Çevresel Koruma Harcamaları Wagner Yasası mı Yoksa Keynesyen Teori ile mi Açıklanabilir?

Öz

Çalışmada Wagner ve Keynesyen teorinin çevresel koruma harcamaları bağlamında yeniden incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Seçilen 14 Avrupa ülkesinin 1995-2021 dönemi verileri kullanılarak, çevre koruma harcamaları, çevre koruma harcamaların alt bileşenleri ve toplam kamu harcamaları ile kişi başına gelir düzeyi arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Westerlund eşbütünleşme testi değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Daha sonra yapılan Dumitrescu ve Hurlin ve Emirmahmutoglu ve Kose panel nedensellik testlerinin sonuçları Wagner hipotezinin geçerli olduğu yönünde güçlü kanıtlar sağlamıştır. Ayrıca Keynesyen teorinin geçerliliği sadece çevre korumaya yönelik Ar-Ge harcamaları değişkeninde kabul edilirken diğer tüm harcama değişkenlerinde reddedilmiştir. Bu sonuçlardan hareketle hükümetlerin özellikle iklim ve çevre krizinin yoğun olarak gözlendiği günümüzde, harcamalarını planlama ve yönlendirme konusunda özen göstermeleri gerektiği görülmüştür. Ekonomik büyüme ile harcamalar arasındaki ilişki çevresel boyutta önemlidir ve politikaların bu eksende incelenmesi gereklidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre koruma harcamaları
• Wagner yasası
• Keynesyen teori
• Avrupa ülkeleri.

Do Environmental Protection Expenditures Follow Wagner or Keynes?

Öz

This study revisits Wagner’s Law and Keynesian theory within the framework of environmental protection expenditures. Utilizing data from 14 European countries over the period 1995–2021, it investigates the relationship between environmental protection expenditures, their subcategories, public spending, and per capita income levels. The Westerlund cointegration test, along with the Dumitrescu and Hurlin and Emirmahmutoglu and Kose panel causality tests, reveal the existence of a long-run cointegrating relationship among the variables. Causality analyses provide robust evidence in favor of the Wagner hypothesis across both methodologies. In contrast, the Keynesian perspective is supported only for R&D expenditures related to environmental protection, while it is rejected for all other categories of spending. These findings underscore the necessity for governments to exercise strategic caution in planning and directing expenditures, particularly in an era increasingly defined by climate and environmental crises. The link between economic growth and public expenditures is of critical importance from an environmental perspective, warranting closer scrutiny within this policy domain.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental protection expenditures
• Wagner’s Law
• Keynesian theory
• European countries

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, H., ve Maamor, S. (2009). Relationship between national product and Malaysian government development expenditure: Wagner’s law validity application. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/IJBM.V5N1P88
2. Abizadeh, S., ve Gray, J. (1985). Wagner’s law: A pooled tıme-serıes, cross-sectıon comparıson. https://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41792010, 38(2), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41792010
3. Abizadeh, S., ve Yousefi, M. (1998). An empirical analysis of South Korea’s economic development and public expenditures growth. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(6), 687-700.
4. Afzal, M., ve Abbas, Q. (2010). Wagner’s law in Pakistan: Another look. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 2(1), 12.
5. Alan T. Peacock, ve Jack Wiseman. (1961). Front matter, the growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Içinde The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press. Altunöz, U. (2014). Wagner yasası ve Türkiye için geçerlilik sınaması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1(3), 292-299. https://doi.org/10.17121/ressjournal.96
6. Ansari, M. I., D. V., G., ve Akuamoah, C. (1997). Keynes versus Wagner: Public expenditure and national income for three African countries. Applied Economics, 29(4), 543-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368497327038
7. Ansuategi, A., ve Marsiglio, S. (2017). Is environmental protection beneficial for the environment? Review of Development Economics, 21(3), 786-802. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12267
8. Arısoy, İ. (2005). Wagner ve keynes hipotezleri çerçevesinde Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(2), 63-80. Geliş tarihi gönderen https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cusosbil/issue/4372/59821

9. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Topaloglu, E. E., Nur, T., ve Evcimen, C. (2023). Exploring the linkage between financial development and ecological footprint in APEC countries: A novel view under corruption perception and environmental policy stringency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137686. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137686
10. Banday, U. J., Murugan, S., ve Maryam, J. (2021). Foreign direct investment, trade openness and economic growth in BRICS countries: evidences from panel data. Transnational Corporations Review, 13(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2020.1851162
11. Bilgehan Yavuz, H., ve Tuğsal Doruk, Ö. (2018). Türkiye ekonomisi için Keynesyen yaklaşım ve Wagner Yasası’nın test edilmesi: 1950-2017 yılları arasında bir inceleme. Içinde [e-mail] Artıbilim: Adana Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (C. 1). Hasan Bilgehan Yavuz.
12. Bird, R. M. (1971). Wagner’s o law’ of expanding state activity. Public finance= Finances publiques, 26(1), 1-26.
13. Broniewicz, E. (2011). Environmental protection expenditure in European Union. Environmental management in practice, 21(36), 2-28.
14. Chimobi, O. P. (2009). Government expenditure and national income: a causality test for Nigeria. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 2(2), 1-12.
15. Daşbaşı, B., Barak, D., Taşyürek, M., ve Arslan, R. S. (2024). Using an artificial neural networks approach to assess the links among environmental protection expenditure, energy use and growth in Finland. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02399-6
16. Değirmenci, T., ve Aydin, M. (2020). The dynamic relationships between environmental protection expenditures, ıncome ınequality and economic growth: panel causality approach for selected OECD countries. Sosyoekonomi, 28(46), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.04.18
17. Dogan, Ergun, ve Tang, T. C. (2006). Government expenditure and national income: Causality tests for five South East Asian Countries. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 5(10). https://doi.org/10.19030/IBER.V5I10.3516
18. Dogan, Eyup, Seker, F., ve Bulbul, S. (2017). Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: A panel study of OECD countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1701-1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1119103
19. Doğan, R., ve Atik, H. (2021). Afrika ülkeleri ekonomileri için Keynesyen yaklaşımı ve Wagner yasasının test edilmesi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(81), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2021.42823
20. Dumitrescu, E.-I., ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
21. Emirmahmutoglu, F., ve Kose, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
22. European Commission. (2025). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri - Avrupa komisyonu. Geliş tarihi 26 Nisan 2025, gönderen https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/sustainable-development-goals_en
23. Funashima, Y., ve Hiraga, K. (2017). Wagner’s law, fiscal discipline, and intergovernmental transfer: Empirical evidence at the US and German state levels. International Tax and Public Finance, 24, 652-677.
24. Gövdeli̇, T. (2019). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme: Türkiye’de Wagner yasası ve Keynesyen hipotezin ampirik analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 33(3), 995-1010.
25. International Monetary Fund. (2021). Environmental Protection Expenditures | Climate Change Indicators Dashboard. Geliş tarihi 26 Nisan 2025, gönderen https://climatedata.imf.org/datasets/d22a6decd9b147fd9040f793082b219b_0/about
26. International Monetary Fund. (2025). Public finances in modern history - government expenditure, percent of GDP. Geliş tarihi 26 Nisan 2025, gönderen https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@fpp/usa/fra/jpn/gbr/swe/esp/ıta/zaf/ınd
27. Irandoust, M. (2019). Wagner on government spending and national income: A new look at an old relationship. Journal of Policy Modeling, 41(4), 636-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.02.003
28. Jaen-Garcia, M. (2011). Empirical analysis of Wagner’s law for the Spain’s regions. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 1(1), 1-17.
29. Kassouri, Y., Majok, A. P. G., Bilgili, F., ve Alola, A. A. (2025). Abating income inequality with financial and institutional quality instruments in Sub-Saharan Africa region. Social Indicators Research, 177(3), 1161-1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03538-5
30. Köse, N., ve Ünal, E. (2024). The effects of the oil price and temperature on food inflation in Latin America. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(2), 3269-3295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02817-2
31. Krajewski, P. (2016). The impact of public environmental protection expenditure on economic growth. Problems Of Sustainable Development, 11(2), 99-104. Geliş tarihi gönderen https://ssrn.com/abstract=2884612
32. Levytska, O., ve Romanova, A. (2020). Assessment of the impact of government expenditure on environmental protection on the GDP in the context of environmental legislation. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR), 7(3), 375-384.
33. Lopez, L., ve Weber, S. (2017). Testing for Granger causality in panel data. The Stata Journal, 17(4), 972-984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801700412
34. Magazzino, C. (2012). Wagner versus Keynes: Public spending and national income in Italy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(6), 890-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2012.05.012
35. Mitchell, D. J. (2005). The impact of government spending on economic growth. Içinde Heritage Foundation. Washington, D.C. Geliş tarihi gönderen https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/8404
36. Moe, S. H., ve Braathu, T. H. (2014). Government expenditures on environmental protection and resource management.
37. Oxley, L. (1994). Cointegration, causality and Wagner’s Law: A test for Britain 1870–1913. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 41(3), 286. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9485.1994.TB01127.X
38. Pehlivan, C., Han, A., ve Konat, G. (2021). Empirical analysis of public expenditure-growth relationship in OECD Countries: Testing the Wagner Law. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(2), 87-109. https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2021.7.2.06
39. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAE.951
40. Ram, R. (1987). Wagner’s Hypothesis in time-series and cross-section perspectives: Evidence from “real” data for 115 Countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(2), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927226
41. Sattar, Z. (1993). Public expenditure and economic performance: A comparison of developed and low‐income developing economies. Journal of International Development, 5(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/JID.3380050103;wgroup:strıng:publıcatıon
42. Selvanathan, E. A., Selvanathan, S., ve Jayasinghe, M. S. (2021). Revisiting Wagner’s and Keynesian’s propositions and the relationship between sectoral government expenditure and economic growth. Economic Analysis and Policy, 71, 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.05.005
43. Soare, B. E., Potârniche, M., ve Petre, I. L. (2020). The effect of GDP growth on environmental protection expenditure in Romania. International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo Conference: SGEM, 20(5.2), 547-554.
44. Thornton, J. (1999). Cointegration, causality and Wagner’s Law in 19th-century Europe. Applied Economics Letters, 6(7), 413-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048599352916
45. Toda, H. Y., ve Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
46. United Nations. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals. New York. Geliş tarihi gönderen https://unstats.un.org/sdgs
47. Uzay, N. (2002). Kamu büyüklüğü ve ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği (1970-1999). Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (19), 151-172. Geliş tarihi gönderen https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erciyesiibd/issue/38173/441011
48. Vollery, B., ve Singh, S. (1998). A note on the empirical analysis of Wagner’s Law. Economic Analysis & Policy, 28(2), 243-257.
49. Wekulom, A. (2021). The effect of gross domestic product on environmental expenditures. GT Library, (ECON 3161), 1-21.
50. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAE.967
51. World Bank. (2025). World Development Indicators | DataBank. Geliş tarihi 26 Nisan 2025, gönderen https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators