Pasifik Puma Ülkelerinde Demokrasinin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi: Gelir Düzeyinin Rolü

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Pasifik Puma ülkelerinde (Şili, Kolombiya, Meksika ve Peru) demokrasinin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisini gelirin moderatörlüğünde test etmektir. Bu amaçla 1990-2018 dönemine ait veriler kullanılarak Westerlund (2007) eş bütünleşme analizi ve Ortak İlişkili Etkiler Tahmincisi (CCE) uygulanmıştır. Demokrasi ve çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklayan yaklaşımlar göz önünde bulundurulduğunda demokrasinin çevre üzerindeki etkisi farklılaşmaktadır. Bu farklılaşmanın önemli bir nedeni demokrasi- çevre ilişkisini açıklamada gelirin düzenleyici rolünün göz ardı edilmesi olabilir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada çarpımsal etkileşim modeli kullanılarak gelir ve demokrasi düzeyindeki değişikliklerin çevresel bozulmayı nasıl etkilediği incelenmiştir. Çalışmada çevresel bozulma göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi (EF) endeksi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre uzun dönemde değişkenler arasında eş bütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. Çalışmanın diğer bulgularına göre demokrasi ve gelir düzeyindeki artış ekolojik ayak izini artırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte demokrasinin ekolojik ayak izi zerindeki etkisinde gelirin rolü önemli olmaktadır. Gelir düzeyi arttıkça demokrasideki artış ekolojik ayak izini azaltmaktadır. Dolayısıyla demokrasinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi gelir düzeyi ile koşullandırılmaktadır.

Keywords

• çevresel bozulma
• demokrasi
• gelir
• etkileşim etkisi
• CCE metodu

The Impact of Democracy on Environmental Degradation in Pacific Pumas Countries: The Role of Income Level

Abstract

This study aims to test the moderating effect of income on the relationship between democracy and environmental degradation in the Pacific Pumas countries (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru). For this purpose, the Westerlund (2007) cointegration analysis and the Common Correlated Effect (CCE) estimator were applied using data for the period 1990-2018. Considering the approaches that explain the relationship between democracy and environmental degradation, the impact of democracy on the environment differs. An important reason for this differentiation may be due to ignoring the regulatory role of income in explaining the democracy-environment relationship. In this context, the study examined how changes in income and democracy levels affect environmental degradation using the multiplicative interaction model. In this study, the ecological footprint (EF) index is used as an indicator of environmental degradation. The results show that there is a cointegration relationship between the variables in the long run. Other findings of the study reveal that an increase in the level of democracy and income increase the ecological footprint. However, the impact of democracy on the ecological footprint varies according to the income level. As income levels increase, the increase in democracy reduces the ecological footprint. Therefore, the effect of democracy on the ecological footprint is conditioned by the level of income.

Keywords

• Environmental degradation
• democracy
• income
• interaction effect
• CCE method

References

1. Acaravcı, A. ve Erdoğan, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir Enerji, Çevre ve Ekonomik Büyüme Ilişkisi: Seçilmiş Ülkeler için Ampirik Bir Analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.359419
2. Acheampong, A. O., Opoku, E. E. O. ve Dzator, J. (2022). Does Democracy Really Improve Environmental Quality? Empirical Contribution To The Environmental Politics Debate. Energy Economics, 109, 105942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105942
3. Adams, S. ve Acheampong, A. O. (2019). Reducing Carbon Emissions: The Role of Renewable Energy and Democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118245
4. Adams, S. ve Klobodu, E. K. M. (2017). Urbanization, Democracy, Bureaucratic Quality, and Environmental Degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39, 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.04.006
5. Adebayo, T. S., Rjoub, H., Akadiri, S. S., Oladipupo, S. D., Sharif, A., ve Adeshola, I. (2022). The role of economic complexity in the environmental Kuznets curve of MINT economies: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 24248-24260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17524-0
6. Ahmad, M., Muslija, A., ve Satrovic, E. (2021). Does economic prosperity lead to environmental sustainability in developing economies? Environmental Kuznets curve theory. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22588-22601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12276-9
7. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., ve Nawaz, K. (2020). Moving Towards A Sustainable Environment: The Dynamic Linkage Between Natural Resources, Human Capital, Urbanization, Economic Growth, and Ecological Footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677
8. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., ve Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251

