Tarımsal Verimlilik, İklim Duyarlılığı ve Enerji-Emisyon İlişkisi: Küresel Ekonomiler Üzerine Üç Katmanlı Panel Ricardian Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, iklim hassasiyeti, enerji yoğunluğu ve emisyonlar arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanarak tarımsal verimliliğin belirleyicilerini incelemektedir. Dünya Bankası verilerini (2000–2021) kullanan araştırma, küresel ekonomik ölçekleri ve tarımsal potansiyelleri nedeniyle seçilen 21 büyük ekonomiyi analiz etmektedir. Üç Aşamalı Panel Ricardian Çerçevesi (Three-Tier Panel Ricardian Framework) uygulanarak ülkeler, iklim dalgalanmalarına karşı tarımsal kırılganlıklarına göre düşük, orta ve yüksek hassasiyetli gruplara ayrılmıştır. Model; işçi başına tarımsal katma değeri, yağış miktarı, metan emisyonu, sulama, enerji yoğunluğu ve kişi başına düşen Gayri Safi Yurt İçi Hasıla (GSYİH) değişkenlerine göre değerlendirmektedir. Modelde otokorelasyon, değişen varyans ve yatay kesit bağımlılığının eş zamanlı olarak bulunması, standart Sabit Etkiler (FE) veya geleneksel dirençli (robust) standart hataların güvenilir çıkarımlar yapmak için yetersiz olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, modeli tahmin etmek için kümelenmiş dirençli (clustered robust) standart hatalara sahip Sabit Etkiler (FE) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, yağış miktarı ile verimlilik arasında doğrusal olmayan, ters U şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu doğrulamakta ve Ricardian hipotezini geçerli kılmaktadır. Kritik bir bulgu olarak, enerji yoğunluğunun verimlilik üzerindeki ciddi negatif etkisi (esneklik: -1,10), verimsizliği temel bir yapısal engel olarak tanımlamaktadır. Kişi başına düşen GSYİH verimliliği önemli ölçüde desteklerken (0,52), metan emisyonları ayrışmış (decoupled) bir ilişki sergilemektedir. Karşılaştırmalı analizler, yüksek hassasiyetli ülkelerin, optimal eşiklerin ötesinde gelişmiş ekonomilere göre daha sert verimlilik düşüşleriyle karşı karşıya kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Nihayetinde bu sonuçlar, küresel verimlilik farkının kapatılmasının, enerji modernizasyonunu gruba özgü iklim adaptasyon stratejileriyle bütünleştiren politika odaklı tarımsal dayanıklılığa doğru bir geçiş gerektirdiğinin altını çizmektedir.

Keywords

• Panel Ricardian Analizi
• İklim Duyarlılığı Eşikleri
• Enerji Yoğunluğu ve Verimliliği
• Yapısal Farklılaşma
• Politika Odaklı Dirençlilik.

Ethical Statement

Yazarlar, makaleye eşit oranda katkıda bulunduklarını beyan ederler. Makale yazarları, herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmadığını beyan ederler.

Thanks

Yazarlar, bu taslağın kalitesini önemli ölçüde artıran içgörülü yorumları ve değerli önerileri için isimsiz hakemlere ve yayın kuruluna içten teşekkürlerini sunarlar.

Agricultural Efficiency, Climate Sensitivity, and the Energy-Emissions Nexus: A Three-Tier Panel Ricardian Analysis of Global Economies

Abstract

This study investigates agricultural efficiency determinants by focusing on the nexus between climate sensitivity, energy intensity, and emissions. Utilizing World Bank data (2000–2021), the research analyzes 21 major economies selected for their global economic scale and agricultural potential. Employing a Three-Tier Panel Ricardian Framework, nations are categorized into low, medium, and high sensitivity groups according to their agricultural vulnerability to climate fluctuations. The model evaluates agricultural value-added per worker against precipitation, methane emissions, irrigation, energy intensity, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The simultaneous presence of autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and cross-sectional dependence within the model demonstrates that standard Fixed Effects (FE) or conventional robust standard errors are insufficient for reliable inference. Thus, FE estimation with clustered robust is used to estimate model. Results confirm a non-linear, inverted U-shaped relationship between precipitation and productivity, validating the Ricardian hypothesis. A critical finding is the substantial negative impact of energy intensity (elasticity: -1.10), identifying inefficiency as a primary structural barrier. While GDP per capita significantly bolsters efficiency (0.52), methane emissions exhibit a decoupled relationship. Comparative analysis reveals that high-sensitivity nations face steeper productivity declines beyond optimal thresholds than advanced economies. Ultimately, these results underscore that narrowing the global productivity gap requires a shift toward policy-driven agricultural resilience, integrating energy modernization with group-specific climate adaptation strategies.

Keywords

• Panel Ricardian Analysis
• Climate Sensitivity Thresholds
• Energy Intensity and Efficiency
• Structural Divergence
• Policy-Driven Resilience

Ethical Statement

The authors declare that they have contributed equally to the article. The authors of the articles declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Thanks

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and the editorial board for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.

