IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i19p8643-d1493164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Capacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu Yingjun

    (School of Management, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Sharmin Jahan

    (School of Management, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Md. Qamruzzaman

    (School of Business and Economics, United International University, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh)

Abstract

The environmental degradation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region leads to significant challenges regarding economic sustainability and the attainment of sustainable development goals (SDGs). The extensive use of fossil fuels in the region, as well as rapid urbanization and economic growth, has led to significant carbon emissions, together with unprecedented ecological footprints compromising environmental sustainability. The study aims to elucidate the influence exerted by technological innovation, trade openness, and natural resources on environmental sustainability in Turkey and Egypt for the period 1990–2022. In assessing the empirical relations, the study employed the Fourier function incorporate estimation techniques, that is, Fourier ADF for unit root test, Fourier ARDL, and Fourier NARDL for long-run and short-run elasticities of technological innovation (TI), trade openness (TO,) and natural resources rent (NRR) on load capacity factor (LCF) and inverted LCF (ILCF); finally, the directional causality evaluate through Fourier TY causality test. The results revealed that both Turkey and Egypt have severe environmental problems due to their high carbon emissions and ecological footprints. Technological change and international trade separately negatively affect environmental sustainability; however, these negative impacts have mixed character. On the one hand, technology can improve efficiency and reduce ecological footprints by obviating the use of high-impact processes or allowing cleaner production systems. In the same vein, trade openness helps transfer green technologies more quickly, but it can also lead to unsustainable resource extraction and pollution. The findings of the paper propose that in order to move forward, Turkey and Egypt need strategic policy shifts to ensure environmental sustainability, including transitioning towards renewable energy from fossil fuels while bolstering their capacity for energy efficiency. Policymakers must balance economic development with environmental conservation to reduce the harmful effects of climate degradation and help safeguard continued economic survival in the face of increasing climatic instability. This research helps to inform policy and investment decisions about how the SDGs can be achieved and how they are relevant for sustainable development in the MENA region.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu Yingjun & Sharmin Jahan & Md. Qamruzzaman, 2024. "Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Capacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Fun," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-28, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8643-:d:1493164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8643/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8643/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    2. Nazlioglu, Saban & Gormus, N. Alper & Soytas, Uğur, 2016. "Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 168-175.
    3. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
    4. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    5. M. Hashem Pesaran & Yongcheol Shin & Richard J. Smith, 2001. "Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 289-326.
    6. Perron, Pierre & Vogelsang, Timothy J, 1992. "Nonstationarity and Level Shifts with an Application to Purchasing Power Parity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 301-320, July.
    7. Kenneth Gillingham & David Rapson & Gernot Wagner, 2016. "The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 68-88.
    8. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    9. Beise, Marian & Rennings, Klaus, 2005. "Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 5-17, January.
    10. Charfeddine, Lanouar, 2017. "The impact of energy consumption and economic development on Ecological Footprint and CO2 emissions: Evidence from a Markov Switching Equilibrium Correction Model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 355-374.
    11. Wen, Jun & Okolo, Chukwuemeka Valentine & Ugwuoke, Ifeanyi Celestine & Kolani, Kibir, 2022. "Research on influencing factors of renewable energy, energy efficiency, on technological innovation. Does trade, investment and human capital development matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Firat Emir & Selin Karlilar, 2023. "Application of RALS cointegration test assessing the role of natural resources and hydropower energy on ecological footprint in emerging economy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 34(4), pages 764-779, June.
    13. Sadorsky, Perry, 2011. "Financial development and energy consumption in Central and Eastern European frontier economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 999-1006, February.
    14. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    15. George Babington Amegavi & Zechariah Langnel & Albert Ahenkan & Thomas Buabeng, 2022. "The dynamic relationship between economic globalisation, institutional quality, and ecological footprint: Evidence from Ghana," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 876-893, August.
    16. Gong, Xue & Aslam, Muhammad Umar, 2024. "The role of natural resources, and economic development in evaluating the environmental effects of biofuel and waste energy generation in the group of BRICS," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 372(C).
    17. Miguel Angel Esquivias & Lilik Sugiharti & Hilda Rohmawati & Omar Rojas & Narayan Sethi, 2022. "Nexus between Technological Innovation, Renewable Energy, and Human Capital on the Environmental Sustainability in Emerging Asian Economies: A Panel Quantile Regression Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Carlos A. Carrasco & Edgar Demetrio Tovar-García, 2023. "High-tech trade as determinant of the US bilateral trade balance," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 713-730, July.
    19. Saud, Shah & Haseeb, Abdul & Zafar, Muhammad Wasif & Li, Huiyun, 2023. "Articulating natural resource abundance, economic complexity, education and environmental sustainability in MENA countries: Evidence from advanced panel estimation," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2006. "Challenges and Opportunities for Resource Rich Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 5688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    21. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    22. Hickel, Jason, 2020. "The sustainable development index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    23. Assad Ullah & Murat Tekbaş & Mesut Doğan, 2023. "The Impact of Economic Growth, Natural Resources, Urbanization and Biocapacity on the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-15, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali, Wajahat & Abdullah, Azrai & Azam, Muhammad, 2017. "Re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Malaysia: Fresh evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 990-1000.
    2. Iftikhar Yasin & Nawaz Ahmad & M. Aslam Chaudhary, 2020. "Catechizing the Environmental-Impression of Urbanization, Financial Development, and Political Institutions: A Circumstance of Ecological Footprints in 110 Developed and Less-Developed Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(2), pages 621-649, January.
    3. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Walid Oueslati, 2018. "Do deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements help in reducing air pollution?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 743-777, December.
    4. Okelele, Daniel Ochudi & Lokina, Razack & Ruhinduka, Remidius Denis, . "Effect of Trade Openness on Ecological Footprint in Sub-Saharan Africa," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 10(01).
    5. Salim, Ruhul & Yao, Yao & Chen, George & Zhang, Lin, 2017. "Can foreign direct investment harness energy consumption in China? A time series investigation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 43-53.
    6. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Ahmed, Khalid & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2017. "Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-232.
    7. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Oueslati, Walid, 2016. "Are deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements helping to reduce air pollution?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 292, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Haouas, Ilham & Hoang, Thi Hong Van, 2019. "Economic growth and environmental degradation in Vietnam: Is the environmental Kuznets curve a complete picture?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 197-218.
    9. Pascalau, Razvan & Qirjo, Dhimitri, 2017. "TTIP and the Environmental Kuznets Curve," MPRA Paper 80192, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Hye, Qazi Muhammad Adnan & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Leitão, Nuno Carlos, 2013. "Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 109-121.
    11. Louis Dupuy & Matthew Agarwala, 2014. "International trade and sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 25, pages 399-417, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Pradyot Ranjan Jena & Ulrike Grote, 2008. "Growth–trade–environment nexus in India," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(11), pages 1-11.
    13. Martin Gassebner & Michael Lamla & Jan-Egbert Sturm, 2006. "Economic, demographic and political determinants of pollution reassessed," KOF Working papers 06-129, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    14. Lisa Gianmoena & Vicente Rios, 2018. "The Determinants of CO2 Emissions Differentials with Cross-Country Interaction Effects: A Dynamic Spatial Panel Data Bayesian Model Averaging Approach," Discussion Papers 2018/234, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Muhammad, Shahbaz & Tiwari, Aviral & Muhammad, Nasir, 2011. "The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on environment performance in South Africa," MPRA Paper 32723, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Aug 2011.
    16. Jalil, Abdul & Feridun, Mete, 2011. "The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: A cointegration analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 284-291, March.
    17. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Balsalobre, Daniel & Shahzad, Syed Jawad Hussain, 2018. "The Influencing Factors of CO2 Emissions and the Role of Biomass Energy Consumption: Statistical Experience from G-7 Countries," MPRA Paper 87456, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 14 Jun 2018.
    18. Iftikhar Yasin & Nawaz Ahmad & Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, 2021. "The impact of financial development, political institutions, and urbanization on environmental degradation: evidence from 59 less-developed economies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6698-6721, May.
    19. Shahbaz, Muhammad, 2019. "Globalization-Emissions Nexus: Testing the EKC hypothesis in Next-11 Countries," MPRA Paper 93959, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 May 2019.
    20. Kohler, Marcel, 2013. "CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: A South African perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1042-1050.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8643-:d:1493164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.