Ekonomik Büyüme, Çevresel Vergiler, Demokrasi, Dışa Açıklık ve Kentleşme Türkiye’de Ekolojik Ayak İzini Etkiliyor mu?

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de 1994-2022 dönemi için demokrasi, çevresel vergiler, gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla (GSYİH), dışa açıklık ve kentleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi (EAİ) üzerindeki uzun dönemli etkileri incelenmektedir. Çalışmada Fourier Bootstrap Destekli ARDL ve Toda–Yamamoto nedensellik analizleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma bulgularına göre, demokrasi düzeyi ve ekonomik büyüme ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde uzun dönemde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olup çevreyi bozmaktadır. Buna karşın, çevresel vergiler, dışa açıklık ve kentleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olup uzun dönemde çevre üzerinde olumlu etkiye sahiptir. Bu ampirik sonuçlar, sürdürülebilir vergi politikaları, uluslararası teknoloji transferleri ve sürdürülebilir kentsel büyüme stratejilerinin potansiyel faydalarına işaret etmektedir. Eşbütünleşme bulgularının dayanıklılık testi için Fourier Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi uygulanmıştır. Nedensellik analizi sonuçları, demokrasinin, çevresel vergilerin ve kentsel nüfusun ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde tek yönlü etkisinin olduğunu, buna karşılık GSYİH’nin ve dışa açıklığın EAİ üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, demokratikleşme ve ekonomik büyüme ekolojik etkileri artırırken, çevresel vergilerin ekolojik ayak izini azaltmada etkili araçlar olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Ancak ekonomik kalkınmanın ekolojik sürdürülebilirlik ile uyumlu bir şekilde sürdürülmesi, Türkiye açısından karmaşık bir sorun oluşturmaya devam etmekte, bu da ülkenin ekonomik hedefleriyle uyumlu, iyi tasarlanmış çevre politikalarına duyulan ihtiyacı ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Ticari Dışa Açıklık
• Demokrasi
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Kentleşme

Ethical Statement

“Ekonomik Büyüme, Çevresel Vergiler, Demokrasi, Dışa Açıklık ve Kentleşme Türkiye’de Ekolojik Ayak İzini Etkiliyor mu?” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir. Bu araştırma da etik kurul kararı zorunluluğu bulunmamaktadır. Araştırmacıların Katkı Oranı Beyanı: Yazarların çalışmadaki katkı oranları eşittir. Çatışma Beyanı: Çalışmada herhangi bir potansiyel çıkar çatışması söz konusu değildir. Finansman: Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır. Yapay Zeka ve Türleri Kullanım Beyanı: Bu makalenin hazırlanması sırasında, yapay zeka destekli araçlar, özellikle ChatGPT, yalnızca İngilizceye çeviri yapmak ve seçilen cümlelerin dil, dilbilgisi ve okunabilirliğini iyileştirmek amacıyla sınırlı ölçüde kullanılmıştır. Bu aracın kullanımının ardından yazarlar, yapay zeka desteğiyle hazırlanan tüm içeriği dikkatle gözden geçirip düzeltmişlerdir ve yayınlanan makalenin doğruluğu, bütünlüğü ve nihai içeriği konusunda tüm sorumluluğu üstlenmektedirler.. Veri Paylaşım Beyanı: Bu çalışmanın verilerini bulguların doğrulanması amacıyla makul bir talep üzerine “etik ilkeler ve yayın politikası”nın ilgili kısmında belirtilen şartlara göre paylaşabileceğimizi beyan ederiz.

Do Democracy, Economic Growth, Environmental Taxes, Trade Openness and Urbanisation Impact Ecological Footprint in Türkiye?

Abstract

This paper explores the long-run effects of democracy, environmental taxes, gross domestic product (GDP), trade openness, and urbanisation on the ecological footprint (EFP) for Türkiye over the period 1994-2022. It adopts the Fourier bootstrap, Augmented ARDL, and Toda–Yamamoto causality methods. The findings indicate that democracy and economic expansion have a positive and statistically significant impact on the ecological footprint in the long run, thereby increasing environmental degradation. In contrast, environmental taxes, trade openness, and urbanisation exert a negative effect on the EFP in the long run, suggesting an environmentally improving role. These results highlight the potential benefits of sustainable tax policies, international technology transfer, and sustainable urban growth strategies. To test the robustness of the cointegration results, the Fourier Toda–Yamamoto causality analysis is also applied. The causality findings reveal a unidirectional causal effect running from democracy, environmental taxes, and urban population to the ecological footprint, whereas GDP and trade openness do not show a significant causal impact on EFP. Overall, the results suggest that environmental taxes can serve as an effective policy tool, while balancing economic growth with ecological sustainability remains a major challenge for Türkiye.

