Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 22, 352 - 375, 29.11.2021

Hakan Akar Filiz Giray Mikail Kar

https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627

Abstract

Ekonomide yönlendirici rol üstlenen kamu mali politikaları, uzun yıllar etkileri düşünülmeden uygulana gelmiştir. Fakat son dönemde oluşan küresel farkındalıkla birlikte, ülkelerin en önemli ara mallarından biri olan enerji ve bununla ilgili olarak fosil yakıtlara verilen sübvansiyonlar ekonomik etkinliği bozucu kabul edilip ciddi eleştiri konusu olmuştur. Bu bağlamda 25 OECD ülkesine ait 2000-2019 yıllık panel verileri kullanılarak Ortak İlişkili Etkiler Ortalama Grup (CCEMG) yöntemi ile ampirik analiz yapılmış ve fosil yakıtlar için verilen devlet sübvansiyonlarının uzun dönem iktisadi ve sosyal etkileri tahmin edilmiştir. Elde edilen katsayı tahminlerine göre fosil yakıtlar için sağlanan devlet sübvansiyonlarının gayrisafi yurtiçi hâsıla (GSYİH) üzerinde pozitif etki oluşturduğu ancak bununla beraber işsizliği artırıcı sonuçlarının olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre fosil yakıtlara verilen toplam sübvansiyonlarda meydana gelecek %1'lik bir artış GSYİH'yı %0.04 ve işsizliği ise %0.03 oranında artıracaktır.

Keywords

Fosil Yakıt Sübvansiyonları Bozucu Sübvansiyonlar Ortak İlişkili Etkiler Ortalama Grup (CCEMG)