9. Agozie, D. Q., Gyamfi, B. A., Bekun, F. V., Ozturk, I., ve Taha, A. (2022). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis from lens of economic complexity index for BRICS: evidence from second generation panel analysis. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102597
10. Akalın, G. ve Erdogan, S. (2021). Does Democracy Help Reduce Environmental Degradation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 7226-7235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1
11. Akar, H., Giray, F., ve Kar, M. (2021). Fosil Yakıtlara Verilen Sübvansiyonların Sosyal ve Ekonomik Etkileri: OECD Ülkeleri için Ampirik Bir Analiz. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 352-375. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.970627
12. Ansari, M. A. (2022). Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets curve for ASEAN: A comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112867
13. Apaydin, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin Ekolojik Ayakizi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Türkiye Örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.695836
14. Apergis, N., ve Öztürk, I. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological indicators, 52, 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026
15. İsaoğlu, A. ve Arvas, M. A. (2022). The Relationship Between Growth, CO2 Emission and Energy Consumption: A Panel Cointegration Approach for Selected Country Groups. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 17(66), 558-573. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.1063925
16. Atıcı, C. (2009). Carbon Emissions in Central and Eastern Europe: Environmental Kuznets Curve and Implications for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.372
17. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M., ve 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
18. Barrett, S., ve Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, Growth, and the Environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5(04), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X00000267
19. Demissew, B. S., ve Kotosz, B. (2020). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: an empirical study for East African countries. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 77(4), 636-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1695445
20. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Onifade, S. T., ve Agboola, M. O. (2021). Beyond the environmental Kuznets Curve in E7 economies: accounting for the combined impacts of institutional quality and renewables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127924
21. Bernauer, T., ve Koubi, V. (2009). Political Determinants of Environmental Quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
22. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
24. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political Institutions and Pollution Control. The Review of Economics And Statistics, 74(3): 412-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109485
25. Demir, Y. (2020). OECD Ülkelerine Ait Çeşitli Enerji Tüketimleri ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Panel Eş Bütünleşme Analizi ile İncelenmesi. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (32), 15-33. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2020.32.0005
26. Dünya Bankası (2023). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
27. Ehigiamusoe, K. U., Lean, H. H., ve Smyth, R. (2020). The Moderating Role of Energy Consumption in The Carbon Emissions-Income Nexus in Middle-Income Countries. Applied Energy, 261, 114215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114215
28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.010
29. George, S. (2014). The Pacific Pumas: An Emerging Model for Emerging Markets. Bertelsmann Foundation. Washington, DC, Estados Unidos.
30. Global Footprint Network (2023). https://www.data.footprintnetwork.org/
31. Güzel, İ. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme ile Ticari Açıklığın Enerji Tüketimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: G7 Ülkeleri için Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(1), 33-50.
32. Hanif, S., Nawaz, A., Hussain, A., ve Bhatti, M. A. (2022). Linking non renewable energy, renewable energy, globalization and CO2 emission under EKC hypothesis: evidence from ASEAN-6 countries through advance panel estimation. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(1), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2022.1001.0204
33. Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. ve Zhang, J. (2019). Linking Economic Growth and Ecological Footprint Through Human Capital and Biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
34. Hassan, M. S., Meo, M. S., Abd Karim, M. Z., ve Arshed, N. (2020). Prospects of environmental kuznets curve and green growth in developed and developing economies. Studies of Applied Economics, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v38i3.3367
35. Jian, J., Fan, X., He, P., Xiong, H. ve Shen, H. (2019). The Effects of Energy Consumption, Economic Growth and Financial Development on CO2 Emissions in China: A VECM Approach. Sustainability, 11(18), 4850. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184850
36. Kilinç, E. C. (2021). Ekolojik Ayak İzi-Enerji Ar-Ge Harcamaları İlişkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.723064
37. 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(8), 2353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082353
