___

• Akbostancı, E., Asık, S. ve Tunc, G. (2009). The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy Policy, 37, 861–867.
• Akar, I. (2019). Kirlilik cennetleri hipotezi ve dış ticaret çevre ilişkisinde literatür incelemesi. Economics Literature, 1(1), 37-50.
• Akıllı, H., Kemahlı, F., Okudan, K. ve Polat, F. (2008). Ekolojik ayak izinin kavramsal içeriği ve Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi’nde bireysel ekolojik ayak izi hesaplaması. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, (15) 2008, 1-25.
• Alam, M.M. ve Murad, M.W. (2020). The impacts of economic growth, trade openness and technological progress on renewable energy use in organization for economic cooperation and development countries. Renewable Energy, 145, 382–390.
• Al-Mulali, U., Fereidouni, H.G. ve Lee, J.Y.M. (2014). Electricity consumption from renewable and non-renewable sources and economic growth: evidence from Latin American countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 30, 290–298.
• Alper, A.E. ve Oransay, G. (2015). Cari açık ve finansal gelişmişlik ilişkisinin panel nedensellik analizi ekseninde değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1 (2), 73-85.
• Altınay, G. ve Karagöl, E. (2005). Electricity consumption and economic growth: evidence from Turkey. Energy Economics, 27, 849–856.
• Amri, F. (2019). Renewable and non-renewable categories of energy consumption and trade: do the development degree and the industrialization degree matter?. Energy, 173, 374–383.
• Asafu, J. ve Adjaye, Y. (2000). The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Economics, 22 (6), 615–625.
• Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2004), A Panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72 (4), 1127-1177.
• Bai, J. ve Kao, C. (2006). Chapter 1 on the estimation and inference of a panel cointegration model with cross-sectional dependence. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 274, 3-30.
• Bai, J., Kao, C. ve Ng, S. (2009). Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends. Journal of Econometrics, 149, 82-99.
• Baltagi, B.H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Başar, S. (2007). İktisadi büyümenin çevresel etkileri. 1. Baskı, Ankara, İmaj Yayınevi.
• Bellakhal, R., Kheder, S.B. ve Haffoudhi, H. (2019). Governance and renewable energy investment in MENA countries: how does trade matter?. Energy Economics, 84, Issue C, 104541.
• Bilman, A. S. (2014). Interaction between trade openness and growth: panel data analysis and comparison between countries (Doktora tezi). Erişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=y1-NmBZkMLDsf6JWfv2O6A&no=kL526xvJlUJnYSNp4b5rfA
• Bond, S. (2002). Ecological footprints; a guide for local authorities. No: 181247, Panda House Weyside Park, Godalming Surrey GU7 1XR, Published by WWF-UK.
• Boone, T. Jayaraman, V. ve Ganeshan, R. (2012). Carbon foot print of products supply chain approach. T. Boone, V. Jayaraman, ve R. Ganeshan (Yay. Haz.). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Sustainable Supply Chain içinde (s. 175-191), CA-USA, Springer.
• Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47 (1), 239-253.
• Canning, D. ve Pedroni, P. (2008). Infrastructure, long-run economic growth and causality tests for cointegrated panels. The Manchester School, 76 (5), 504-527.
• Cheng, B.S. ve Lai, T.W. (1995). An investigation of co-integration and causality between energy consumption and economic activity in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 19(4), 435–444.
• Cheng, B.S. (1995). An investigation of cointegration and causality between energy consumption and economic growth. Journal of Energy and Development, 21, 73–84.
• Cheng, B.S. (1999). Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: an application of cointegration and errorc orrection modelling. Indian Economic Review, 34, 39–49.
• Chima, C. M. (2007). Intensity of energy use in the U.S.A.: 1949–2003. Journal of Bussiness and Economic Reseach, 5, 17–30.
• Copleland, B. ve Taylor, S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 42 (1), 7-71.
• Çalışkan, S. (2009). Türkiye’nin enerjide dışa bağımlılık ve enerji arz güvenliği sorunu. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25, 297-310.
• Çetin, M. ve Saygın, S. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi’nin ampirik analizi: Türkiye örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 26 (2), 529-546.
• Çınar, S. (2010). OECD Ülkelerinde kişi başına GSYH durağan mı? panel veri analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 29, 591-601.
• Çınar, S. (2011), Gelir Ve CO2 Emisyonu ilişkisi: panel birim kök ve eş-bütünleşme testi. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (2), 71-83.
• De Hoyos, R.E. ve Sarafidis, Y. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata Journal, 6: 482–496.
• Deschenes, O. (2015). Environmental regulations and labor markets. IZA World of Labor 2018: 22v2. Erişim adresi: https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/458/pdfs/environmental-regulations-and-labor-markets.pdf
• Di Iorio, F. ve Fachin, S. (2008). A note on the estimation of long-run relationships in dependent cointegrated panels. MPRA Paper, 12053, 1-7.
• Dimitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 2012, 29 (4), 1450-1460.
• Dinda, S. ve Coondoo, D. (2006). Income and emissions: a panel based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57, 167–181.
• Eberhart M, ve Teal F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Economic Series Working Paper, 515, 1-32.
• Erol, U. ve Yu, E.S.H. (1987). On the causal relationship between energy and income for industrialized countries. Journal of Energy and Development, 13 (1), 113–122.
• Galli, A., Lin, D. Wackernagel, M., Gressot, M. ve Winkler, S. (2015). Humanity’s growing ecological footprint: sustainable development implications. Brief for GSDR 2015. Global Footprint Network. Erişim adresi: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5686humanitysgrowingecologicalfootprint.pdf
• Ghiso, S. J. V. ve Liverman, D. M. (2006). Scale, technique and composition effects in the mexican agricultural sector: the influence of NAFTA and the institutional environment. Third North American Symposium on Assessing the Environmental Effects of Trade. Erişim adresi: http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/2258-scale-technique-and-composition-effect-in-mexican-agricultural-sector-influence-en.pdf
• Gill, F.L., Viswanathan, K. ve Abdulkarim, M. (2018). The critical review of the pollution haven hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 167-174.
• Glasure, Y. U. (2002). Energy and national income in Korea: further evidence on the role of omitted variables. Energy Economics, 24, 355–365.
• Glasure, Y.U. ve Lee, A.R. (1998). Cointegration, error correction and the relationship between GDP and energy: the case of South Korea and Singapore. Resource and Energy Economics, 20 (1), 17–25.
• Granger, C.W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37 (3), 424-438.
• Guloglu, B. ve Ivrendi, M. (2010). Output fluctuations: transitory or permanent? the case of Latin America. Applied Economics Letters, 17, 381-386.
• Grossman, M. ve Krueger, B. (1995). Economic environment and the economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (2), 353-377.
• Grunewald, N., Hanscom, L., Halle, M., Iha, K. ve Galli, A. (2015). Montenegro Ecological Footprint Study. Global Footprint Network, November 2015, Montenegro. Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/2015_Montenegro_Ecological_Footprint_Technical_Report.pdf
• Hadri, K. ve Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115 (1), 31-34.
• Halıcıoglu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey, Energy Policy, 37, 1156–1164.
• Heil, M.T. ve Selden, T.M. (2001). Carbon emissions and economic development: future trajectories based on historical experience. Environmental and Development Economics, 6, 63–83.
• Hood, M.V., Kidd, Q. ve Morris, I.L., (2008). Two sides of the same coin: employing granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis, 161, 324-344.
• Hossain, S. (2011). Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, 2011, 39 (11), 6991-6999.
• Hubler, M. (2009). Energy saving technology diffusion via FDI and trade using CGE model of China. Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 1491, 1-40.
• Jalil, A. ve Mahmud, S.F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37, 5167–5172.
• Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., ve Apergis, N. (2019). The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Latin American Economic Review, 28, 1–19.
• Kar, M. ve Kar, B. B. (2019). OECD ülkelerinde mobil iletişimin talep esnekliklerinin tahmini. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15 (4), 991-1009.
• Keleş, R., Hamamcı, C. ve Çoban, A. (2009). Çevre politikası. 9. Baskı, Ankara, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Küçükkaya, E. (2019). Ekolojik ayak izi nedir, nasıl hesaplanır?. Erişim adresi: https://www.enerjiportali.com/ekolojik-ayak-izi-nedir-nasil-hesaplanir/
• Lean, H.H. ve Smyth, R. (2010). CO2 Emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87, 1858–1864.
• Lee, J.W. (2013). The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy, 55, 483–489.
• Li, Z., Dong, H. Huang, Z. ve Failler, P. (2019). Impact of foreign direct investment on environmental performance. Sustainability, 11 (13), 3538.
• Masih, A.M.M. ve Masih, R. (1996). Energy consumption, real income and temporal causality: results from multi-country study based on cointegration and error correction modeling techniques. Energy Economics, 18, 165–183.
• Masih, A.M.M. ve Masih, R. (1997). On the temporal causal relationship between energy consumption, real income, and prices: some new evidence from Asian energy dependent NICs based on a multivariate cointegration and vector error- correction approach. Journal of Policy Modeling, 19 (4), 417–440.
• Matyas, L. ve Sevestre, P. (1996). The econometrics of panel data - fundamentals and recent developments in theory and practice. Third Edition, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer.
• Mcausland, C. ve Najjar, N. (2015). Carbon footprint taxes, Environmental Resource Economics. 61, 37–70. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9749.
• Mena, A. K. ve Yadav, T. K. (2019). What is ecological footprintand why is it important?. Agro-Bios Newsettler, 18 (1), 25-26.
• Menyah, K., Nazlıoğlu, Ş. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: new ınsights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modelling, 37, (386-394),
• Mielnik, O. ve Goldemberg, J. (2002). Foreign direct investment and decoupling between energy and gross domestic production in developing countries. Energy Policy, 30, 87–89.
• Morimoto, R. ve Hope, C. (2004). The impact of electricity supply on economic growth in Sri Lanka. Energy Economics, 26, 77–85.
• Murshed, M. (2020), Are trade liberalization policies aligned with renewable energy transition in low- and middle-income countries; An instrumental variable approach. Renewable Energy, 151, 1110–1123.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Singh, B. (2007). The electricity consumption and GDP nexus for the Fiji Islands. Energy Economics, 29, 1141–1150.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Smyth, R. (2008). Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Economics, 30, 2331–2341.
• Narayan, P.K. ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38, 661–666.
• Nargeleçekenler, M. (2009). Makroekonomik ve finansal serilerin ekonometrik analizi: panel veri yaklaşımı (Doktora tezi). Erişim adresi: https://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/handle/11452/3316
• Oh, W. ve Lee, K. (2004a). Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP revisited: the case of Korea 1970–1999. Energy Economics, 26, 51–59.
• Oh, W. ve Lee, K. (2004b). Energy consumption and economic growth in Korea: testing the causality relation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26, 973–981.
• Önder, H. (2012). Trade and climate change: an analytical review of key issues. The World Bank Economic Premise, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, August 2012, No: 86.
• Omri, A. ve Nguyen, D.K. (2014). On the determinants of renewable energy consumption: international evidence. Energy, 72, 554–560.
• Pesaran, H.M., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of American Statistic Association, 94, 621–634.
• Pesaran, H. M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge Discussion Paper, 1240, 1-42.
• Peseran M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error. Econometrica, 74 (4): 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312.
• Pesaran, H. M., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11 (1), 105-127.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (2008), 50–93.
• Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 38, 2528–2535.
• Sen, A. & Acharyya, R (2012). Environmental standard and employment: impact of productivity effect. Environment and Development Economics, 17 (2), 207-225.
• Shibamoto, M. ve Tsutsui, Y (2014), Note on the ınterpretation of convergence speed in the dynamic panel model, Applied Economics Letters, 21 (8): 533-535.
• Soytas, U. ve Sarı, R. (2003). Energy consumption and GDP: causality relationship in G-7 countries and emerging markets. Energy Economics, 25, 33–37.
• Soytas, U., Sarı, R. ve Ewing, B.T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States, Ecological Economics, 62, (482–489).
• Soytas, U. ve Sarı, R. (2009). Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member, Ecological Economics, 68, 1667–1675.
• Srinivasan, P. ve Ravindra, I. S. (2015). Causality among Energy Consumption, CO2 Emission, Economic Growth and Trade: A Case of India. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade SAGE Publications, Foreign Trade Review, 50 (3), 168–189.
• Stern, D. I. (1993). Energy growth in the USA: a multivariate approach. Energy Economics, 15, 137–150.
• Sulaiman, J., Azman, A. ve Saboori, B. (2013). The potential of renewable energy: using the environmental Kuznets curve model. American Journal of Environment and Science, 9, 103–112.
