فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی اقتصاد مقداری

تأثیر پیچیدگی اقتصادی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی در آلوده کننده های بزرگ آسیایی: شواهدی جدید از برآوردهای آستانه‌ای و غیر آستانه‌ای

https://doi.org/10.22055/jqe.2024.47028.2632
دوره 23، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 89
دوره بیست و سوم، شماره دوم، تابستان 1405
تابستان 1405
صفحه 207-242
فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی اقتصاد مقداری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

سمیه اعظمی 1
فایزه پور اکبری 2
سید محمد باقر نجفی 1

1 دانشیار، دانشگاه رازی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و تربیتی، گروه اقتصاد، کرمانشاه، ایران.

2 کارشناس ارشد اقتصاد انرژی، دانشگاه رازی، گروه اقتصاد ، کرمانشاه، ایران.

چکیده
چکیده گسترده
معرفی:
اثرات زیست‌محیطی فعالیت های انسانی غالباً توسط انتشار CO2 سنجش می‌شود. این در حالیست که انتشار CO2  تنها بخش کوچکی از تخریب محیط‌زیست را نشان می‌دهد و کل فشار فعالیت های انسانی بر روی اکوسیستم را در نظر نمی‌گیرد. اخیراً، به دنبال حسابداری اکولوژیکی و معرفی ردپای اکولوژیکی کیفیت زیست‌محیطی با استفاده از شاخص ردپای اکولوژیکی به طور گسترده در مطالعات زیست‌محیطی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. ردپای اکولوژیکی ابزار مفیدی است که به بررسی تأثیر فعالیت­های انسان بر محیط‌زیست و زمین تکیه دارد و با استفاده از آن می­توان، فشار وارده بر اکولوژی و محیطزیست را سنجش کرد. لذا، این سوال اهمیت دارد که چه عواملی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی تأثیر گذار است. تولید ناخالص داخلی، مصرف انرژی، توسعه مالی، تجارت و تکنولوژی از عوامل مؤثر بر ردپای اکولوژیکی است. یکی دیگر از عوامل مؤثر پیچیدگی اقتصادی است. هدف این مطالعه بررسی تاثیر پیچیدگی اقتصادی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی در کشورهای منتخب آسیایی؛ چین، هند، ژاپن، کره جنوبی و ایران در فاصله زمانی 2021-1995 است. این کشورها از نظر پیچیدگی اقتصادی شرایط متفاوتی را تجربه می کنند و بر حسب انتشار CO2 رتبه کمتر از 10 در میان کشورهای جهان دارند.
 
متدولوژی:
متدلوژی این مقاله بر اساس اقتصاد سنجی پانل آستانه‌ای  است ضمن آنکه به منظور راستی آزمایی نتایج از مدل پانل غیر آستانه‌ای نیز بهره می‌برد. با توجه به متفاوت بودن نتایج در ادبیات از مدل پانل آستانه‌ای بهره گرفته شد و اجازه داده شد که تاثیر پیچیدگی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی تابع موقعیت کشورها از نظر پیچیدگی اقتصادی باشد. همچنین به منظور راستی آزمایی نتایج، مدل ترکیبی غیر آستانه‌ای با لحاظ این شرایط که تاثیر پیچیدگی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی تابعی از میزان شاخص پیچیدگی است نیز برآورد می‌شود. لازم به ذکر است قبل از برآورد مدل، ارتباط بلندمدت میان متغیرهای مدل بررسی می‌شود.
 
یافته­ها:
نتایج آزمون هم انباشتگی دلالت بر وجود ارتباط بلند مدت میان متغیرهای الگو دارد و این ارتباط در قالب الگوهای پانل آستانه ای و غیر آستانه ای برآورد می شود. نتایج برآورد مدل نشان می دهد فرضیه زیست محیطی کوزنتس در این گروه از کشورها مورد تایید است. مصرف انرژی تجدید پذیر و فسیلی به ترتیب به طور معنی داری منجر به کاهش و افزایش ردپای اکولوژیکی می شوند. توسعه مالی در الگوی پانل آستانه ای به طور معنی داری ردپای اکولوژیکی را کاهش می دهد. با افزایش شاخص پیچیدگی اقتصادی تا مقدار آستانه ای 12/1، ردپای اکولوژیکی با نرخ 03/0 و بعد از آن با نرخ 08/0 افزایش می یابد. برآوردهای پانل غیر آستانه ای حاکی از آن است که با افزایش شاخص پیچیدگی اقتصادی ردپای اکولوژیکی ابتدا در سطوح بسیار پایین دانش و پیچیدگی(شاخص پیچیدگی اقتصادی کمتر از 6/1-) کاهش و سپس با نرخ افزایشی افزایش می یابد.
 
