OECD Ülkelerinde Demokrasinin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2022, Issue: 37, 213 - 235, 29.12.2022

Neslihan Ursavaş

https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226

Abstract

Çevresel bozulma ve belirleyicileri literatürde kapsamlı bir şekilde tartışılmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, literatür çoğunlukla ekonomik büyüme, açıklık ve küreselleşme gibi çevresel bozulmanın ekonomik belirleyicilerine odaklanmaktadır. Ancak sürdürülebilir bir çevre için çevresel bozulmanın politik belirleyicileri de oldukça önemlidir. Bu bağlamda konuyla ilgili teorik yaklaşımlar ise birbirinden farklıdır. Bazı çalışmalar demokrasinin çevresel bozulmayı azalttığını iddia ederken; bazı çalışmalar ise demokrasinin çevresel bozulmayı artırdığını savunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla demokrasi ve çevre arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamaya yönelik yaklaşımlar arasında demokrasinin çevreyi nasıl etkilediği konusunda bir fikir birliği olmadığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın temel amaçlarından biri, çevresel bozulmanın demokrasi gibi politik bileşenlerine odaklanmaktır. Bununla birlikte çalışmada konu ile ilgili teorik argümanlar çerçevesinde demokrasinin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisi incelenmektedir. Belirtilen amaçlar doğrultusunda 37 OECD ülkesinde 1995-2018 dönemi için demokrasinin kişi başı sera gazı emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi test edilmektedir. İlk olarak seriler arasında yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim katsayısının homojen olup olmadığı test edilmektedir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre seriler arasında hem yatay kesit bağımlılığı olduğu hem de eğim katsayısının heterojen olduğu gözlenmektedir. Bu nedenle yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenliği dikkate alan Ortak İlişkili Etkiler Ortalama Grup (CCEMG) tahmincisi kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre demokrasi düzeyindeki artış kişi başı sera gazı emisyonunu artırırken; yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi sera gazı emisyonunu azaltmaktadır.

Keywords

Demokrasi, Ekonomik Büyüme, Yenilenebilir Enerji, Çevresel Bozulma, CCEMG Yöntemi

The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in OECD Countries

Abstract

Environmental degradation and its determinants have been extensively discussed in the literature. With the literature mostly focusing on the economic determinants of environmental degradation, such as, economic growth, openness, and globalization. However, the political determinants of environmental degradation are also significant for a sustainable environment. The theoretical approaches differ in this context, with some studies claiming that democracy reduces environmental degradation, while others argue that democracy increases it. Therefore, one can say that no consensus exists among the approaches explaining the relationship between democracy and the environment with regard to how democracy impacts the environment. One of the main goals of this study is to focus on the political components of environmental degradation, such as, democracy. This study additionally investigates the impact of democracy on environmental degradation within the scope of theoretical approaches. Within this context, the study tests the impact of democracy on greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 37 OECD countries for the period of 1995-2018. In order to do this, the study first tests cross-sectional dependence and homogeneity across the variables. The results show the presence of both cross-sectional dependence, as well as slope heterogeneity between the variables. Therefore, the common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG) estimator, is used, as it takes cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity into consideration. According to the results, democracy is positively related to environmental degradation. In other words, an increase in the level of democracy increases greenhouse gas emissions per capita, whereas higher levels of renewable energy consumption reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Keywords

Democracy, Economic Growth, Renewable Energy, Environmental Degradation, CCEMG Method