References

  • Apergis, N., Tang, C.F. (2013). “Is the energy-led growth hypothesis valid? New evidence from a sample of 85 countries. Energy economy, 38, 24–31.
  • Apergis, N. (2005) Inflation uncertainty and growth: Evidence from panel data. Australian economic papers, 44(2), 186-197.
  • Breusch, T. S. & 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.
  • Bruvoll, A., Skjelvik, J. M. & Vennemo, H. (2011) Reforming environmentally harmful subsidies: How to counteract distributional impacts. Copenhagen: Kailow Express.
  • Clements, B., Coady, D., Fabrizio, S., Gupta, S., Alleyne, T. S. C., & Sdralevich, C. A. (Eds.) (2013). Energy subsidy reform: Lessons and implications. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
  • Coady, D., Parry, Sears, L. & Shan, B. (2017). How large are global energy subsidies. World development, 91, 11–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev. Erişim: 2016.10.004.
  • Coady, David Ian Parry, Le, Nghia-Piotr & Shang, Baoping. (2019). Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates, IMF Working Paper WP/19/89.
  • De Moor, A. (2001). Towards a grand deal on subsidies and climate change. Natural resources forum, 25, 167-176.
  • Dobbs, R. Oppenheim, J. Thompson, F. Brinkman, M. & Zornes, M. (2011). Resource revolution: meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs. McKinsey Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/resource-revolution#. (Erişim: 7.10.2020).
  • European Environment Agency-EEA (2004). Energy subsidies in the European Union: A brief overview, Copenhagen: EEA.
  • Ewing, B. T. & Seyfried, W. L. (2003). Modeling the phillips curve: A time-varying volatility approach. Applied econometrics and international development, AEEADE, 3(2), 7-24.
  • Fisher, I. (1973). I discovered the phillips curve: A statistical relation between unemployment and price changes. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 496-502.
  • Fofana, I., Chitiga, M. & Mabugu, R. (2009). Oil prices and the South African Economy: A macro-meso-micro analysis. Energy Policy, (December), 37, 5509–5518.
  • Grier, K.B. & Tullock, G. (1989) An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951 1980. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24(2), 259-276.
  • Hodge, D. (2006) Inflation and growth in South Africa. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(2), 163-180.
  • Holly, S. & Raissi, M. (2009) The macroeconomic effects of European financial development: a heterogeneous panel analysis. Working Paper.
  • IEA, (1999). World energy outlook insights, looking at energy subsidies: Getting the prices right, Paris: OECD.
  • IEA. (2010). World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: OECD.
  • IMF, Reforming Energy Subsidies: Summary Note. Washington.
  • Jiang, Z. & Lin, B. (2014). The perverse fossil fuel subsidies in China—the scale and effects. Energy, (June) 70, 411-419.
  • Knotek, E. S. (2007). How Useful is Okun’s Law? Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 92(4), 73-103.
  • Levine, L. (2012). Economic Growth and the Unemployment Rate, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
  • Lin, B. & Jiang, Z. (2011). Estimates of energy subsidies in China and impact of energy subsidy reform, Energy Economics, 33(2), 273-283.
  • Lin, B. & Ouyang, X. (2014). A Revisit of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies in China: Challenges and Opportunities for Energy Price Reform. Energy Conversion and Management, 82, 124-134.
  • McCarthy, J., Potter, S. & Ng, G.C. (2012), Okun’s Law and Long Expansions, Liberty Street Economics, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Mayes, D. & Virén, M. (2004). Pressures on the stability and growth pact from asymmetry in policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(5), 781–797.
  • Monasterolo, I & Raberto, M. (2019). The impact of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies on the low-carbon transition. Energy Policy, 124, I.C, 355-370. Doi: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305809. (Erişim: 18.09.2020)
  • Morgan, T. (2007). Energy Subsidies: Their magnitude, how they affect energy investment and greenhouse gas emissions, and prospects for reform. UNFCCC Secretariat Financial and Technical Support Programme.
  • Myers, N. & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse Subsidies: How tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy, Washington DC: Island Press, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  • Myers, N. (2007). Perverse subsidies. Inter Press Services, Aug 8 2007, http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/08/perverse-subsidies. (Erişim: 6.10.2020)
  • Nazlıoğlu, S. (2010) Makro iktisat politikalarının tarım sektörü üzerindeki etkileri: gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için bir karşılaştırma, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • OECD. (2005). Environmentally harmful subsidies: Challenges for reform. Paris.
  • OECD. (2015), OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239616-en. (Erişim: 25.09.2020)
  • Okun, A. M. (1962) Potential GNP: its measurement and significance. Reprinted as Cowles Foundation Paper.
  • Pesaran, H. & Smith, R. (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68 (1), 79–113.
  • Pesaran, H. Shin, Y. & Smith, R. (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94 (446), 621–634.
  • Pesaran, H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. (1997) Pooled estimation of long-run relationships in dynamic heterogeneous panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics.
  • Pesaran, H. (2004) “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, Working Paper, University of Cambridge, CWPE 0435.
  • Pesaran, H (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogenous panels with multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74, 967-1012.
  • Pesaran, H. (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
  • Pesaran, H. & Yamagata, T. (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
  • Pesaran, H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008) A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, (11), 105-127.
  • Phillips, A.W. (1958). The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom: 1861-1957. Economica, 25(100), 283-299.
  • Prachowny, M. F. (1993) Okun‟s Law: Theoretical foundations and revisied estimates. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 331-336.
  • Riedy, C. & Diesendorf, M. (2003). Financial subsidies to the Australian fossil fuel industry. Energy Policy, 31, 125–137.
  • Saunders, S. & K. Schneider. (2000). Removing energy subsidies in developing and transition economies. ABARE, Conference Paper presented at 23rd Annual IAEE International Conference, Sydney.
  • Stern, Nicholas. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. London: Cambridge University Press. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407172811/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm. (Erişim: 05.10.2020)
  • Timilsina, G. R., Pargal, S., Tsigas, M. & Sahin, S. (2018). How much would Bangladesh gain from the removal of subsidies on electricity and natural gas?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8677, Washington: World Bank.
  • UNEP & IEA. (2002). Reforming energy subsidy, an explanatory summary of the issues and challenges in removing or modifying subsidies on energy that undermine the pursuit of sustainable development. Paris: UNEP.
  • Vedenov, D. & Wetzstein, M. (2008). Toward an optimal U.S. ethanol fuel subsidy. Energy Economics. 30(5), pp.2073-2090.
  • Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-223.
  • World Bank (1997). Expanding the measure of wealth: indicators of environmentally sustainable development. Washington D. C..
  • World Bank (2015). state and trends of carbon pricing, Washington: World Bank Group.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SUBSIDIES TO FOSSIL FUELS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR OECD COUNTRIES

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 22, 352 - 375, 29.11.2021

Hakan Akar Filiz Giray Mikail Kar

https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627

Abstract

Public fiscal policies, which play a leading role in the economy, have been implemented for many years without considering their effects. However, with the recent global awareness, energy, one of the most important intermediate goods of the countries, and the related subsidies given to fossil fuels have been accepted as disrupting the economic efficiency and have been seriously criticized. In this context, using the 2000-2019year panel data from 25 OECD countries, an empirical analysis was made with the Common Associated Effects Average Group (CCEMG) Method and the long-term economic and social effects of government subsidies for fossil fuels were estimated. According to the coefficient estimates obtained, it has been revealed that the government subsidies provided for fossil fuels have a positive effect on GDP, but they also have unemployment-increasing consequences. According to the results, an increase of 1% in total subsidies for fossil fuels will increase GDP by 0.04% and unemployment by 0.03%.