نتیجه:
انتظار می­رود پیچیده تر شدن اقتصاد یک استراتژی برنده- بازنده برای محیط زیست منتخبین آسیایی باشد. لذا، به منظور دستیابی به توسعه پایدار همراه با افزایش سطح دانش و پیچیدگی اقتصادی استفاده از فرایندهای تولیدی و تکنولوژی های دوستدار محیط زیست، جایگزینی انرژی تجدیدپذیر به جای انرژی فسیلی و رشد بخش مالی به کشورهای مورد مطالعه توصیه می شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

دانش
کیفیت محیط‌زیست
مدل آستانه‌ای
کشورهای آسیایی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

TThe Asymmetric Impact of Economic Complexity on Ecological Footprints in Large Asian Emitters: New Evidence from Threshold and Non-Threshold Models

نویسندگان English

somayeh azami 1
Faezeh Pour Akbari 2
Seyed Mohamad Bagher Najafi 1
1 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
2 M.A. student, Department of Economics, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
چکیده English

EXTENDED ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION:
The environmental effects of human activities are often measured by CO2 emissions. This is while CO2 emission shows only a small part of environmental degradation and does not consider the entire pressure of human activities on the ecosystem. Recently, following the introduction of ecological accounting and ecological footprint, environmental quality using the ecological footprint index has been widely investigated in environmental studies. The ecological footprint is a useful tool that relies on examining the impact of human activities on the environment and the earth, and by using it, the pressure on ecology and the environment can be measured. Therefore, the question of what factors influence the ecological footprint is important. Gross domestic product, energy consumption, financial development, trade and technology are factors affecting the ecological footprint. Another effective factor is economic complexity.The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of economic complexity on the ecological footprint in selected Asian countries (China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Iran) during the time interval of 1995-2021. These countries experience varying economic complexities and rank below the top 10 countries in terms of CO2 emissions worldwide.
 
 
METHODOLOGY:
The methodology of this article is based on the econometrics of the threshold panel, while in order to verify the results, it also uses the non-threshold panel model. Due to the different results in the literature, the threshold panel model was used and it was allowed that the effect of complexity on the ecological footprint depends on the state of the countries in terms of economic complexity. Also, in order to verify the results, the non-threshold panel model is also estimated considering the condition that the effect of complexity on the ecological footprint is a function of the level of the complexity index. It should be noted that before estimating the model, the long-run relationship between the variables of the model is checked.
 
FINDINGS:
The results of the cointegration test indicate the existence of a long-term relationship between the pattern variables. This relationship is estimated in the form of both threshold and non-threshold panel models. The results show that the environmental hypothesis of Kuznets is confirmed in this group of countries. Renewable energy consumption leads to a significant decrease in the ecological footprint, while fossil energy consumption leads to an increase in the ecological footprint. Financial development in the panel panel threshold model significantly reduces the ecological footprint. By increasing the Economic Complexity Index up to a threshold value of 1.12, the ecological footprint increases at a rate of 0.03, and after that, it increases at a rate of 0.08. Panel Non-threshold estimates indicate that as the economic complexity index increases, the ecological footprint initially decreases at very low levels of knowledge and complexity (economic complexity index less than -1.6) and then increases at an accelerating rate.
 
CONCLUSION:
Economic complexity is expected to be a win-lose strategy for the environment of selected Asian countries. Therefore, in order to achieve sustainable development, increase the level of knowledge and economic complexity, it is recommended that the studied countries utilize environmentally friendly production processes and technologies, transition to renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels, and foster growth in the financial sector.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • Knowledge
  • Environmental Quality
  • Panel Threshold Model
  • Asian Countries
Abid, M., Gheraia, Z., & Abdelli, H. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A bootstrap causality test. Renewable Energy, 189, 813-821.
Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., & Solarin, S. A. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: The role of renewable energy. Ecological indicators, 67, 267-282.
Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., & Masood, T. (2021). Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 6719-6732.
Azizi, Z., Daraei, F., & Naseri Boroujeni, A. (2019). The Impact of Economic Complexity on Environmental Pollution. Iranian Economic Development Analyses, 7(2), 201-219. doi:10.22051/edp.2020.29451.1225 [in Persian]
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T., Topaloglu, E. E., & Evcimen, C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: Fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Research, 127, 226-245.
Boleti, E., Garas, A., Kyriakou, A., & Lapatinas, A. (2021). Economic complexity and environmental performance: evidence from a world sample. Environmental modeling & assessment, 26(3), 251-270.
Can, M., & Gozgor, G. (2017). The impact of economic complexity on carbon emissions: evidence from France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 16364-16370.
Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154.
Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of cleaner production, 242, 118537.
Doğan, B., Saboori, B., & Can, M. (2019). Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? An empirical analysis for different stages of development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(31), 31900-31912.
Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074-1085.
Esfahani, A., Ghobadi, S., & Azarbaiejani, K. (2022). Dynamic Effect of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint in Selected Developing Countries (Generalized Method of Moments Approach). Program and Development Research, 3(1), 93-119. doi:10.22034/pbr.2022.327509.1199 [in Persian]
Eskandari Nasab, A., & Zare Mehrjerdi, M. & Jalaee, A.(2025). The Effects of Technology Overflow on Life Environment Pollution with the demolition model. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics, 21(4), 98-121. doi.org/10.22055/jqe.2022.38476.2402 [in Persian]
Fakher, H.-A., Abedi, Z., & Shaygani, B. (2018). Investigating the Relationship between Trade and Financial Openness with Ecological Footprint. Economic Modeling, 40(11), 49-67. Retrieved from http://sanad.iau.ir/fa/Article/995482 [in persian]
Frankel, J., & Rose, A. (2002). An estimate of the effect of common currencies on trade and income. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), 437-466.
Jensen, V. (1996). The pollution haven hypothesis and the industrial flight hypothesis: some perspectives on theory and empirics. Cent Dev Environ Work Pap, 19965.
Khan, M. A., & Ahmad, U. (2008). Energy demand in Pakistan: a disaggregate analysis. The Pakistan Development Review, 437-455.
Li, R., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of cleaner production, 346, 131207.
Mehnatfar, Y., Osmani, F., Cheshomi, M., & Argha, L. (2023). Do the Development of Technology and the Expansion of Trade Reduce the Ecological Footprint and Preserve the Environment? A Case Study: Evidence from Developing Countries in Asia. Economic Growth and Development Research, 14(53), 108-195. doi:10.30473/egdr.2023.68695.6758 [in persian]
Miao, Y., Razzaq, A., Adebayo, T. S., & Awosusi, A. A. (2022). Do renewable energy consumption and financial globalisation contribute to ecological sustainability in newly industrialized countries? Renewable Energy, 187, 688-697.
mohammadi, n., Sahabi, B., Heydari, H., & Sadeghi, H. (2023). Investigating the Impact of Economic Complexity and Renewable Energy Consumption on Environmental Pollution in Developing Countries. The Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 23(4), 1-24. doi:10.22034/ecor.23.4.1 [in Persian]
Molaei, M., & Basharat, E. (2015). Investigating Relationship between Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint as an Environmental Degradation Index. Journal of Economic Research (Tahghighat- E- Eghtesadi), 50(4), 1017-1033. doi:10.22059/jte.2015.56156 [in Persian]
Moridian, A., Yarmohammadian, N., Motalebi, M., & Shadmehr, A. (2021). The Role of Economic Complexity in the Ecological Footprint: A Review of the EKC Hypothesis for Iran. Planning and Budgeting, 26(2), 153-179. doi:10.52547/jpbud.26.2.153 [in Persian]