Keywords

• Trade Openness
• Democracy
• Ecological Footprint
• Economic Growth
• Urbanisation

Ethical Statement

During the writing process of the study “Do Democracy, Economic Growth, Environmental Taxes, Trade Openness and Urbanisation Impact Ecological Footprint in Türkiye?” scientific rules, ethical and citation rules were followed. No falsification was made on the collected data and this study was not sent to any other academic publication medium for evaluation. Ethics Committee Permission is not required. Statement of Contribution Rate of Researchers: The contribution rates of the authors in the study are equal. Declaration of Conflict: There is no potential conflict of interest in the study. Funding: No funding was received from any institution or organization for this study. Statement of Use for Artificial Intelligence and Its Types: During the preparation of this manuscript, an AI-assisted tool, specifically ChatGPT, was used to a limited extent solely for translation into English and for improving the language, grammar, and readability of selected sentences. Following its use, the authors carefully reviewed and revised all AI-assisted content, and accept full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and final content of the published article. Data Sharing Statement: We declare that, upon reasonable request for the purpose of verifying the findings, we can share the data of this study according to the conditions specified in the relevant section of the "ethical principles and publication policy".

References

1. Acheampong, A. O., Opoku, E. E. O., & 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
2. Adams, S., Adom, P. K., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2016). Urbanization, regime type and durability, and environmental degradation in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 23825-23839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7513-4
3. Ahmad, M., & Satrovic, E. (2023). How do transportation-based environmental taxation and globalization contribute to ecological sustainability?. Ecological Informatics, 74, 102009.
4. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022a). 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
5. Ahmed, Z., Adebayo, T. S., Udemba, E. N., Murshed, M., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022b). Effects of economic complexity, economic growth, and renewable energy technology budgets on ecological footprint: the role of democratic accountability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 24925-24940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17673-2
6. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., & 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
7. Ahmed, Z., Caglar, A. E., & Murshed, M. (2022c). A path towards environmental sustainability: the role of clean energy and democracy in ecological footprint of Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 358, 132007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132007
8. Ahmed Z, Wang Z (2019) Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(26):26782–26796. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-019-05911-7