Keywords

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Perverse Subsidies Common Associated Effects Average Group (CCEMG).

References

  • Apergis, N., Tang, C.F. (2013). “Is the energy-led growth hypothesis valid? New evidence from a sample of 85 countries. Energy economy, 38, 24–31.
  • Apergis, N. (2005) Inflation uncertainty and growth: Evidence from panel data. Australian economic papers, 44(2), 186-197.
  • Breusch, T. S. & 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.
  • Bruvoll, A., Skjelvik, J. M. & Vennemo, H. (2011) Reforming environmentally harmful subsidies: How to counteract distributional impacts. Copenhagen: Kailow Express.
  • Clements, B., Coady, D., Fabrizio, S., Gupta, S., Alleyne, T. S. C., & Sdralevich, C. A. (Eds.) (2013). Energy subsidy reform: Lessons and implications. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
  • Coady, D., Parry, Sears, L. & Shan, B. (2017). How large are global energy subsidies. World development, 91, 11–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev. Erişim: 2016.10.004.
  • Coady, David Ian Parry, Le, Nghia-Piotr & Shang, Baoping. (2019). Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates, IMF Working Paper WP/19/89.
  • De Moor, A. (2001). Towards a grand deal on subsidies and climate change. Natural resources forum, 25, 167-176.
  • Dobbs, R. Oppenheim, J. Thompson, F. Brinkman, M. & Zornes, M. (2011). Resource revolution: meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs. McKinsey Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/resource-revolution#. (Erişim: 7.10.2020).
  • European Environment Agency-EEA (2004). Energy subsidies in the European Union: A brief overview, Copenhagen: EEA.
  • Ewing, B. T. & Seyfried, W. L. (2003). Modeling the phillips curve: A time-varying volatility approach. Applied econometrics and international development, AEEADE, 3(2), 7-24.
  • Fisher, I. (1973). I discovered the phillips curve: A statistical relation between unemployment and price changes. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 496-502.
  • Fofana, I., Chitiga, M. & Mabugu, R. (2009). Oil prices and the South African Economy: A macro-meso-micro analysis. Energy Policy, (December), 37, 5509–5518.
  • Grier, K.B. & Tullock, G. (1989) An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951 1980. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24(2), 259-276.
  • Hodge, D. (2006) Inflation and growth in South Africa. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(2), 163-180.
  • Holly, S. & Raissi, M. (2009) The macroeconomic effects of European financial development: a heterogeneous panel analysis. Working Paper.
  • IEA, (1999). World energy outlook insights, looking at energy subsidies: Getting the prices right, Paris: OECD.
  • IEA. (2010). World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: OECD.
  • IMF, Reforming Energy Subsidies: Summary Note. Washington.
  • Jiang, Z. & Lin, B. (2014). The perverse fossil fuel subsidies in China—the scale and effects. Energy, (June) 70, 411-419.
  • Knotek, E. S. (2007). How Useful is Okun’s Law? Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 92(4), 73-103.
  • Levine, L. (2012). Economic Growth and the Unemployment Rate, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
  • Lin, B. & Jiang, Z. (2011). Estimates of energy subsidies in China and impact of energy subsidy reform, Energy Economics, 33(2), 273-283.
  • Lin, B. & Ouyang, X. (2014). A Revisit of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies in China: Challenges and Opportunities for Energy Price Reform. Energy Conversion and Management, 82, 124-134.
  • McCarthy, J., Potter, S. & Ng, G.C. (2012), Okun’s Law and Long Expansions, Liberty Street Economics, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Mayes, D. & Virén, M. (2004). Pressures on the stability and growth pact from asymmetry in policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(5), 781–797.
  • Monasterolo, I & Raberto, M. (2019). The impact of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies on the low-carbon transition. Energy Policy, 124, I.C, 355-370. Doi: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305809. (Erişim: 18.09.2020)
  • Morgan, T. (2007). Energy Subsidies: Their magnitude, how they affect energy investment and greenhouse gas emissions, and prospects for reform. UNFCCC Secretariat Financial and Technical Support Programme.
  • Myers, N. & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse Subsidies: How tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy, Washington DC: Island Press, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  • Myers, N. (2007). Perverse subsidies. Inter Press Services, Aug 8 2007, http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/08/perverse-subsidies. (Erişim: 6.10.2020)
  • Nazlıoğlu, S. (2010) Makro iktisat politikalarının tarım sektörü üzerindeki etkileri: gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için bir karşılaştırma, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • OECD. (2005). Environmentally harmful subsidies: Challenges for reform. Paris.
  • OECD. (2015), OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239616-en. (Erişim: 25.09.2020)
  • Okun, A. M. (1962) Potential GNP: its measurement and significance. Reprinted as Cowles Foundation Paper.
  • Pesaran, H. & Smith, R. (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68 (1), 79–113.
  • Pesaran, H. Shin, Y. & Smith, R. (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94 (446), 621–634.
  • Pesaran, H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. (1997) Pooled estimation of long-run relationships in dynamic heterogeneous panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics.
  • Pesaran, H. (2004) “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, Working Paper, University of Cambridge, CWPE 0435.
  • Pesaran, H (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogenous panels with multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74, 967-1012.
  • Pesaran, H. (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
  • Pesaran, H. & Yamagata, T. (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
  • Pesaran, H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008) A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, (11), 105-127.
  • Phillips, A.W. (1958). The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom: 1861-1957. Economica, 25(100), 283-299.
  • Prachowny, M. F. (1993) Okun‟s Law: Theoretical foundations and revisied estimates. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 331-336.
  • Riedy, C. & Diesendorf, M. (2003). Financial subsidies to the Australian fossil fuel industry. Energy Policy, 31, 125–137.
  • Saunders, S. & K. Schneider. (2000). Removing energy subsidies in developing and transition economies. ABARE, Conference Paper presented at 23rd Annual IAEE International Conference, Sydney.
  • Stern, Nicholas. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. London: Cambridge University Press. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407172811/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm. (Erişim: 05.10.2020)
  • Timilsina, G. R., Pargal, S., Tsigas, M. & Sahin, S. (2018). How much would Bangladesh gain from the removal of subsidies on electricity and natural gas?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8677, Washington: World Bank.
  • UNEP & IEA. (2002). Reforming energy subsidy, an explanatory summary of the issues and challenges in removing or modifying subsidies on energy that undermine the pursuit of sustainable development. Paris: UNEP.
  • Vedenov, D. & Wetzstein, M. (2008). Toward an optimal U.S. ethanol fuel subsidy. Energy Economics. 30(5), pp.2073-2090.
  • Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-223.
  • World Bank (1997). Expanding the measure of wealth: indicators of environmentally sustainable development. Washington D. C..
  • World Bank (2015). state and trends of carbon pricing, Washington: World Bank Group.
There are 53 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Hakan Akar 0000-0002-2145-5894

Filiz Giray 0000-0002-8765-8248

Mikail Kar 0000-0002-4036-7355

Publication Date November 29, 2021
Submission Date July 13, 2021
Acceptance Date September 4, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 11 Issue: 22

Cite

APA Akar, H., Giray, F., & Kar, M. (2021). FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 352-375. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627
AMA Akar H, Giray F, Kar M. FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. November 2021;11(22):352-375. doi:10.53092/duiibfd.970627
Chicago Akar, Hakan, Filiz Giray, and Mikail Kar. “FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ”. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no. 22 (November 2021): 352-75. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627.
EndNote Akar H, Giray F, Kar M (November 1, 2021) FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 11 22 352–375.
IEEE H. Akar, F. Giray, and M. Kar, “FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ”, Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 22, pp. 352–375, 2021, doi: 10.53092/duiibfd.970627.
ISNAD Akar, Hakan et al. “FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ”. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 11/22 (November 2021), 352-375. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627.
JAMA Akar H, Giray F, Kar M. FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;11:352–375.
MLA Akar, Hakan et al. “FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ”. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 22, 2021, pp. 352-75, doi:10.53092/duiibfd.970627.
Vancouver Akar H, Giray F, Kar M. FOSİL YAKITLARA VERİLEN SÜBVANSİYONLARIN SOSYAL VE EKONOMİK ETKİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;11(22):352-75.
 Download Cover Image

Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi
Dicle University, Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences