The Asymmetric Effect of Income Inequality in Reducing Carbon Intensity: Does Institutional Quality Matter?

Abstract

Increasing environmental degradation and income inequality, especially in developing countries, are the greatest threats to sustainability. Identifying the factors that exacerbate these two problems can help to contain the ecological and social aspects of sustainable development. Moreover, understanding the determinants of inequality and environmental degradation, as well as the interconnections between them, is crucial for policy development towards sustainability. The literature on the environment-inequality relationship suggests that there is both a feedback effect and an opportunity cost between them. As production levels rise, so too does the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. However, the reduction in carbon intensity associated with increased efficiency and the utilisation of renewable energies has been overlooked by researchers. In this context, this study assesses the impact of income inequality on carbon intensity in Türkiye, considering the interrelationships with human development, foreign direct investment (FDI), renewable energy consumption and institutional quality. In the study, which encompasses the period 1990-2022, the augmented nonlinear ARDL method is employed to elucidate the asymmetric impact of income inequality. Empirical findings show that income inequality increases carbon intensity, while FDI, human development and renewable energy consumption decrease it. The effect of institutional quality is insignificant. These results suggest that efforts to reduce income inequality in Türkiye may also facilitate decarbonisation of the production process. The negligible impact of institutional quality indicators is presumed to be attributable to the fact that institutions in Türkiye have not yet attained the desired level of efficiency.

Keywords

• Environmental degradation
• income inequality
• institutional quality
• renewable energy
• carbon intensity

Karbon Yoğunluğunu Azaltmada Gelir Eşitsizliğinin Asimetrik Etkisi: Kurumsal Kalite Önemli mi?

Abstract

Özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde artan çevresel bozulma ve gelir eşitsizliği sürdürülebilirliğin önündeki en büyük tehditlerdir. Bu iki sorunu derinleştiren etkenlerin tespit edilmesi sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın ekolojik ve sosyal yönünü kontrol altına almada yardımcı olabilmektedir. Ayrıca eşitsizlik ve çevresel bozulmanın belirleyicileri kadar aralarındaki bağın anlaşılması da sürdürülebilirliğin tesisine yönelik politika geliştirmede önem arz ermektedir. Çevre-eşitsizlik ilişkisini inceleyen literatür aralarında hem geri besleme etkisinin hem de fırsat maliyetinin bulunduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Üretim düzeyindeki artışla birlikte atmosfere salınan karbon miktarı da artmaktadır. Ancak verimlilik ve yenilenebilir enerji kullanımının artmasıyla üretimde karbon yoğunluğundaki azalma araştırmacıların gözünden kaçmıştır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliğinin karbon yoğunluğunu azaltmadaki rolünü insani gelişme, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve kurumsal kalite bağlamında değerlendirmektedir. 1990-2022 döneminin ele alındığı çalışmada gelir eşitsizliğinin asimetrik etkisini ortaya çıkarmak için genişletilmiş doğrusal olmayan ARDL yöntemine başvurulmuştur. Ampirik bulgular gelir eşitsizliğinin karbon yoğunluğunu arttırdığını, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, insani gelişme ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin azalttığını, kurumsal kalitenin ise etkisinin anlamsız olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlar Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliğini azaltmaya yönelik girişimlerin aynı zamanda üretim sürecinin dekarbonize bir yapıya bürünmesine yardımcı olabileceğini ima etmektedir. Kurumsal kalite göstergelerinin etkisinin anlamsız olması Türkiye’de kurumların henüz arzu edilen etkinliğe kavuşamadığından kaynaklandığı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Çevresel bozulma
• gelir eşitsizliği
• kurumsal kalite
• yenilenebilir enerji
• karbon yoğunluğu

References

1. Abbasi, M. A., Nosheen, M. & Rahman, H. U. (2023). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(17), 49270-49289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25548-x
2. Abid, M. Y., Khan, M. T. & ur Rehman, H. (2022). Does institutional quality improve environmental quality? New evidence from NARDL approach. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 8(2), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.47067/reads.v8i2.439
3. Adams, S. & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2017). Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality, and environmental degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(6), 1035-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.04.006
4. Adams, S. & Nsiah, C. (2019). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions; Does renewable energy matter?. Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.094
5. Addi, H. M. & Abubakar, A. B. (2024). Investment and economic growth: do institutions and economic freedom matter?. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(4), 825-845. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-07-2021-1086
6. Adebayo, T. S. & Özkan, O. (2024). Investigating the influence of socioeconomic conditions, renewable energy and eco-innovation on environmental degradation in the United States: A wavelet quantile-based analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140321
7. Alataş, S. & Akın, T. (2022). The impact of income inequality on environmental quality: A sectoral-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65(10), 1949-1974. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2050684
8. Al-Mulali, U. & Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004

9. Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I. & Lean, H. H. (2015). The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe. Natural Hazards, 79, 621-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1865-9
10. Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I. & Solarin, S. A. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: The role of renewable energy. Ecological indicators, 67, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.059
11. Al-Mulali, U., Solarin, S. A., Sheau-Ting, L. & Ozturk, I. (2016). Does moving towards renewable energy cause water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 93, 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.023
12. Amoah, A., Kwablah, E., Korle, K. & Offei, D. (2020). Renewable energy consumption in Africa: the role of economic well-being and economic freedom. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 10, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00264-3
13. Amuakwa-Mensah, F. & Adom, P. K. (2017). Quality of institution and the FEG (forest, energy intensity, and globalization)-environment relationships in sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 17455-17473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9300-2
14. Appiah, M., Li, M., Onifade, S. T. & Gyamfi, B. A. (2024). Investigating institutional quality and carbon mitigation drive in Sub-Saharan Africa: Are growth levels, energy use, population, and industrialization consequential factors?. Energy & Environment, 35(4), 2031-2057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X2211476
15. Asif, K., Sabir, S. & Qayyum, U. (2024). Corruption, political instability, and environmental degradation in South Asia: A comparative analysis of carbon footprint and ecological footprint. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 4072-4096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01133-y
16. Azam, M., Liu, L. & Ahmad, N. (2021). Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: Evidence from developing world. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 1646-1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00644-x
17. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N. & Cantos-Cantos, J. M. (2019). An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23010-23026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05446-x
18. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M. & Shahbaz, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries. Renewable Energy, 185, 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.059
19. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T., Topaloglu, E.E. & Evcimen, C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: Fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Research, 127, 226-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.017
20. Benzerrouk, Z., Abid, M. & Sekrafi, H. (2021). Pollution haven or halo effect? A comparative analysis of developing and developed countries. Energy Reports, 7, 4862-4871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.076
21. Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S. A. & Paramati, S. R. (2017). The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.102
22. Boyce, J. K. (1994). Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 11(3), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90198-8
23. Bucak, Ç. (2022). Ekonomik özgürlük endeksi, insani gelişme endeksi ve ekolojik ayak izi: E7 ülkeleri için ampirik bir analiz. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.992572
24. Bulus, G. C. & Koc, S. (2021). The effects of FDI and government expenditures on environmental pollution in Korea: the pollution haven hypothesis revisited. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 38238-38253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13462-z
25. Cao, H., Khan, M. K., Rehman, A., Dagar, V., Oryani, B. & Tanveer, A. (2022). Impact of globalization, institutional quality, economic growth, electricity and renewable energy consumption on Carbon Dioxide Emission in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 24191-24202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17076-3
26. Cheng, C., Ren, X., Wang, Z., & Yan, C. (2019). Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission-Evidence from the BRIICS. Science of the Total Environment, 668, 1328-1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.063
27. Coondoo, D. & Dinda, S. (2008). Carbon dioxide emission and income: A temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.001
28. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., ... & Ziblatt, D. (2024). V-Dem dataset v14. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/mcwt-fr58.
29. Dam, M. M., Durmaz, A., Bekun, F. V. & Tiwari, A. K. (2024). The role of green growth and institutional quality on environmental sustainability: A comparison of CO2 emissions, ecological footprint and inverted load capacity factor for OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121551
30. Dam, M. M., Işık, C. & Ongan, S. (2023). The impacts of renewable energy and institutional quality in environmental sustainability in the context of the sustainable development goals: A novel approach with the inverted load capacity factor. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(42), 95394-95409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29020-8
31. Damirova, S. & Yayla, N. (2021). Çevre kirliliği ile makroekonomik belirleyicileri arasındaki ilişki: Seçilmiş ülkeler için bir panel veri analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 30, 107-126. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.804787
32. Danish & Ulucak, R. (2020). The pathway toward pollution mitigation: does institutional quality make a difference?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3571-3583. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2597
33. Dasgupta, S. & De Cian, E. (2018). The influence of institutions, governance, and public opinion on the environment: Synthesized findings from applied econometrics studies. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.023
34. Dawson, J. W. (2003). Causality in the freedom–growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00009-0
35. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
36. Destek, M. (2019). Türkiye’de gelir dağılımının çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri üzerine bir inceleme. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 1477-1488. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.556006
37. Dogan, E. & Ozturk, I. (2017). The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO2 emissions in the USA: Evidence from structural break tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 10846-10854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8786-y
38. Doré, N. I. & Teixeira, A. A. (2023). The role of human capital, structural change, and institutional quality on Brazil's economic growth over the last two hundred years (1822–2019). Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 66, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.04.003
39. Easterly, W., Ritzen, J. & Woolcock, M. (2006). Social cohesion, institutions, and growth. Center for Global Development Working Paper, (94). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2006.00165.x
40. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J. & Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4), 813-836. https://doi.org/10.3386/t0130
41. Góes, C. (2016). Institutions and growth: A GMM/IV panel VAR approach. Economics Letters, 138, 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.11.024
42. Guo, L. (2013). Cross-country income disparity and its effect on carbon emissions. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2013.777208
43. Gyamfi, B. A., Bein, M. A., Udemba, E. N. & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in oil and non-oil sub-Saharan Africa countries: Evidence from quantile regression technique. Resources Policy, 73, 102119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102119
44. Hao, Y., Chen, H. & Zhang, Q. (2016). Will income inequality affect environmental quality? Analysis based on China's provincial panel data. Ecological Indicators, 67, 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.025
45. Hassan, S. T., Khan, S. U. D., Xia, E. & Fatima, H. (2020). Role of institutions in correcting environmental pollution: An empirical investigation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101901
46. Hayat, A. (2019). Foreign direct investments, institutional quality, and economic growth. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(5), 561-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1564064
47. Heerink, N., Mulatu, A. & Bulte, E. (2001). Income inequality and the environment: Aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00171-9
48. Holland, T. G., Peterson, G. D. & Gonzalez, A. (2009). A cross‐national analysis of how economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1304-1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01207.x
49. Justesen, M. K. (2008). The effect of economic freedom on growth revisited: New evidence on causality from a panel of countries 1970–1999. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(3), 642-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.06.003
50. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. & Zoido, P. (1999). Governance matters. https://ssrn.com/abstract=188568
51. Khan, H., Weili, L. & Khan, I. (2022). The role of financial development and institutional quality in environmental sustainability: Panel data evidence from the BRI countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(55), 83624-83635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21697-7
52. Khan, I., Han, L., Khan, H. & Kim Oanh, L. T. (2021). Analyzing renewable and nonrenewable energy sources for environmental quality: Dynamic investigation in developing countries. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021(1), 3399049. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3399049
53. Khan, S. & Yahong, W. (2022). Income inequality, ecological footprint, and carbon dioxide emissions in Asian developing economies: What effects what and how?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 24660-24671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17582-4
54. Kim, S. E. & Seok, J. H. (2023). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions considering economic development: Evidence from South Korea. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 32(4), 537-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2022.2122538
55. Kirikkaleli, D. & Osmanlı, A. (2023). The impact of political stability on environmental quality in the long run: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(11), 9056. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119056
56. Kwakwa, P. A. (2023). Climate change mitigation role of renewable energy consumption: does institutional quality matter in the case of reducing Africa's carbon dioxide emissions?. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, 118234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118234
57. Kwiatkowski D., Phillips P. C. B., Schmidt P. & Shin Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that the economic time series have a unit root?, Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
58. Liu, Q., Wang, S., Zhang, W. & Li, J. (2018). Income distribution and environmental quality in China: A spatial econometric perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.090
59. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601-618.
60. Magazzino, C., Toma, P., Fusco, G., Valente, D., & Petrosillo, I. (2022). Renewable energy consumption, environmental degradation and economic growth: the greener the richer?. Ecological Indicators, 139, 108912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108912
61. Manga, M. & Akar, P. G. (2020). Ekonomik büyüme, karbon emisyonu ve insani gelişmişlik arasındaki ilişki: Seçilmiş Akdeniz ülkeleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.555415
62. Mert, M. & Caglar, A. E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: a new perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32933-32943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09469-7
63. Mukiyen Avcı, G. (2023). Environmental impact of foreign direct investment in Turkey: Does the quality of institutions matter? Evidence from time series analysis using the Fourier extension. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(49), 107841-107853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29964-x
64. Musah, M., Mensah, I. A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., ... & Coffie, C. P. K. (2022). Reinvestigating the pollution haven hypothesis: the nexus between foreign direct investments and environmental quality in G-20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 31330–31347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17508-0
65. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
66. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint and human well-being nexus: accounting for broad-based financial development, globalization, and natural resources in the Next-11 countries. Future Business Journal, 7(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00071-y
67. Nguea, S. M. & Fotio, H. K. (2024). Synthesizing the role of biomass energy consumption and human development in achieving environmental sustainability. Energy, 130500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130500
68. Nuţă, F. M., Sharafat, A., Abban, O. J., Khan, I., Irfan, M., Nuţă, A. C., ... & Asghar, M. (2024). The relationship among urbanization, economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and environmental degradation: A comparative view of European and Asian emerging economies. Gondwana Research, 128, 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.10.023
69. Pata, U. K., Aydin, M. & Haouas, I. (2021). Are natural resources abundance and human development a solution for environmental pressure? Evidence from top ten countries with the largest ecological footprint. Resources Policy, 70, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101923
70. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
71. Pethig, R. (1976). Pollution, welfare, and environmental policy in the theory of Comparative Advantage. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2(3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(76)90031-0
72. Porter, M. E. & Linde, C. V. D. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138392.
73. Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Nair, M., Hall, J. H. & Bennett, S. E. (2022). Institutional development in an information-driven economy: Can ICTs enhance economic growth for low-and lower middle-income countries?. Information Technology for Development, 28(3), 468-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2051417
74. Qayyum, M., Zhang, Y., Ali, M. & Kirikkaleli, D. (2024). Towards environmental sustainability: The role of information and communication technology and institutional quality on ecological footprint in MERCOSUR nations. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 34, 103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103523
75. Rana, R. & Sharma, M. (2019). Dynamic causality testing for EKC hypothesis, pollution haven hypothesis and international trade in India. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(3), 348-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1542451
76. Ravallion, M., Heil, M. & Jalan, J. (2000). Carbon emissions and income inequality. Oxford Economic Papers, 52(4), 651-669. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/52.4.651
77. Rojas-Vallejos, J. & Lastuka, A. (2020). The income inequality and carbon emissions trade-off revisited. Energy Policy, 139, 111302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111302
78. Salari, M., Javid, R. J. & Noghanibehambari, H. (2021). The nexus between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in the US. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.007
79. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R. & Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
80. Sarkodie, S. A. & Adams, S. (2018). Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Science of the total environment, 643, 1590-1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320
81. Shahbaz, M. (2010). Income inequality‐economic growth and non‐linearity: A case of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(8), 613-636. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291011060652
82. Sherani, S. (2019). Institutional reforms in Pakistan: Missing piece of the development puzzle. S. S. Aneel, U. T. Haroon, & I. Niazi (Eds.), 70, 39-61.
83. Shin, Y., Yu, B. & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications, 281-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9
84. Solt, F. (2020). Measuring income inequality across countries and over time: The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly 101(3), 1183-1199. SWIID Version 9.6, December 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12795
85. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
86. Temurlenk, M. S. & Lögün, A. (2022). An analysis of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis in the context of Turkey: A nonlinear approach. Economics and Business Review, 8(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2022.1.2
87. Torras, M. & Boyce, J. K. (1998). Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological economics, 25(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00177-8
88. Ulubasoglu, M. A., & Doucouliagos, C. (2004). Institutions and economic growth: A systems approach. In Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings Paper 63, 1-33.
89. Ur Rahman, Z., Chongbo, W., & Ahmad, M. (2019). An (a) symmetric analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis in the context of Pakistan: a non-linear approach. Carbon Management, 10(3), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1577179
90. Uzar, U. (2020). Is income inequality a driver for renewable energy consumption?. Journal of cleaner production, 255, 120287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120287
91. Uzar, U. & Eyuboglu, K. (2023). Does income inequality increase the ecological footprint in the US: evidence from FARDL test?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 9514-9529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22844-w
92. Uzar, U. & Eyuboglu, K. (2024). Testing the asymmetric impacts of income inequality, financial development and human development on ecological footprint in Türkiye: A NARDL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 461, 142652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142652
93. Wang, M. L., Ntim, V. S., Yang, J., Zheng, Q. & Geng, L. (2021). Effect of institutional quality and foreign direct investment on economic growth and environmental quality: evidence from African countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 4065-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2010112
94. Wawrzyniak, D. & Doryń, W. (2020). Does the quality of institutions modify the economic growth-carbon dioxide emissions nexus? Evidence from a group of emerging and developing countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 124-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1708770
95. Yang, H. (2024). Research on factors influencing and forecasting regional gross domestic product—A case study of Sichuan province. Journal of Theory and Practice in Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(4), 21-32. https://woodyinternational.com/index.php/jtphss/article/view/53
96. Yang, Z., Zhang, M., Liu, L. & Zhou, D. (2022). Can renewable energy investment reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from scale and structure. Energy Economics, 112, 106181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106181
97. Yilanci, V., Cutcu, I., Cayir, B. & Saglam, M. S. (2023). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 188, 114626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114626
98. Yurtkuran, S. (2021). The effect of agriculture, renewable energy production, and globalization on CO2 emissions in Turkey: A bootstrap ARDL approach. Renewable Energy, 171, 1236-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.009
99. Zhang, C. & Zhao, W. (2014). Panel estimation for income inequality and CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in China. Applied Energy, 136, 382-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.048
100. Zheng, J., Assad, U., Kamal, M. A & Wang, H. (2024). Foreign direct investment and carbon emissions in China:“Pollution Haven” or “Pollution Halo”? Evidence from the NARDL model. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 67(3), 662-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2130194