References

• Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J.A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Adams, S. ve Acheampong, A.O. (2019). Reducing carbon emissions: the role of renewable energy and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118–245
• Adams, S. ve Klobodu, E.K.M. (2017). Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality, and environmental degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39, 1035–1051
• Adams, S. ve Nsiah, C. (2019). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions: does renewable energy matter?. Science of The Total Environment 693:133288
• Adams, S., Adom, P.K. ve Klobodu, E.K.M. (2016). Urbanization, regime type and durability, and environmental degradation in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(23), 23825–23839
• Adebayo, T. S. ve Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16057-16082.
• Akalin, G. ve Erdogan, S. (2021). Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 7226-7235.
• Akar, H., Giray, F., ve Kar, M. (2021). fosil yakitlara verilen sübvansiyonlarin sosyal ve ekonomik etkileri: OECD ülkeleri için ampirik bir analiz. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 352-375.
• Altintaş, H. ve Mercan, M. (2015). Ar-Ge harcamalari ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine yatay kesit bağimliliği altinda panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 70(2), 345-376.
• Apaydın, Ş. ve Taşdoğan, C. (2019). Türkiye’de iktisadi büyüme ve birincil enerji tüketiminin karbon salınımı üzerindeki etkisi: yapısal var yaklaşımı. Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(16), 19-35
• Arvin, B.M. ve Lew, B. (2011). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics, 43(9), 1151–1160
• Aslan, A., Destek, M. A. ve Okumus, I. (2018). Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(3), 2402-2408
• Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D. ve Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions?. Energy Policy, 113, 356-367.
• Bernauer, T. ve Koubi, V. (2004). On the political determinants of environmental quality. Paper Prepared for Presentation at The Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association in Chicago, September 2-5.
• Bernauer, T. ve Koubi, V. (2009). Political determinants of environmental quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
• Binder, S. ve Neumayer, E. (2005). Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: an empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 55(4), 527-538.
• Brenna, K.A. (2015). Democracy and climate change the relationship between democracy and co2- emissions. Master’s Thesis, University of Oslo.
• Breusch, T.S. ve 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
• Bora, İ. ve Atasoy, B. (2018). Finansal gelişmenin ve enerji tüketiminin karbondioksit emisyonlari üzerindeki etkisinin çevresel Kuznetz eğrisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 16(1), 145-160.
• Buitenzorgy, M. ve Mol, A.P.J. (2011). Does democracy lead to a better environment? deforestation and the democratic transition peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 59–70.
• Charfeddine, L. ve Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138–154
• Cole, M. A. ve Neumayer, E. (2004). Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment, 26(1), 5-21.
• Congleton, R.D. (1992). Political ınstitutions and pollution control. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412-421.
• Çetin, M., Ecevit, E. ve Yucel, A.G. (2018). The Impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(36), 36589-36603.
• Desai, U. (1998.) Ecological policy and politics in developing countries. New York: State University of New York Press).
• Destek, M.A., Balli, E. ve Manga, M. (2016). the relationship between co2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, 7(1), 52-58
• Dogan, E. ve Turkekul, B. (2016). CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1203-1213.
• Dryzek, J.S. (1987). Rational ecology: environment and political economy. Basil Blackwell, New York.
• Erdogan, S. (2020). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of disaggregated transport infrastructure investments. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102338
• Farzanegan, M.R. ve Markwardt, G. (2018). Development and pollution in the Middle East and North Africa: democracy matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40, 350–374
• Farzin, H.Y. ve Bond, C.A. (2006). Democracy and environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics, 81, 213–235
• Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E., Damania R. ve Gates, S. (2005). Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control. Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management, 49(2), 343–365
• Gallagher, K.P. ve Thacker, S.C. (2008). Democracy, ıncome, and environmental quality. PERI Working Papers, 124.
• Gani, A. ve Scrimgeour, F. (2014). Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework. Economic Modelling, 42, 363–372
• Hotunluoğlu, H. Ve Yılmaz, G.S. (2018). Demokrasi karbondioksit emisyonu için önemli mi? Türkiye için bir uygulama. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-141.
• Jalil, A. ve Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for co2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172.
• Kasman, A. ve Duman, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 44, 97-103.
• Kim, S., Baek, J. ve Heo, E. (2019). A new look at the democracy–environment nexus: evidence from panel data for high- and low-income countries. Sustainability, 11, 1–14
• Küçükaksoy, İ. ve Akalin, G. (2017). Fisher Hipotezi’nin panel veri analizi ile test edilmesi: OECD ülkeleri uygulamasi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 19-40.
• Lau, L.S., Choong, C.K. ve Eng, Y.K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct ınvestment and trade matter?. Energy Policy, 68, 490-497.
• Li, Q. ve Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 935.
• Lv, Z. (2017). The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: does the level of income matter?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 900–906
• Martínez-Zarzoso, I. ve Maruotti, A. (2011). The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: evidence from developing countries. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1344-1353.
• McCloskey, D.N. (1983). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature 21(2), 481– 517.
• Midlarsky, M.I. (1998). Democracy and the environment: an empirical assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341-361.
• Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy, and development. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 567-576.
• Ozcan, B., Tzeremes, P. G., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 84, 203-213.
• Pande R (2003) Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India. The American Economic Review, 93(4), 1132–11.
• Pata, U.K. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: Bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20264-20276.
• Payne, R. A. (1995). Freedom and the environment. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 41-55.
• Pellegrini, L. ve Gerlagh, R. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy. The Journal of Environment and Development, 15(3), 332–354
• Pesaran, H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge, CWPE 0435.
• Pesaran, H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, (11), 105-127.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
• 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.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127.
• Romuald, K. S. (2011). Democratic ınstitutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels. EAAE 2011 Congress, Switzerland.
• Scruggs, L. (2009). Democracy and environmental protection: an empirical analysis. Annual Meeting of The Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference. The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois
• Shahbaz, M., Sbia, R., Hamdi, H., ve Ozturk, I. (2014). Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecological Indicators, 45, 622-631.
• Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the ımportance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221-232.
• Sharif, A. ve Raza, S. A. (2016). Dynamic relationship between urbanization, energy consumption and environmental degradation in Pakistan: Evidence from structure break testing. Journal of Management Sciences, 3(1), 1-21.
• Sharif, A., Mishra, S., Sinha, A., Jiao, Z., Shahbaz, M. ve Afshan, S. (2020). The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in Top-10 polluted countries: Fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy, 150, 670-690.
• Torras, M. ve Boyce, J.K. (1998). Income, ınequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147-160.
• United Nations (2019). News on millennium development goals. https://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/ Data Accessed on 30.01.2022
• Usman, O., Olanipekun, I.O., Iorember, P.T. ve Abu-Goodman, M. (2020.) Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8), 8334–8349.
• Ulucak, R. ve Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996.
• Ulucak, R. ve Ozcan, B. (2020). Relationship between energy consumption and environmental sustainability in OECD countries: the role of natural resources rents. Resources Policy, 69, 101803.
• Wang, Z., Yin, F., Zhang, Y. ve Zhang, X. (2012). An empirical research on the influencing factors of regional CO2 emissions: evidence from Beijing city, China. Applied Energy, 100, 277-284.
• Wang, R., Mirza, N., Vasbieva, D. G., Abbas, Q. ve Xiong, D. (2020). The nexus of carbon emissions, financial development, renewable energy consumption, and technological innovation: what should be the priorities in light of COP 21 Agreements?. Journal of Environmental Management, 271, 111027.
• Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: the effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149-166.
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
• Winslow, M. (2005). Is democracy good for the environment?. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(5), 771-783.
• Yağlıkara, A. (2022). Ekolojik ayak izi, ticaret ve yenilenebilir enerji ilişkisi:E-7 ükeleri için panel kantil regresyon analizi. İçinde Güncel Ekonomi Çalışmaları (Ed. M. Özmen ve V. Yurdadoğ), Ankara: Akaemisyen Yayınevi.
• You, W.H., Zhu, H.M., Yu, K. ve Peng, C. (2015). Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Development, 66, 189-207.
• Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., ve Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(13), 13246-13262.
• Zhang, S., Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2017). Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly ındustrialized countries?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(21), 17616- 17625.