9. Akalin, G., & 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
10. Akbar, A., Gul, A., Haider, S. A., Ahmad, S., Chen, S., Tehseen, S., & Asif, M. (2025). China’s outward FDI and globalization’s impact on CO2 emissions: a cross-country panel data analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-24.
11. Aksoy, A., Atasagun, B. (2023), Impact of land use and climate change on biodiversity loss. Biodiversity and Ecosystems (p. 9-30). Ankara. Turkish Academy of Sciences Publication. doi: 10.53478/TUBA.978-625-8352-58- 0.ch01
12. Albayrak, A. S. (2008). Değişen varyans durumunda en küçük kareler tekniğinin alternatifi ağırlıklı regresyon analizi ve bir uygulama. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 10(2), 133.
13. 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 nd North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
14. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Ozayturk, G., & Mike, F. (2023). Testing the long-run impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint: new evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto test results. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18610-7
15. Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia. Energy economics, 32(6), 1392-1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.001
16. Barca, S., & Bridge, G. (2015). Industrialization and environmental chance. T. Perreault, G. Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology (p. 366-377). Newyork. Routhledge.
17. Bozoklu, Ş., Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Persistence in per capita energy consumption: A fractional integration approach with a Fourier function. Energy Economics, 91, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104926
18. Castiglione, C., Infante, D., & Smirnova, J. (2012). Rule of law and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence for carbon emissions. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 4(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSE.2012.047932
19. Charfeddine, L., & 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
20. 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
21. Çamkaya, S., Polat, İ. H., & Polat, Ü. (2022). Are foreign direct investments effective on environmental quality in Turkey? An approach with non-linear ARDL method. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(17), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1023839
22. Çetin, M., Kapçak, S., & Can, A. (2022). Türkiye'de demokrasinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi: ARDL sınır testi. Balkan & Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences (BNEJSS), 8, 136-145.
23. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
24. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011.
25. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
26. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
27. Fredriksson, P. G., Neumayer, E., Damania, R., & Gates, S. (2005). Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control. Journal of environmental economics and management, 49(2), 343-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.04.004
28. Freedom House, (2025). https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world#Data. date of access January 12, 2025.
29. GFN, 2025. Global Footprint Network. National footprint accounts, ecological footprint. http://data.footprintnetwork.org. date of access January 5, 2025.
30. Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
31. Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
32. Güngör, H., Olanipekun, I. O., & Usman, O. (2021). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of energy consumption and democratic accountability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 1464- 1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10317-x
33. Hotunluoğlu, H., & Yılmaz, G. S. (2018). Demokrasi Karbondioksit Emisyonu İçin Önemli mi? Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-141.
34. IPCC (2023), Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6- 9789291691647.001.
35. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59(6), 1551–1580. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938278
36. Karaduman, C. (2022). The effects of economic globalization and productivity on environmental quality: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15717-1.
37. Keefer, P. (2007), Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 804-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00282.x.
38. Kocak, E. (2014). Türkiye’de çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi’nin geçerliliği: ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 62-73.
39. Koçak, E., Kızılkaya, O. (2020) Towards sustainable development in China: Do political rights and civil liberties matter for environmental quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 35488–35500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09813-x.
40. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.
41. Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation. International studies quarterly, 50(4), 935-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00432.x
42. Lin, B., & Li, X. (2011). The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy policy, 39(9), 5137-5146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.050
43. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096
44. McNown, R., Sam, C. Y., & Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
45. Nelson, C. R., & Plosser, C. R. (1982). Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics, 10(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(82)90012-5
46. OECD (2010), Taxation, Innovation and the Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087637-en.
47. OECD (2024). Environmentally Related Tax Revenues. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/ . date of access January 10, 2025
48. Ozturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy economics, 36, 262-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.025
49. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05266-z
50. 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
51. Pigou, A.C., (1920). The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London.
52. Pigou, A. C. (2017). The Economics of Welfare. Routledge.
53. Polat, İ. H., Yapraklı, S., & Çamkaya, S. (2024). Impact of Nuclear and Renewable Energy on CO2 Emissions in OECD countries Under the STIRPAT model: Evidence from the CS-ARDL Model. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 258-283. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14176539
54. Ponce de Leon Barido, D., & Marshall, J. D. (2014). Relationship between urbanization and CO2 emissions depends on income level and policy. Environmental science & technology, 48(7), 3632-3639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es405117n
55. Ploeg FWD, Withagen C (1991) Pollution control and Ramsey problem. Environ Resour Econ 1:215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00310019.
56. Rafiq, S., Salim, R., & Nielsen, I. (2016). Urbanization, openness, emissions, and energy intensity: a study of increasingly urbanized emerging economies. Energy Economics, 56, 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.02.007
57. Rahman, M. M., & Alam, K. (2021). Clean energy, population density, urbanization and environmental pollution nexus: Evidence from Bangladesh. Renewable Energy, 172, 1063-1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.103
58. Rees, W., Wackernagel, M. (2008). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability?. In: Marzluff, J.M., et al. Urban Ecology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_35
59. Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (2023). Ecological Footprint Accounting: Thirty Years and Still Gathering Steam. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 65(5), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2023.2225405
60. Romuald K.S., (2011). Democratic Institutions and Environmental Quality: Effects and Transmission Channels, EAAE 2011 Congress Switzerland. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.120396
61. 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
62. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895
63. Satır Reyhan, A., & Reyhan, H. (2016). Küresel ısınmanın nedenleri, sonuçları, çözümleri üzerine yeni değerlendirmeler. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 11(26), 1-24.
64. SDG. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/TheSustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2024.pdf.
65. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy economics, 61, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.008
66. Shahzad, U. (2020). Environmental taxes, energy consumption, and environmental quality: Theoretical survey with policy implications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 24848–24862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08349-4.
67. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Modelling the relationship between financing by the Islamic banking system and environmental quality: Evidence from bootstrap autoregressive distributive lag with Fourier terms. Quality & Quantity, 53(6), 2867–2884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00904-7
68. Stern, D.I. (2004) The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 38(8), 1419-1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
69. Stern, D.I. (2017) The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1
70. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy policy, 37(1), 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
71. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1–2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
72. Ursavaş, N. (2021). Türkiye’de Demokrasinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 56(4), 2745–2757. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.21.11.1720
73. Ursavaş, N., & Apaydın, Ş. (2024). Environmental Sustainability in Developing Countries: Does Democracy Matter?. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 19(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.5749
74. Uzar, U. (2021). The relationship between institutional quality and ecological footprint: is there a connection? Natural Resources Forum, 45(4), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12235
75. Voumik, L. C., & Ridwan, M. (2023). Impact of FDI, industrialization, and education on the environment in Argentina: ARDL approach. Heliyon, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12872
76. Wackernagel, M., and Rees, W. (1995). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC, and Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
77. Wang, N., Zhu, H., Guo, Y., & Peng, C. (2018). The heterogeneous effect of democracy, political globalization, and urbanization on PM2. 5 concentrations in G20 countries: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of cleaner production, 194, 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.092
78. WDI. (2025). World Development Indicators (WDI). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world- development-indicators. date of access January 13, 2025.
79. Yandle, B., Bhattarai, M., Vijayaraghavan, M. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curves: A review of findings, methods and policy implications. Research Study,2, 1-16.
80. Yılancı, V., Bozoklu, S., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Are BRICS countries pollution havens? Evidence from a bootstrap ARDL bounds testing approach with a Fourier function. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102035
81. You, W. H., Zhu, H. M., Yu, K., & Peng, 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