ENERJİ SÜBVANSİYONLARININ ETKİLERİ VE TÜRKİYE AÇISINDAN AMPİRİK BİR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Abstract

Enerjinin kullanım alanları ve işlevlerine binaen hükümetler tarafından desteklenmeleri söz konusu olmaktadır. Bu desteklerin başında sübvansiyonlar gelmektedir. Günümüzde birçok ülke her yıl gayrisafi yurtiçi hasılaları(GSYİH)’ nın önemli bir kısmını enerji sübvansiyonlarına ayırmaktadırlar. Çeşitli enerji kaynakları olmakla birlikte enerji elde etmek için dünyada en çok başvurulan fosil yakıtlardır. Ancak fosil yakıtların neden olduğu olumsuz etkiler bu alandaki sübvansiyoların da sorgulanmasını gündeme getirmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, enerji sübvansiyonlarının çevresel, ekonomik ve sosyal etkilerini Türkiye uygulaması ile incelemektir. Böylece Türkiye açısından elde edilen bulguların ışığı altında izlenecek enerji sübvansiyonu politikası konusunda önerilerde bulunulabilinecektir. Bu çerçevede Türkiye için 1990-2018 dönemi verileri kullanılarak ARDL eştümleşme analizi ve Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi ile enerji sübvansiyonları ve çevresel etkiler arasında kısa vadede tek yönlü ilişki olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuca göre enerji sübvansiyonlarının aşamalı olarak tamamen kaldırılması, küresel CO2 emisyonlarını %5,8 azaltabilme potansiyeline sahiptir. Eştümleşme analiz sonuçlarına göre, enerji sübvansiyonlarının uzun dönemli ekonomik etkilerine rastlanmamıştır. Sosyal etkiler açısından da eştümleşme analizine göre enerji sübvansiyonlarının işsizlikle olan ilişkisi uzun dönemde anlamsız bulunmuştur. Bu bulgulara dayalı olarak Türkiye’de de enerji sübvansiyon politikalarından değişim yapılması gerektiği söylenebilir.

Keywords

• Enerji Sübvansiyonları
• Sübvansiyonlar
• Fosil Yakıtlar
• ARDL Eştümleşme Analizi
• Toda-Yamamoto Nedensellik Analizi

EFFECTS OF ENERGY SUBSIDIES AND AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF TURKEY IN TERMS

Abstract

Energy uses and functions are supported by governments. At the beginning of these supports are subsidies. Currently, many countries allocate a significant portion of their gross domestic product (GDP) to energy subsidies every year. Although there are various energy sources, they are the most commonly used fossil fuels in the world to obtain energy. But the negative effects caused by fossil fuels have also raised questions about subsidies in this area. The aim of this study is to examine the environmental, economic and social effects of energy subsidies with the application of Turkey. In this way, suggestions can be made on the energy subsidy policy to be followed in the light of the findings obtained from Turkey's point of view. In this context, ARDL co-ordination analysis and Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis were applied for Turkey using 1990-2018 period data. According to the results of the analysis, it was found that there is a one-way relationship between the Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis and energy subsidies and environmental effects in the short term. According to these results, the gradual abolition of energy subsidies altogether has the potential to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 5.8%. Also, the results of the co-ordination analysis, the long-term economic effects of energy subsidies were not observed. In term of social effects, according to the co-integration analysis, the relationship of energy subsidies with unemployment has been found to be meaningless for a long time. Based on these findings, it can be said that energy subsidy policies should be changed in Turkey as well.

