The Impact of Governance Indicators on Environmental Sustainability in Türkiye

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to analyze the institutional determinants of environmental sustainability in Türkiye. In particular, the effects of governance indicators such as government effectiveness, political stability, regulatory quality, rule of law and anti-corruption on environmental sustainability are investigated. The study makes an original contribution to the literature by discussing the role of governance on environmental outcomes in the context of an emerging economy.
Method: In this study, annual data for Türkiye for the period 1996-2023 are used; the stationarity levels of the variables are tested with ADF and PP unit root tests, and then the long-run relationship between the variables is analyzed with the Johansen cointegration test. Model estimation is performed by Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) method and the long-run causality between variables is evaluated.
Results: The findings reveal that governance indicators have significant effects on environmental sustainability. While indicators such as government effectiveness, regulatory quality and rule of law have a supportive effect on environmental sustainability, weakness in the fight against corruption stands out as a factor that increases environmental degradation. These results show that institutional structures are decisive for the success of environmental policies in Türkiye.
Conclusion: The findings of the study reveal that environmental sustainability is directly related not only to economic variables but also to governance structure and institutional capacity. In this context, governance reforms need to be implemented to increase the effectiveness of environmental policies. In developing countries like Türkiye, strengthening institutional structures in environmental policy design processes should be considered as a key priority.

Keywords

• Governance
• Environmental Sustainability
• FMOLS
• Türkiye
• Carbon Emission

Türkiye’de Yönetişim Göstergelerinin Çevresel Sürdürülebilirliğe Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de çevresel sürdürülebilirliği etkileyen kurumsal belirleyicileri analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle yönetişim göstergeleri olarak hükümet etkinliği, politik istikrar, düzenleyici kalite, hukukun üstünlüğü ve yolsuzlukla mücadele gibi unsurların çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmıştır. Çalışma, gelişmekte olan bir ekonomi bağlamında yönetişimin çevresel çıktılar üzerindeki rolünü tartışarak literatüre özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Yöntem: Çalışmada, 1996–2023 dönemine ait yıllık Türkiye verileri kullanılmış; değişkenlerin durağanlık düzeyleri ADF ve PP birim kök testleriyle test edilmiş, ardından değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişki Johansen eşbütünleşme testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Model tahmini Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiş ve değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli nedensellikler değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Elde edilen bulgular, yönetişim göstergelerinin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde anlamlı etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Hükümet etkinliği, düzenleyici kalite ve hukukun üstünlüğü gibi göstergeler çevresel sürdürülebilirliği destekleyici yönde etkide bulunurken, yolsuzlukla mücadeledeki zayıflık çevresel bozulmayı artırıcı bir unsur olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu sonuçlar, Türkiye özelinde kurumsal yapıların çevre politikalarının başarısında belirleyici olduğunu göstermektedir.

Sonuçlar: Çalışmanın bulguları, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin yalnızca ekonomik değişkenlerle değil, yönetişimsel yapı ve kurumsal kapasiteyle de doğrudan ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda, çevresel politikaların etkinliğini artırmak için yönetişim reformlarının hayata geçirilmesi gerekmektedir. Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ülkelerde çevre ile ilgili politika tasarım süreçlerinde kurumsal yapıların güçlendirilmesi temel öncelik olarak değerlendirilmelidir.

Keywords

• Yönetişim
• Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik
• FMOLS
• Türkiye
• Karbon Emisyonu

References

1. ARNDT, C. E. (2009). Governance indicators. Maastricht University. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20090605ca
2. ASONGU, S. A., and ODHIAMBO, N. M. (2020). Governance, CO₂ emissions and inclusive human development in sub‐Saharan Africa. Sustainable Development, 28(1), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1974
3. BAKHSH, K., ROSE, J. M., AKRAM, W., and ASHFAQ, M. (2021). Do foreign capital and governance quality matter for environmental sustainability? Evidence from Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 58489–58504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14096-x
4. DASH, D. P., RATHA, A., BHANJA, N., and DASH, A. K. (2024). Do green innovation and governance limit CO₂ emissions? Evidence from panel data and decision tree models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 11919–11935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27466-4
5. DICKEY, D. A., and FULLER, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431.
6. İFELUNINI, A. I., OSABOHIEN, R., and OKORIE, U. (2023). Economic growth, governance and CO₂ emissions in West Africa. Environmental Quality Management, 33(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/qaj.2444
7. JOHANSEN, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231–254.
8. JOHANSEN, S., and JUSELIUS, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169–210.

9. KAUFMANN, D., and KRAAY, A. (2008). Governance indicators: Where are we, where should we be going? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkm012
10. KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., and MASTRUZZI, M. (2005). Governance Matters IV: Governance indicators for 1996–2004. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 3630. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3630
11. KNACK, S., KUGLER, M., and MANNING, N. (2003). Second-generation governance indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003
12. LIU, Q., TANG, Y., and ZHANG, M. (2023). Urbanization, local governance and CO₂ emissions: Evidence from Chinese cities. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 25, 10169–10190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04335-1
13. MEHMOOD, U., DANISH, and REHMAN, A. (2023). The role of governance in CO₂ emissions: Empirical evidence from developing countries. Management of Environmental Quality, 34(6), 1503–1523. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-05-2023-0151
14. PHILLIPS, P. C., & HANSEN, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The review of economic studies, 57(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545
15. PHILLIPS, P. C. B., and PERRON, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
16. RONAGHI, M. H., and SCORSONE, E. A. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 outbreak on CO₂ emissions in the ten most polluted countries: New evidence from governance indicators. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2023, Article ID 2490380. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2490380
17. SADAOUI, S. E. H., BELMOKADDEM, M., and NACEUR, M. (2022). The moderating role of natural resources between governance and CO₂ emissions: Evidence from MENA countries. GeoJournal, 88, 1607–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10772-y
18. SZETELA, B., MENTEL, G., and BROŻYNA, J. (2022). Renewable energy consumption, governance and CO₂ emissions: Panel evidence from resource-based economies. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 6804–6830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-12237-2
19. TANG, W., YANG, Y., and LIU, Z. (2024). Do governance indicators matter for environmental outcomes? Evidence from BRICS countries. Heliyon, 10(3), e25614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25614
20. THOMAS, M. A. (2010). What do the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure? The European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2009.32
21. WANG, H., DU, X., and WU, Y. (2022). How does governance affect carbon trading markets? Evidence from China's pilot carbon markets. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 10501–10525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01283-6
22. WANG, Q., SU, M., and LI, R. (2021). Does governance quality matter for CO₂ emissions in China? New evidence using a nonlinear ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 47130–47146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12237-2
23. WILLIAMS, A., and SIDDIQUE, A. (2008). The use (and abuse) of governance indicators in economics: A review. Economics of Governance, 9(2), 131–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-006-0025-9
24. WORLD BANK. (2025a). Worldwide governance indicators. Access date: 10 April 2025, https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
25. WORLD BANK. (2025b). World development indicators. Access date: 10 April 2025, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.CO₂.ZG.AR5
26. ZHANG, Y., CHEN, M., and ZHAO, H. (2023). Integrating governance and renewable energy in carbon emission forecasting using machine learning. Discover Sustainability, 4, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00418-9