The Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emissions on Health Expenditures in Developing Countries

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 167 - 181, 31.10.2025

Burak Baş

https://doi.org/10.55517/mrr.1793949

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to measure the long-run effects of changes in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions on total (public and private) health expenditures in twenty developing countries over the period 2000–2021. Situated at the intersection of environmental, health, and fiscal policy often sidelined in the literature it seeks to make emission-sensitive budget dynamics visible through a quantitative, cross-country–heterogeneous framework and to provide evidence-based input for policy design. Method: The dataset comprises health expenditures, CO₂ emissions, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), urbanization rate, and labor force participation. Cross-sectional dependence is assessed using the LM test; stationarity is examined with the second-generation CIPS unit root tests. Long-run relationships are verified via the Westerlund cointegration test, and slope heterogeneity is evaluated with the Pesaran–Yamagata test. Long-run coefficients and country-specific elasticities are estimated using the Pedroni Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares Mean Group (DOLSMG) estimator, which accounts for endogeneity and heterogeneity. Robustness checks include alternative weightings and sub-sample analyses. Results: Panel-average estimates indicate that a 1% increase in CO₂ emissions raises health expenditures by approximately 1.18% in the long run. Control variables behave as expected: a 1% rise in GDP increases health expenditures by about 1.39%; urbanization by 4.75%; and labor force participation by 0.38%. Marked cross-country heterogeneity emerges: Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Türkiye, South Africa, and Vietnam display strong positive CO₂ expenditure elasticities, whereas Egypt, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Argentina exhibit negative coefficients. These differences are consistent with reporting practices, fiscal constraints, the breadth of health system coverage, and composition effects linked to the morbidity profile of emissions. An elasticity greater than one implies a disproportionate budgetary burden from rising emissions. Conclusion: CO₂ emissions significantly and strongly increase health expenditures in the long run. These finding positions carbon mitigation not only as an environmental objective but also as a medium-term cost-containment instrument for health policy. Policy implications include: (i) allocating carbon pricing revenues to climate-resilient health infrastructure; (ii) designing coordinated packages that pair emission control with public health investments tailored to country-specific vulnerabilities; and (iii) mitigating pollution intensity associated with urbanization through transport/housing planning and strengthening primary care. Overall, the results underscore the need for integrated, country-specific coordination between environmental policy and health budgeting.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide emissions , health expenditures , developing countries , DOLSMG

Ethical Statement

As the data used in this study are publicly available, no application to an ethics committee was required.

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received from any individual, institution, or organization for the conduct or publication of this study.

Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Karbondioksit Emisyonlarının Sağlık Harcamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, 2000 ile 2021 yılları arasında yirmi gelişmekte olan ülkede karbondioksit (CO₂) emisyonlarındaki değişimlerin kamu ve özel toplam sağlık harcamaları üzerindeki uzun dönemli etkisini ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Literatürde çoğu kez geri planda kalan çevre, sağlık ve maliye alanlarının kesişiminde, emisyonlara duyarlı bütçe dinamiklerini ülkeler arası farklılıkları dikkate alan nicel bir yaklaşımla görünür kılmak ve politika tasarımına kanıta dayalı katkı sunmak hedeflenmiştir. Yöntem: Veri seti, sağlık harcamaları, CO₂ emisyonları, kişi başına gayri safi yurtiçi hasıla (GSYH), kentleşme oranı ve işgücüne katılım değişkenlerinden oluşur. Panelde yatay kesit bağımlılığı LM testiyle sınanmış; durağanlık ikinci nesil CIPS birim kök testleriyle incelenmiştir. Uzun dönem ilişki Westerlund eşbütünleşme testiyle teyit edilmiş; eğim heterojenliği Pesaran–Yamagata testiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Uzun dönem katsayılar ve ülke-bazlı esneklikler, içsellik ve heterojenliği gözeten Pedroni DOLSMG tahmincisiyle elde edilmiştir. Sağlamlık için alternatif ağırlıklandırmalar ve alt-örnek kontrolleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Panel-ortalama sonuçlar, CO₂ emisyonlarındaki %1’lik artışın sağlık harcamalarını uzun dönemde yaklaşık %1,18 artırdığını göstermektedir. Kontrol değişkenleri beklenen yöndedir: GSYH’da %1’lik artış harcamaları ~%1,39; kentleşme %4,75; işgücüne katılım %0,38 ölçüsünde yükseltmektedir. Ülke düzeyinde belirgin heterojenlik saptanmıştır: Suudi Arabistan, Rusya, Hindistan, Türkiye, Güney Afrika ve Vietnam’da CO₂–harcama esnekliği pozitif ve güçlü; Mısır, Pakistan, Kazakistan ve Arjantin’de ise negatif katsayılar gözlenmiştir. Bu farklılaşma, raporlama farkları, mali kısıtlar, sağlık sistemi kapsayıcılığı ve emisyonların morbidite profiliyle ilişkili kompozisyon etkileriyle tutarlıdır. Esneklik değerinin birden büyük olması, artan emisyonların sağlık bütçesi üzerinde orantısız yük doğurduğunu ima etmektedir. Sonuç: CO₂ emisyonları sağlık harcamalarını uzun dönemde anlamlı ve güçlü biçimde artırmaktadır. Bu bulgu, karbon azaltımını yalnız çevresel bir hedef değil, aynı zamanda orta vadede maliyet düşürücü bir sağlık politikası aracı olarak konumlandırır. Politika düzeyinde (i) karbon fiyatlaması gelirlerinin iklim dirençli sağlık altyapısına tahsisi, (ii) ülke-özel kırılganlıklara göre eş zamanlı emisyon kontrolü–halk sağlığı yatırımı paketleri, (iii) kentleşmenin kirletici yoğunluğunu azaltacak ulaşım/konut planlaması ve birinci basamak güçlendirmesi önerilir. Bulgular, çevre politikaları ile sağlık bütçelemesi arasında bütüncül, ülkeye özgü bir eşgüdüm gerektirdiğini açıkça göstermektedir.

Keywords

Karbondioksit emisyonları , sağlık harcamaları , gelişmekte olan ülkeler , DOLSMG

