An analysis of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the context of Turkey: A nonlinear approach

• Authors: M. Sinan Temurlenk , Anıl Lögün

Abstracts

EN

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. eTh 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. eTh results show that FDI inflows and carbon emissions have asymmetric eefcts 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 eficient energy use.

Keywords

EN

Pollution Haven Hypothesis; foreign direct investments (FDI); emissions; nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag model; Turkey

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu
• Journal: Economics and Business Review
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 5-23

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

M. Sinan Temurlenk

author

Anıl Lögün

References

• 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.
• 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.
• Akın, C. S. (2014). Yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının CO emisyonu üzerine olan etkisi: 2 Dinamik panel veri analiz. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 44, 1‒15.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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/lfies/oficial-document/osgdp164_en.pdf
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Bayraktar, N. (2013). Foreign direct investment and investment climate. Procedia Economics and Finance, 5, 83‒92.
• Ben-Salha, O., & Zmami, M. (2020). eTh impact of private capital flows on economic growth in the MENA region. Economics and Business Review, 6(3), 45‒67.
• Bildirici, M., & Türkmen, C. (2015). eTh 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Caporale, G. M., Ntantamis, C., Pantelidis, T., & Pittis, N. (2005). eTh 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.
• 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
• Chmielewska, A., & Sławiński, A. (2021). Climate crisis, central banks and the IMF reform. Economics and Business Review, 7(4), 7‒27.
• De Graa,f 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.
• 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.
• Dhri,fi 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.
• Doytch, N., & Uctum, M. (2016). Globalization and the environmental impact of sectoral FDI. Economic Systems, 40(4), 582‒594.
• Gill, F. L., Viswanathan, K. K., & Abdul Karim, M. Z. (2018). eTh critical review of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167‒174.
• Gokmenoglu, K., & Taspinar, N. (2016). eTh relationship between CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: eTh case of Turkey. eTh Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706‒723.
• 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.
• Haug, A. A., & Ucal, M. (2019). eTh role of trade and FDI for CO 2 emissions in Turkey: Nonlinear relationships. Energy Economics, 81, 297‒307.
• Hofmann, R., Lee, C. G., Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development: eTh Journal of the Development Studies Association, 17(3), 311‒317.
• Huang, Y., Chen, X., Zhu, H., Huang, C., & Tian, Z. (2019). eTh heterogeneous eefcts of FDI and foreign trade on CO emissions: Evidence from China. Mathematical 2 Problems in Engineering, 2019, 1‒14.
• Iamsiraroj, S. (2016). The foreign direct investment-economic growth nexus. International Review of Economics & Finance, 42, 116‒133.
• Ibrahim, M. H. (2015). Oil and food prices in Malaysia: A nonlinear ARDL analysis. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3(1), 1‒14.
• IEA. (2016). Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Turkey 2016 Review. Paris: The International Energy Agency.
• IEA. (2021). Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Turkey 2021 Review. Paris: The International Energy Agency.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kaya, G., Kayalica, M. Ö., Kumaş, M., & Ulengin, B. (2017). eTh role of foreign direct investment and trade on carbon emissions in Turkey. Environmental Economics, 8(1), 8‒17.
• Kılıçarslan, Z., & Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: eTh case of Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647‒660.
• 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.
• Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). eTh impact of foreign direct investment on CO 2 emissions in Turkey: New evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(1), 790‒804.
• Lee, J. W. (2013). eTh contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483‒489.
• 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.
• Mutafoglu, T. H. (2012). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and economic growth: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281‒297.
• Neequaye, N. A., & Oladi, R. (2015). Environment, growth, and FDI revisited. International Review of Economics & Finance, 39, 47‒56.
• Opoku, E. E. O., & Boachie, M. K. (2020). eTh environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment. Energy Policy, 137(C).
• Ozatac, N., Gokmenoglu, K. K., & Taspinar, N. (2017). Testing the EKC hypothesis by considering trade openness, urbanization, and financial development: eTh case of Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(20), 16690‒16701.
• 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.
• 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.
• Rasit, N. B., & Aralas, S. B. (2017). eTh Pollution Haven Hypothesis: An analysis of ASEAN and OECD countries. (Proceedings of International Conference on Economics 2017), 96‒109.
• 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.
• 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.
• Sat, N. A. (2016). Multinational corporations and their eefcts 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.
• 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.
• Seker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., & Cetin, M. (2015). eTh impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: A bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347‒356.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Sung, B., Song, W. Y., & Park, S. D. (2018). How foreign direct investment aefcts CO 2 emission levels in the Chinese manufacturing industry: Evidence from panel data. Economic Systems, 42(2), 320‒331.
• Tang, C. F., & Tan, B. W. (2015). eTh impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy, 79, 447‒454.
• Taylor, M. S. (2004). Unbundling the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(2), 1‒26.
• Terzi, H., & Pata, U. K. (2019). Is the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) valid for Turkey?. Panoeconomicus, 67(1), 93‒109.
• Udemba, E. N. (2020). Ecological implication of ofshored economic activities in Turkey: Foreign direct investment perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(30), 38015‒38028.
• 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.
• 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.
• Weng, Y. C., Chang, N. B., & Lee, T. Y. (2008). Nonlinear time series analysis of groundlevel ozone dynamics in Southern Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(3), 405‒414.
• WTO/UNEP. (2009). Trade and climate change: A report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization. Geneva: World Trade Organization.
• Yacouba, K., & Altintas, H. (2019). eTh asymmetric impact of macroeconomic shocks on stock returns in Turkey: A nonlinear ARDL approach. Journal for Economic Forecasting, 22, 98‒116.
• Yıldırım, M., Destek, M. A., & Özsoy, F. N. (2017). Doğrudan Yabanci Yatirimlar Ve Kirlilik Siğinaği Hipotezi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99‒111.
• 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.
• Zheng, J., & Sheng, P. (2017). eTh impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the environment: Market perspectives and evidence from China. Economies, 5(1), 8.
• Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y., & Yu, K. (2016). eTh eefcts of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237‒248.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2022.1.2

Biblioteka Nauki

2034007