• Şahinöz, A. ve Fotourehchi, Z. (2013). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi: indirgenmiş ve ayrıştırılmış modellerle ampirik bir analiz. H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31 (1), 199-224.
• Tamazian, A. ve Rao, B. B. (2009). Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economies. EERI Research Paper, 02/2009.
• Teyyare, E. (2018). Tasarruf-yatırım-kurumsal kalite ilişkisine yönelik bir analiz: Türkiye örneği. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2018, 18 (1), 119-139.
• Tobey, J. (1990). The Effects of Domestic Environmental Policies on Patterns of World Trade: An Empirical Test. Kyklos International Review for Social Sciences, 43 (2), 191-209.
• Topcu, M. ve Payne, J. E. (2018). Further evidence on the trade-energy consumption nexus in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 117, 160–165.
• Topal, M. H. (2017). Vergi yapısının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: oecd ülkelerinden ampirik bir analiz. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Temmuz 2017, 5 (3), 183-206.
• Turan, Z. (2018). Türkiye’de tarımsal mal ticaretinin ve hayvancılığın ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi (1990-2014). International Journal Of Disciplines Economics and Administrative Sciences Studies, 4 (8), 200-209.
• Tüzüntürk, S. (2007). Panel veri modellerinin tahmininde parametre heterojenliğinin önemi: geleneksel Phillips eğrisi üzerine bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21 (2), 1-14.
• Wagner, M. (2006). The Carbon Kuznets Curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics. IHS Economics Series, 197, 1-36.
• Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, UCLA Electronic Green Journal, 1 (17), 1997. Erişim adresi: https://escholarship.org/content/qt7730w81q/qt7730w81q.pdf?t=q9ns62
• Wackernagel, M. (2007). Advancing sustainable production with the ecological footprint. Copenhagen Workshop - Solstice, 2007, Global Footprint Network. Erişim adresi: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/38875804.pdf
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23 (2), 193-223.
• Widemann, T. (2009). A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade; MRIO versus PLUM. Ecological Economics, 68, 1975-1990.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory Econometrics A Modern Approach. 5 th. edition, South-Western, Cengage Learning.
• World Wide Fund (2012). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu, World Wide Fund for Nature. Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Turkish.pdf
• Xiaoli, S., Junfeng, S. ve Xuefei, S. (2007). Empirical of industry distribution of FDI impact on China's energy consumption analysis. Finance & Trade Economics, 3, 117–121.
• Yalta, A. T. (2011). Analyzing energy consumption and GDP nexus using maximum entropy bootstrap: the case of Turkey. Energy Economics, 33 (3), 453-460.
• Yang, H.Y. (2000). A note on the causal relationship between energy and GDP in Taiwan. Energy Economics, 22 (3), 309–317.
• Yıldırım, E. ve Aslan, A. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth nexus for 17 highly developed OECD countries: further evidence based on bootstrap corrected causality tests. Energy Policy, 51, 985-993.
• Yılmazer, M. Ve Ersoy, B. (2009), Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kamu politikaları. Ege Akademik Bakış, 9 (4), 1441-1462.
• Yu, E.S.H. ve Hwang, B.K. (1984). The relationship between energy and GNP: further results. Energy Economics, 6 (3), 186–190.
• Yu., E.S.H. ve Choi, J.Y. (1985). The causal relationship between energy and GNP: an International comparison. Journal of Energy and Development, 10 (2), 249–272.
• Zafar, M.W., Mirza, F.M., Zaidi, S.A.H., ve Hou, F.J. (2019). The nexus of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption, trade openness, and CO2 emissions in the framework of EKC: evidence from emerging economies. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 26, 15162–15173.
• Zhang, X. P. ve Cheng, X. M. (2009). Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Journal of Ecological Economics, 68, 2706–2712.
• Zhang, M., Lee, C. ve Zhou, D. (2021). Effects of trade openness on renewable energy consumption in OECD countries: New insights from panel smooth transition regression modelling. Energy Economics, 104 (2021), 105649.
• Zheng, Y., Qi, J. ve Chen, X. (2011). The effect of increasing exports on industrial energy intensity in China. Energy Policy, 39, 2688–2698.
• Zeren, F. ve Akkuş, H. T. (2020). The relationship between renewable energy consumption and trade openness: new evidence from emerging economies. Renewable Energy, 147 (2020), 322-329.