References

• Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet Global Health.2015;386(10006):1861–1914.
• Ebi KL, Hess JJ, Watkiss P. Health risks and costs of climate variability and change. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:259–277.
• World Health Organization (WHO). Climate change and health: key facts [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2018 [cited 2025 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health.
• Patz JA, Frumkin H, Holloway T, Vimont DJ, Haines A. Climate change: challenges and opportunities for global health. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014;312(15):1565–1580.
• Haines A, Kovats RS, Campbell-Lendrum D, Corvalán C. Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation. The Lancet Global Health. 2006;367(9528):2101–2109.
• Markandya A, Sampedro J, Smith SJ, Van Dingenen R, Pizarro-Irizar C, Arto I, et al. Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. The Lancet Global Health. 2018;2(3):e126–e133.
• Romanello M, Di Napoli C, Green C, Kennard H, Lampard P, Scamman D, et al.The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms The Lancet Global Health. 2023;402(10419):2346–2394.
• Grossman GM, Krueger AB. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.1995;110(2):353–377.
• Grossman M. On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political Economy.1972;80(2):223–255.
• Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics. 2004;49(4):431–455.
• Pope CA III, Dockery DW. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2006;56(6):709–742.
• Chatterjee T, Dinda S. Climate change, human health and some economic issues. In: Dinda S, editor. Handbook of Research on Climate Change Impact on Health and Environmental Sustainability. Hershey (PA): IGI Global; 2016. p. 26–41.
• Lelieveld J, Pozzer A. Air pollution, climate change and health expenditure in emerging economies. Environmental Research Letters.2024;19(2):024012.
• Smith KR, Johnson D, Huang J. Ambient air pollution and the economics of health care in developing countries: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2024;39(1):1–14.
• Yadav M, Aneja R, Ahmed W. Do clean energy transition, environment degradation, and energy efficiency influence health expenditure? Empirical evidence from emerging countries. Journal of Cleaner Production.2023;428:139355.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group II – Fact sheet: Health [Internet]. Geneva: IPCC; 2022 [cited 2025 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/fact-sheets/health/.
• Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu S-C, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, et al.The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. The Lancet. 2024;404(10465):1847–1896.
• Gordon-Strachan GM, Parker SY, Harewood HC, Méndez-Lázaro PA, Saketa ST, Parchment KF, et al. The 2024 small island developing states report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change. The Lancet Global Health. 2024;12(4):e123–e140.
• International Monetary Fund (IMF). IMF engagement on health spending issues in surveillance and program work. Washington (DC): IMF; 2023.
• Behera DK, Rahut DB, Haridas HT, Tasneem SH. Public versus private health financing transition in low- and middle-income countries: exploring the crowding-out effects. The European Journal of Development Research. 2024;36(4):957–986.
• Batmunkh T, Baatar T, Byambasuren O. Crowding-out effect of out-of-pocket health expenditures on household welfare in Mongolia International Journal of Health Policy and Management.2022;11(3):1–12.
• Bloom DE, Canning D, Fink G. Population aging and economic growth. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2008.
• Omran AR. The epidemiologic transition: a theory of the epidemiology of population change. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 1971;49(4):509–538.
• Popkin BM. Nutrition, agriculture and the global food system in low and middle income countries. Food Policy. 2014;47:91–96.
• World Health Organization (WHO). Noncommunicable diseases: fact sheet [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2024 [cited 2025 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases.
• Ferkol T, Schraufnagel D. The global burden of respiratory disease. Annals of the American Thoracic Society.2014;11(3):404–406.
• Shao Q, Tao R, Luca MM. The effect of urbanization on health care expenditure: evidence from China. Frontiers in Public Health.. 2022;10:850872.
• Nguyen-Phung HT, Le H. Urbanization and health expenditure: an empirical investigation from households in Vietnam. Economies. 2024;12(6):153.
• Hales S, de Wet N, Maindonald J, Woodward A. Potential effect of population and climate changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical model. The Lancet Global Health.2002;360(9336):830–834.
• Patz J, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley JA. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature. 2005;438(7066):310–317.
• Narayan PK, Narayan S. Does environmental quality influence health expenditures? Ecological Economics, 2008;65(2):367-374.
• Chaabouni S, Zghidi N, Mbarek MB. On the causal dynamics between CO₂ emissions, health expenditures and economic growth. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2016;22:184–191.
• Usman M, Ma Z, Zafar MW, Haseeb A, Ashraf RU. Are air pollution, economic and non-economic factors associated with per capita health expenditures? evidence from emerging economies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2019;16(11):1967.
• Zheng X. Economic burden of air pollution on health in developing countries: a systematic review. Environmental Research Letters. 2017;12(12):123001.
• Raeissi P, Harati-Khalilabad T, Rezapour A, Hashemi SY, Mousavi A, Khodabakhshzadeh S. Effects of air pollution on public and private health expenditures in Iran: a time series study (1972–2014). Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. 2018;51(3):140–147.
• Jerrett M, Eyles J, Dufournaud C, Birch S. Environmental influences on healthcare expenditures: an exploratory analysis from Ontario, Canada Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2003;57(5):334–338.
• Anwar A, Hyder S, Bennett R, Younis M. Impact of environmental quality on healthcare expenditures in developing countries: a panel data approach. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(9):1608.
• Yahaya A, Nor NM, Habibullah MS, Ghani JA, Noor ZM. How relevant is environmental quality to per capita health expenditures? empirical evidence from a panel of developing countries. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:925.
• Alimi OY, Ajide KB, Isola WA. Environmental quality and health expenditure in ECOWAS. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020;22:5105–5127.
• Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2010.
• Pesaran MH, Yamagata T. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics.2008;142(1):50–93.
• Westerlund J. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2007;69(6):709–748.
• Pedroni P. Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. The Review of Economics and Statistics.2001;83(4):727–731.