KAPİTALİZMDE İKTİSADİ KÜÇÜLME MÜMKÜN MÜ? MALZEME AYAK İZİ VE CO2 İÇİN PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Günümüz dünyasında adeta fetiş haline gelen büyümenin yol açtığı çevresel tahribat, akademik camiada tepki görmüş ve küçülme teorileri gündeme gelmiştir. Dünyanın kaderini belirleyecek olan iklim krizi ve yaşamdaki rolümüzü sorgulatan Covid 19 pandemisi, doğanın sınırlarına ulaşıldığının en büyük göstergeleridir. Bu çalışmada büyüme ideolojisinin çevreye vereceği zarar, küçülme teorilerinden yola çıkılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmada sera gazı emisyonu ve malzeme ayak izi çevre kirliliğini ölçmek adına bağımlı değişken olarak ayrı ayrı kullanılmıştır. Çevre kirliliği ile onun belirleyicileri arasındaki uzun vadeli ilişki G20 ülkelerinden oluşan bir panel veri analizi ile incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda, ayrı ayrı malzeme ayak izi ve sera gazı emisyonu ile kentleşme hariç tüm bağımsız değişkenler arasında uzun vadede pozitif korelasyon tespit edilmiştir. Uzun dönem katsayılarla bağımsız değişkenlerden büyüme, büyümenin karesi, ticari açıklık, enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik karmaşıklığın artması halinde, bağımlı değişkenlerin arttığı gözlemlenmiştir. Ekonomik karmaşıklığın CO2 ile pozitif ilişkisi bulunmakla birlikte malzeme ayak izi ile arasında anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilememiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Malzeme Ayak İzi, Küçülme, CO2, Panel Veri Analizi

Is Economic Degrowth Possible In Capitalism? A Panel Data Analysis For The Material Footprint And CO2

Ecological destruction caused by growth, which has become a fetish in today’s world, has been reacted to in the academic world and theories of degrowth have come to the fore. The climate crisis, which will determine the fate of the world, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which makes us question our role in the life, are the biggest indicators that the limits of the nature have been reached. In this study, the damage of growth ideology to ecology has been examined based on degrowth theories. In the study, greenhouse gas emission and material footprint were used separately as dependent variables to measure environmental pollution. The long-term relationship between environmental pollution and its determinants was examined by a panel data analysis of G20 countries. As a result of the analysis, a long-term positive correlation was found between material footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, and all independent variables except urbanization. It has been observed that the dependent variables increase in case of increase in growth, square of growth, trade openness, energy consumption and economic complexity, which are independent variables with long-term coefficients. Although economic complexity has a positive relationship with CO2, no significant relationship has been found with material footprint.

Keywords:

Material Footprint, Degrowth, CO2, Panel Data Analysis,

PDF

___

Aghayev, S. (2011). Azerbaycan'da fiyatlar genel düzeyi ve döviz kuru ilişkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 1-19.
Ang, J. B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772-4778.
Apergis, N., Can, M., Gozgor, G., ve Lau, C. K. M. (2018). Effects of export concentration on CO2 emissions in developed countries: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(14), 14106-14116.
Auci, S. ve D. Vignani (2013). Environmental Kuznets curve and domestic material consumption indicator: an European analysis. MPRA. Paper No. 52882. Baumol, W. J. (1986). On the possibility of continuing expansion of finite resources. Kyklos, 39(2), 167-179.
Breusch, T. S., ve 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.
Daly, H.E. (1974). Steady-state economics versus growthmania: a critique of the orthodox conceptions of growth, wants, scarcity, and efficiency author(s): Herman E. Daly Source, Policy Sciences,5(2), 149-167.
Daly, H.E. (1999). Uneconomic growth: ın theor owth: ın theory, in fact, in hist act, in history, and in relation , and in relation to globalization, Clamens Lecture Series 10.
Demaria, F., F. Schneider, F. Sekulova ve J. Martinez-Alier (2013). What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement, Environmental Values, 22(2), 191–215.
Doğan, B., Saboori, B. ve Can, M (2019). Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? An empirical analysis for different stages of development. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(31), 31900–31912.
Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251-276.
Erataş, F., NUR, H. B., ve Özçalik, M. (2013). Feldstein-Horioka bilmecesinin gelişmiş ülke ekonomileri açısından değerlendirilmesi: panel veri analizi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 18-33.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and economic myths, Southern Economic Journal 41(3), 347-381.
Gorz, A. (M. Bosquet) (1972). Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 397, 19 June. Proceedings from a public debate organized in Paris by the Club du Nouvel Observateur.
Gorz, A., (1980). Ecology as Politics, Montréal: Black Rosa Books. First published in 1977 as Écologie et liberté.
Grosmann, G.M. ve Krueger A.B. (1993). Environmental ımpacts of a North American free trade agreement, in P. Garber, (ed) The U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, MIT Pres.
Grosmann, G.M. ve Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Chung, S., Jimenez, J., Simoes, A., ve Yildirim, M. A. (2014). The atlas of economic complexity: mapping paths to prosperity, The MIT Press.
Hidalgo, C.A. ve Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575.
Hsiao, C. (1986). Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge Press.
Kallis, G. (2015). The degrowth alternative, a great transition ınitiative viewpoint, https://greattransition.org/publication/the-degrowth-alternative .
Kallis, G., Demaria F. ve Alisa,G. (2015). Degrowth a vocabulary for a new era, (Ed) by Giacomo D’Alisa, Federico Demaria and Giorgos Kallis, Routledge Press.
Kalimeris, P., Richardson, C., ve Bithas, K. (2014). A meta-analysis investigation of the direction of the energy-GDP causal relationship: implications for the growth-degrowth dialogue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 1-13.
Kayar, Ç. ve Kırman, O. (2019). Petrol fiyatlarının tasarruf oranlarına etkisi: panel veri analizi, International Journal of Economic Studies,5(2), 47-57.
Kerschner, C. (2010). Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy. Journal of cleaner production, 18(6), 544-551.
Koçak, E., ve Uçan, O. (2021). Yenilenebilir enerji ile istihdam arasındaki ilişki. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 99-112.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and ıncome ınequality, The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth, translated by david macey, Polity Press.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers ve W:W. Behrens (1972). Limits to growth. New York: Universe books.
Mercan, M. (2014). Feldstein-horioka hipotezinin AB-15 ve Türkiye ekonomisi için sınanması: yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında yapısal kırılmalı dinamik panel veri analizi. Ege Academic Review, 14(2), 231-245.
Pata, U. K. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861.
Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
Pesaran, M.H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50.
Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
Schneider F., Kallis G. ve Alier, J.M. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue, Journal of Cleaner Production (18), 511–518.
Sekulova, F., Kallis, G., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., ve Schneider, F. (2013). Degrowth: from theory to practice. Journal of cleaner Production, 38, 1-6.
Smith, L. V., Leybourne, S., Kim T. H. ve Newbold, P. (2004). More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(2), 147–170.
Solow, R. (2014). An almost practical step toward sustainability. In An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability (pp. 11-28). RFF Press.
Turgut, E. ve Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2022), Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi Malzeme Ayak İzi İçin Geçerli mi? G-7 Ülkeleri Örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 823-841.
Trainer, T. (2012), De-growth: Do you realise what it means?, Futures, 44, 590-599.
Victor, P. A. (2012). Growth, degrowth and climate change: A scenario analysis. Ecological economics, 84, 206-212.
Westerlund, J. (2006). Testing for panel cointegration with multiple structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68(1), 101-132.
Westerlund, J., ve Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics letters, 97(3), 185-190.
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., ve Kanemoto, K. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(20), 6271-6276.