Keywords

• Toda-Yamamota Nedensellik Analizi
• Energy Subsidies
• Subsidies
• Fossil Fuels ARDL Cointegration Analysis

References

1. Acar, S.; Yeldan, E. (2016). “Environmental Impacts of Coal Subsidies in Turkey: A General Equilibrium Analysis”. Energy Policy, 90, 1-15.
2. Acar, S.; Kitson, L.; Bridle, R. (2015). “Subsidies to Coal and Renewable Energy in Turkey, Geneva: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)”, Global Subsidies Initiative Report.
3. Anatolian Agency (AA). “Turkey Gains Gas Find Worth $80 Billion: IEA Head”, 24 August 2020. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/projects/turkey-s-giant-gas-find-worth-80-billion-iea-head/30321 (Erişim Tarihi: 29.08.2020).
4. Anatolian Agency (AA). “Turkey to Stabilize Consumer Fuel Tax with New Rule”, 17 May 2018. www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/transportation-fuel-oil/turkey-to-stabilize-consumer-fuel-tax-with-newrule/20091, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.05.2020).
5. Anderson, K.; McKibbin W. J. (1997). “Reducing Coal Subsidies and Trade Barriers: Their Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Abatement”. University of Adelaide, Center for International Economic Studies (CIES), Seminar Paper 97-07.
6. Arıkboğa, Ü. (2019). “Çevre Politikasının Ekonomik Araçları ve Türkiye’de Belediye Uygulamaları”, Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 41(1), 23-50.
7. BBC News, “Karadeniz’de Bulunan Doğal Gaz Rezervi 405 Milyar Metreküpe Yükseldi”, https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-54585247", (Erişim Tarihi: 09.01.2020).
8. Bridle, R.; Kitson, L., The Impact of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies on Renewable Electricity Generation. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2014, http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/impact-fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewable-electricity-generation.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.11.2020).