References

1. Alisjahbana, A. S., Sen, K., Sumner, A., & Yusuf, A. (2022). The Developer's Dilemma: Structural Transformation, Inequality Dynamics, and Inclusive Growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,
2. Bagherzadeh, M., & Shigemitsu, M. (2021). Building the Resilience of Turkey’s Agricultural Sector to Droughts. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper, No. 167.
3. Chovancová, J., Popovičová, M., & Huttmanová, E. (2022). Decoupling transport-related greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth in the European Union countries. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water, and Environment Systems, 11(1), 1090411.
4. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
5. Epule, T. E., Sarkouh, M., Tindjiete, S. D. Y., Males, A. S. B., Peng, C. & Etongo, D. (2026). A new compendium of models for assessing the economic impacts of climate change on agricultural systems. Regional Environmental Change, 26, 10.
6. Fan, J., Liao, Y., & Yao, J. (2015). Power enhancement in high-dimensional cross-sectional tests. Econometrica, 83(4), 1497-1541.
7. Gabardo, F. A., Pereima, J. B., & Einloft, P. (2017). The incorporation of structural change into growth theory: A historical appraisal. EconomiA, 18, 392-410.
8. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall. Pearson Education.

9. Halkos, G., & Zisiadou, A. (2026). Growth Dynamics and Environmental Pressure in Greece: Investigating the Validity of EKC Hypothesis. LOR Discussion Paper Series No. 2601.
10. He, Y. (2026). Energy policy strategies for cleaner production: The roles of renewable energy and green innovation. Energy Policy, 213, 115214.
11. Kamal, M., & Fatima, A. (2023). Structural transformation and political economy: A new approach to inclusive growth. PLoS ONE, 18, 8, e0283731.
12. Kanduth, A., Geffray, M. C., Brodner, W., Razak, F. A., Kellou, D., Coetzee, K., & Hare, B. (2025). Clearing the air on methane: a global review of emissions, ambition and the policy landscape. Climate Analytics.
13. Kurukulasuriya, P., & Mendelsohn, R. (2008). A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change on African cropland. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2(1), 1–23.
14. Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science, 333(6042), 616–620.
15. London, S. (2017). A methodological note about the analysis of the economic growth and environment. MOJ Ecology & Environmental Science, 2(8), 301-303.
16. Losch, B., Fréguin-Gresh, S., & White, E. (2011). Rural Transformation and Late Developing Countries in a Globalizing World. A Comparative Analysis of Rural Change. Final Report of the Rural Structural Program, Revised Version. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
17. Lynch, J., & Garnett, T. (2021), Policy to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Is Agricultural Methane a Special Case?. EuroChoices, 20: 11-17.
18. Martins, P. M. G. (2019). Structural Change Rediscovered: The Role of Human and Physical Capital. Research & Policy Briefs, No. 24, from the World Bank Malaysia Hub.
19. Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W. D., & Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming on agriculture: A Ricardian analysis. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 753–771.
20. O’Mahony, M., & van Ark., B. (2026). Aligning Resources for Productivity: A Synthesis of TPI Research 2023-2026. Productivity Insights Paper No. 082, The Productivity Institute.
21. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Discussion Paper No: 1240, Bonn, Germany.
22. Romer, D. (2012). Advanced Macroeconomics.4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
23. Rosen, A. R., Kioumarsi, H., & Gholipour Fereidouni, H. (2025). Climate action and net-zero emissions. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 9(4), em0334.
24. Schlenker, W., & Roberts, M. J. (2009). Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 106(37), 15594–15598.
25. Sers, M. R., & Victor, P. A. (2018). The energy-emissions trap. Ecological Economics, 151, 10-21.
26. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121.
27. Shahbaz, M., Khan, S., Ali, A., & Bhattacharya, M. (2017). The impact of globalization on CO2 emissions in China. The Singapore Economics Review, 62(04), 929-957.
28. Tapio, P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: Degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic volume and GDP growth 1970–2001. Transport Policy, 12(2), 137–151.
29. Taraz, V. (2017). Adaptation to climate change: Historical evidence from the Indian monsoon. Environment and Development Economics, 22, 517-545.
30. Telle, K., & Larsson, J. (2007). Do environmental regulations hamper productivity growth? How accounting for improvements of plants' environmental performance can change the conclusion. Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 438-445.
31. Tello, E., Sacristán, V., Olarieta, J. R., Cattaneo, C., Marull, J., Pons, M., Gingrich, S., Krausmann, F., Galán, E., Marco, I., ·Padró, R., Guzmán, G. I., de Molina, M. G., Cunfer, G., Watson, A., MacFadyen, J., Fraňková, E., Aguilera, E., · Infante‑Amate, J., Urrego‑Mesa, A., Soto, D., Parcerisas, L., Dupras, J., Díez‑Sanjuán, L., Caravaca, J., Gómez, L., Fullana, O., Murray, I., Jover, G.,·Cussó, X., &·Garrabou, R. (2023). Assessing the energy trap of industrial agriculture in North America and Europe: 82 balances from 1830 to 2012. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 43, 75.
32. Tollefson, J. (2021). IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years Landmark assessment says that greenhouse gases are unequivocally driving extreme weather —but that nations can still prevent the worst impacts. Nature, 596, 171-172
33. Tuncer, İ, & Moalla, M. W. (2020). Structural change and growth prospects in the Turkish manufacturing industry. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, V, 1, 1-19.
34. Udoh, I., Ukere, I., & Ekpenyong, A. (2023). Environment and growth sustainability: An empirical analysis of extended Solow Growth Model. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 2(2), 7–17.
35. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT Press.
36. Zaveri, E., & Lobell, D. B. (2019). The role of irrigation in changing wheat yields and sensitivity to temperature in India. Nature Communications, 10(1), 4144.
37. Zhou, S., Liu, B., Wang, J., Jin, D., & Zhang, H. (2025). Assessing Global Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Key Drivers and Mitigation Strategies. Agronomy, 15(6), 1336.