Nathaniel, S., Anyanwu, O., & Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(13), 14601-14613.
Nathaniel, S., & Khan, S. A. R. (2020). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of cleaner production, 272, 122709.
Neagu, O. (2019). The link between economic complexity and carbon emissions in the European Union countries: a model based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) approach. Sustainability, 11(17), 4753.
Neagu, O. (2020). Economic complexity and ecological footprint: evidence from the most complex economies in the world. Sustainability, 12(21), 9031.
Neagu, O., & Teodoru, M. C. (2019). The relationship between economic complexity, energy consumption structure and greenhouse gas emission: Heterogeneous panel evidence from the EU countries. Sustainability, 11(2), 497.
Ozturk, I., Farooq, S., Majeed, M. T., & Skare, M. (2024). An empirical investigation of financial development and ecological footprint in South Asia: Bridging the EKC and pollution haven hypotheses. Geoscience Frontiers, 15(4), 101588.
Pajooian, J., & Lashkaryzadeh, M. (2010). An Investigation of the Effective Factors on the Relationship between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 14(42), 169-188. Retrieved from https://ijer.atu.ac.ir/article_3962.html?lang=en [in persian]
parsasharif, h., AMIRNEJAD, H., & Taslimi, M. (2021). Investigating and Determining the Factors Affecting the Ecological Footprint of Selected Asian and European Countries. Agricultural Economics Research, 13(2), 155-172. doi:20.1001.1.20086407.1400.13.2.8.9 [in persian]
Puliafito, S. E., Puliafito, J. L., & Grand, M. C. (2008). Modeling population dynamics and economic growth as competing species: An application to CO2 global emissions. Ecological economics, 65(3), 602-615.
Sadeghi, S. K., Karimi Tekanlou, Z., Motafker Azad, M. A. A. G., Hossein , & Andayesh, Y. (2016). Measuring the water ecological footprint of iranian economic sectors: by emphasis on social accounting matrix(SAM) approach. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics (JQE), 11(3), 81-111. Retrieved from https://jqe.scu.ac.ir/article_11856_550e8f4ef334276d83cf2b358c9de98c.pdf [in Persian]
Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2528-2535.
Sadorsky, P. (2011). Financial development and energy consumption in Central and Eastern European frontier economies. Energy Policy, 39(2), 999-1006.
Saeedi, r., Moghaddasi, r., Nessabian, s., & Damanjeshideh, m. (2022). calculation and analysis of Economic Complexity index in Iran’s Provinces. quarterly journal of fiscal and Economic policies, 10(38), 147-186. doi:10.52547/qjfep.10.38.147 [in persian]
Salarvand, B., & Hasanvand, A. (2024). Investigating the Impact of Economic Complexity and International Risks on Sustainable Development in Emerging Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression (PSTR) Approach. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics, 21(2), 75-12.doi.org/10.22055/jqe.2024.47924.2656 [in Persian]
Sepahvand, R., Sayehmiri, A., & Shirkhani, A. (2021). The Impact of Economic Complexity on Environmental Performance in the MENA Countries. The Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 21(3), 177-208. Retrieved from http://ecor.modares.ac.ir/article-18-49062-en.html [inPersian]
Shahmoradi, B., & Sadeghi Siahkali, M. (2017). Identifying the Level of Productive Knowledge in Iran 2025 using Economic Complexity Approach. Iranian Economic Development Analyses, 5(3), 29-50. doi:10.22051/edp.2018.19154.1140 [in persian]
Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of cleaner production, 279, 123806.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021). Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. Journal of cleaner production, 285, 124867.
Swart, J., & Brinkmann, L. (2020). Economic complexity and the environment: evidence from Brazil. Paper presented at the Universities and sustainable communities: meeting the goals of the agenda 2030.
Tamazian, A., & Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145.
Ullah, A., Ahmed, M., Raza, S. A., & Ali, S. (2021). A threshold approach to sustainable development: nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. Journal of environmental management, 295, 113073.
Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
Ulucak, R., & Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological indicators, 80, 337-343.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9): New society publishers.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2006). Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecological economics, 56(1), 28-48.
Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological indicators, 113, 106178.
  • تاریخ دریافت 08 خرداد 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 30 تیر 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 01 آبان 1403
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 01 آبان 1403
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 شهریور 1405

صفحه اصلی

اخبار و اعلانات

راهنمای نویسندگان

ارسال مقاله

تماس با ما