9. Burniaux, J. M.; Chanteau, J. (2010). Potential of Removing Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A General Equilibrium Assessment. Paris: OECD.
10. Burniaux, J. M.; Château, J.; Dellink, R.; Duval, R.; Jamet, S. (2009). “The Economics of Climate Mitigation: How to Build to Necessary Global Action in a Cost-Effective Manner”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 701, Paris: OECD Publishing.
11. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Wind and Solar PV vs Coal (2020). London: https://carbontracker.org, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.11.2020).
12. Czako, V. (2020). Employment in the Energy Sector Status Report 2020, EUR 30186 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
13. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı (2010). Petrol Rafinerileri için MET Kılavuzu, IPPC – Entegre Kirlilik Önleme ve Kontrol Eşleştirme Projesi TR 2008 IB EN 03, Faaliyet No: 2.1.4.d.3, Ankara.
14. Del Granado, J. A.; Coady, D.; Gillingham, R. (2010), “The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies: A Review of Evidence for Developing Countries”, IMF Working Paper, Washington D.C.
15. Dickey, D. A.; Fuller, W.A. (1979). “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427-431.
16. Dobbs, R.; Oppenheim, J.; Thompson, F.; Brinkman, M.; Zornes, M. (2011). Resource Revolution: Meeting The World’s Energy, Materials, Food, and Water Needs, McKinsey Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/resource-revolution#, (Erişim Tarihi: 07.10.2020).
17. Doukas, A.; Gençsü, I. (2019). Turkey: G20 Coal Subsidies. Overseas Development Institute.
18. Elliott, G.; Rothenberg, T. J.; Stock, J. H.(1996). “Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root”. Econometrica, 64(4), 813–836.
19. Enerji Atlası. Türkiye Doğal Gaz Tüketimi, https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/dogalgaz-tuketimi/, (Erişim Tarihi: 28.01.2021).
20. Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu (EPDK) (2020). Doğal Gaz Piyasası 2019 Yılı Sektör Raporu. Ankara: Strateji geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı.
21. IEA (2018). World Energy Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD.
22. IEA (2016), Medium-Term Coal Market: Market Analysis and Forecasts to 2021. Paris: International Energy Agency.
23. IEA (2010). World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: OECD.
24. IEA (2001). Coal Information. Paris: OECD.
25. IEA (1999). World Energy Outlook Insights, looking at Energy Subsidies: Getting the Prices Right. Paris: OECD.
26. IPC (2016). Coal Report: Turkey’s Coal Policies Related to Climate Change, Economy and Health. Istanbul Policy Centre, Istanbul.
27. Katz, G. (2016). How Many Jobs Does Clean Energy Create?. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-many-jobs-does-clean-energy-create, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2020).
28. Kaytazoğlu, O.; Tatlıcı, E.; Temel, E. (2020). “Doğal Gaz Bulundu: Karadeniz’deki Gaz Keşfi Türkiye’yi Nasıl Etkiler?”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-53868045 (Erişim Tarihi: 22.08.2020).
29. Konrad, T. (2011). The Microeconomics of Green Jobs, Alt Energy Stocks, http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2011/10/the_microeconomics_of_green_jobs_1/. (Erişim Tarihi: 26.01.2021).
30. Lee, J.; Strazicich, M. C. (2003). “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
31. Lee, J.; Strazicich, M. C. (2004). “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break”, Appalachian State University Department of Economics Working Papers, No. 04-17.
32. Lin, B.; Jiang, Z. (2011). “Estimates of Energy Subsidies in China and Impact of Energy Subsidy Reform”. Energy Economics, 33(2), 273-283.
33. Lumsdaine, R. L.; Papell, D. H. (1997). “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
34. NTV, Yeni Doğal Gaz Rezervi Türkiye’nin Kaç Yıllık İhtiyacını Karşılayacak?, https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/yeni-dogalgaz-rezervi-turkiyenin-kac-yillik-ihtiyacini-karsilayacak,aoYhC2LI1kWL4r2PBDiFVw. (Erişim Tarihi: 28.01.2021).
35. OECD (2019a). Economic Policy Reforms 2019: Going for Growth.
36. OECD (2019b). “OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Turkey 2019”, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309753-en. (Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2021).
37. OECD (2019c). Fossil Fuel Support Country Note: Turkey, http://www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/data/. (Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2020).
38. OECD (2018). “OECD Analysis of Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures, Turkey”, OECD-IEA Fossil Fuel Support and Other Analysis, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933892687.
39. OECD (2017a). Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
40. OECD (2017b). Agriculture Statistics: Agricultural Support Estimates, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/data/oecd-agriculture-statistics/agricultural-support-estimates-edition-2017_545b3853-en. (Erişim Tarihi: 14.01.2021).
41. OECD (2005a). Environmental Fiscal Reform for Poverty Reduction. Paris:
42. OECD (2005b). Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Challenges for Reform. Paris:
43. Perron, P. (1997). “Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Functions in Macroeconomic Variables”. Journal of Econometrics, 80(2), 355-385.
44. 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.
45. Phillips, P. C. B.; Perron, P. (1988). “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression”. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
46. Saunders, S.; Schneider, K. (2000). “Removing Energy Subsidies in Developing and Transition Economies”. ABARE, Conference Paper presented at 23rd Annual IAEE International Conference, Sydney.
47. Tamzok, N. (2014). “Petrokok İthalat Artışı Nasıl Durur?”, Enerji Günlüğü, https://www.enerjigunlugu.net/petrokok-ithalat-artisi-nasil-durur-10006yy.htm. (Erişim Tarihi: 29.01.2021).
48. Toda, H. Y.; Yamamoto, T. (1995). “Statistical Inference in Vector Auto Regressions with Possibly Integrated Processes”. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
49. TUİK, Sera Emisyon Gazı İstatistikleri 1990-2018.
50. World Bank (2012). The Real Cost of Fossil Fuels. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/09/real-costs-fossil-fuel-subsidies. (Erişim Tarihi: 02.10.2020).
51. World Energy Outlook (WEO) (1999). Looking at Energy Subsidies: Getting the Prices Right. Paris: IEA Publications.
52. World Health Organization (2018). Houeshold Air Pollution and Health, https://www.who.int/airpollution/infographics/Air-pollution-INFOGRAPHICS-English-5-1200px.jpg. (Erişim Tarihi: 03.12.2020).
53. Yıldızhan, H. (2017). “Incentive Policies for Coal Plants in Turkey”. Thermal Science, 21(5), 1917-1924.