38. Küçükaksoy, İ., ve Akalin, G. (2017). Fisher Hipotezi'nin Panel Veri Analizi ile Test Edilmesi: OECD Ülkeleri Uygulaması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.303303
39. Kong, Y., ve Khan, R. (2019). To Examine Environmental Pollution by Economic Growth and Their Impact in An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Among Developed and Developing Countries. PloS one, 14(3), e0209532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209532
40. Li, Q., ve Reuveny R., 2006, Democracy and Environmental Degradation, International Studies Quarterly, 50(4): 935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00432.x
41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096
42. Mania, E. (2020). Export diversification and CO2 emissions: an augmented environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of International Development, 32(2), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3441
43. Obydenkova, A. (2008). Regime transition in the regions of Russia: The freedom of mass media: Transnational impact on sub‐national democratization?. European Journal of Political Research, 47(2), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00727.x
44. Oluç, İ. (2023). İnsani Kalkınma ile Karbonsuz Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmaya Farklı Bir Bakış Açısı. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences/Hacettepe Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1105010
45. Oluç, İ. (2023b). Ekonomide Yapısal Dönüşüm Ekolojik Ayak İzini Azaltabilir Mi? E7 Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Analiz/Can Structural Transformation in the Economy Reduce Ecological Footprint? An Analysis on E7 Countries. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 7(1), 74-91. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1216286
46. Özsoy, C. E. (2015). Düşük Karbon Ekonomisi ve Türkiye’nin Karbon Ayak İzi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 4(9), 198-215.
47. Pejović, B., Karadžić, V., Dragašević, Z., ve Backović, T. (2021). Economic Growth, Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in The Countries of The European Union and The Western Balkans. Energy Reports, 7, 2775-2783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.011
48. Pesaran, H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge, CWPE 0435
49. Pesaran, M.H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous panels with a Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74, pp. 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
50. 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.
51. Pesaran, H., Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias‐Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross‐Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, (11), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
52. Rudolph, A., ve Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of Ecological Footprints: What Is The Role of Globalization? Ecol. Indicat. 81, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.060
53. Romuald, K. S. (2011). Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels. Available at SSRN 2714300.
54. Povitkina, M., Jagers, S. C., Sjöstedt, M., ve Sundström, A. (2015). Democracy, Development and The Marine Environment–A Global Time-Series Investigation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 105, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.023
55. Shah, M. I., AbdulKareem, H. K., ve Abbas, S. (2022). Examining the agriculture induced Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in BRICS economies: The role of renewable energy as a moderator. Renewable Energy, 198, 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.052
56. Torras, M., ve 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
57. Ummalla, M., ve Goyari, P. (2021). The Impact of Clean Energy Consumption on Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions in BRICS countries: Does The Environmental Kuznets Curve Exist?. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(1), e2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2126
58. Ursavaş, N. (2022). OECD Ülkelerinde Demokrasinin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (37), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226
59. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., ve Wang, B. (2018). The Moderating Role of Corruption Between Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from BRICS Economies. Energy, 148, 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.167
60. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests of The Fisher Effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967
61. Winslow, M. (2005). Is democracy good for the environment?. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(5), 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500183074
62. Varieties of Democracy (2023). https://v-dem.net/data/
63. Yang, G., Sun, T., Wang, J., ve Li, X. (2015). Modeling The Nexus between Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Growth. Energy Policy, 86, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.031
64. Yao, S., Zhang, S., ve Zhang, X. (2019). Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: A revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1338-1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.069
65. You, W.H., Zhu H.M., ve Yuk P. C. (2015). Democracy, Financial Openness, and Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Heterogeneity Across Existing Emission Levels, World Development, 66: 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.013