The Relationship Between Energy Import and Defence Expenditures in the Context of Energy Supply Security: The Case of Turkey

doi:10.7176/jetp/12-1-03

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to examine the relationship between energy imports and defense expenditures in the context of energy supply security for Turkey for the period 1990-2019. In the study, DF-GLS unit root test, Bayer-Hanck (2012) cointegration test and Nazlioglu et al. (2016) Fourier Granger causality analysis and Enders and Jones (2016) Fourier Granger causality tests were used to examine the causal relationships between the variables. According to Nazlioglu et al. (2016) Fourier Granger causality analysis and Enders and Jones (2016) Fourier Granger causality analysis findings between variables, it was concluded that there is a one-way causality relationship from energy imports to defense expenditures. Keywords: Energy Imports, Military Expenditures, Energy Supply Security, Time Series Analysis. DOI: 10.7176/JETP/12-1-03 Publication date: February 28 th 2022

Highlights

W th the concept of energy supply secur ty, wh ch affects the econom c and nat onal secur ty development of countr es, t s expressed that countr es meet the r energy needs from un nterrupted, rel able, cheap, clean and d vers f ed energy sources
F rst, external t es assoc ated w th the amount of mports, wh le the second ncludes the pr ce of mported fuels, th rd, t const tutes defence expend tures to ma nta n nat onal secur ty, wh ch s used to ma nta n defence presence n areas where fuels are produced (Y ld r m ve Karakoc, 2014: 440, 441)
The relat onsh p between fore gn energy dependence and defence expend tures n the context of energy supply secur ty for Turkey and 1990-2019 per od, analyzed w th DF-GLS un t root test, Bayer-Hanck (2012) co ntegrat on test appl ed Enders&Jones (2016) Four er Granger causal ty test, and Nazl oglu et al (2016) Four er Toda Yamamoto causal ty tests

Summary

Ava lab l ty

Potent al Threats 1- Deplet on of reserves 2- L m tat on of development opportun t es (nat onal zat on and b lateral agreement) 3- Infrastructure ssues (for example, not n my backyard understand ng) 4- Ex stence of f nanc al, legal, regulatory and pol t cal env ronments that do not allow cont nuous nvestment. 1- The collapse of energy systems due to natural events such as storms and earthquakes 2- Problems due to nsuff c ent ma ntenance or under nvestment 3- The threat of defence force or terror st attack 4- Pol t cal obstruct ons (such as embargo and sanct ons). 1- Exhaust on of reasonable-cost reserves 2-Increas ng demand due to h gh energy ntens ty and other ncent ve pol c es 3-Not nclud ng the env ronmental d mens on n the scope of energy secur ty

Susta nab l ty

Var ables

Lag LogL

Test Stat st cs

Defence to Ener

CONCLUSION