve Kirlilik Siğinaği Hipotezi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesiİktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111.
  72. Zaman, K., & Abd-el Moemen, M. (2017). Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic development: Evaluating alternative and plausible environmental hypothesis for sustainable growth. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 1119-1130.
  73. Zheng, J., & Sheng, P. (2017). The impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the environment: Market perspectives and evidence from China. Economies, 5(1), 8.
  74. Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2392-1641
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2022.1.2
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu