Advertisement

Environmental Kuznets Curve and Turkey: An ARDL Approach

  • Mustafa Göktuğ Kaya
  • Perihan Hazel Kaya
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

In this study, we analyze the validity of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Turkey. Using autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach, the relationship between CO2 emissions per capita, gross domestic product per capita, energy consumption, and financial development has been investigated during 1975–2012. In this direction, after empirical literature is firstly dealt with, model and dataset have been determined and analysis has been realized.

ARDL model results show that according to the long-term coefficients which obtained for quadratic model, EKC hypothesis is not valid for Turkey economy, and besides energy consumption and financial development affect CO2 emissions positively in the long term. In this framework, in order to reduce the CO2 emissions, Turkey should give more importance to renewable energy.

Keywords

Environmental Kuznets curve CO2 emissions Economic growth Financial development Energy consumption Turkey ARDL approach 

JEL Code:

O13 Q01 Q54 

References

  1. Abbasi, F., & Riaz, K. (2016). CO2 emissions and financial development in an emerging economy: An augmented VAR approach. Energy Policy, 90, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbostancı, E., Türüt-Aşık, S., & Tunç, İ. (2009). The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy, 37, 861–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atıcı, C., & Kurt, F. (2007). Türkiye’nin Dış Ticareti ve Çevre Kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Yaklaşımı. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(2), 61–69.Google Scholar
  4. Başar, S., & Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Çevreye Uyarlanmış Kuznet Eğrisi: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21, 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Bölük, G., & Mert, M. (2015). The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: An ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charfeddine, L., & Khediri, K. B. (2016). Financial development and environmental quality in UAE: Cointegration with structural breaks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 1322–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dam, M. M., Karakaya, E., & Bulut Ş. (2013). Çevresel Kuznet Eğrisi ve Türkiye:Ampirik Bir Analiz. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 85–96.Google Scholar
  8. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), 1057–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erdoğan, İ., Türköz, K., & Görüş, M. (2015). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi için Geçerliliği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 44, 113–123.Google Scholar
  10. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halicioglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jalil, A., & Feridun, M. (2011). The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: A cointegration analysis. Energy Economics, 33, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration— With applications to the dand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kılıç, R., & Akalın, G. (2016). Türkiye’de Çevre ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koçak, E. (2014). Türkiye’de Çevresel Kuznet Eğrisi Hipotezinin Geçerliliği:ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2, 62–73.Google Scholar
  17. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Lebe, F. (2016). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi: Türkiye İçin Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 17, 177–194.Google Scholar
  19. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests, Queen’s Economics Department Working Paper No. 1227.Google Scholar
  20. Odhiambo, N. (2012). Economic growth and carbon emissions in South Africa: An emprical investigation. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 28, 37–46.Google Scholar
  21. Özcan, B. (2015). ÇKE Hipotezi Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomileri İçin Geçerli mi? Panel veri analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 16(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  22. Özturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 3220–3225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Öztürk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1996). An autoregressive distributed lag model in Gapproachtoco integration analysis. In S. Strom (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shahbaz, M., Adnan Hye, Q. M., Tiwari, A. K., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turkish Statistical Institute (2016). www.tuik.gov.tr
  30. World Bank (2016). http://data.worldbank.org/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTO Karatay UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Selçuk University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of EconomicsKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations