NATO Ülkelerinde Militarizasyonun İklim Değişikliği Üzerindeki Etkileri: Kurumsal Kalitenin Düzenleyici Rolüne İlişkin Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Askeri harcamaların çevresel etkileri, özellikle NATO ülkeleri açısından, artan jeopolitik gerilimler ortamında tüm zamanların en yüksek seviyelerine ulaşırken, iklim politikasının kritik ancak az çalışılmış bir boyutu hâline gelmiştir; zira bu ülkeler küresel savunma harcamalarının büyük bir kısmını oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma, 1996–2023 döneminde 16 NATO üyesi ülkede, askeri harcamaların karbondioksit (CO₂) emisyonları üzerindeki etkisini incelerken, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) çerçevesinde kurumsal kalitenin düzenleyici etkilerini özel olarak ele almaktadır. Araştırma, Yatay Kesit Genişletilmiş Otoregresif Dağıtılmış Gecikme (CS-ARDL) tahmincisini kullanarak eğim heterojenliğini, karma bütünleşme derecelerini ve yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate almaktadır. Kurumsal kaliteyi ölçen bileşik bir endeks oluşturmak amacıyla altı yönetişim değişkeni Temel Bileşenler Analizi (PCA) kullanılarak bir araya getirilmiştir. Bulgular, enerji kullanımı, ekonomik genişleme ve askeri harcamaların hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde CO₂ emisyonlarını önemli ölçüde artırdığını göstermektedir. Ancak, negatif ve güçlü bir etkileşim terimi ile ortaya konduğu üzere, yüksek kurumsal kalite yalnızca çevresel sonuçları doğrudan iyileştirmekle kalmamakta, aynı zamanda askeri harcamaların emisyon artırıcı etkisini de önemli ölçüde azaltmaktadır. Ayrıca, kısa döneme kıyasla uzun dönemde gelir esnekliğinin azalması, EKC’nin geçerliliğini desteklemektedir. Bu sonuçlar, militarizasyonun çevresel etkilerinin kaçınılmaz olmadığını; aksine bu etkilerin büyük ölçüde yönetişim kalitesinden etkilendiğini ima etmektedir. Çalışma, askeri ve iklim planlarına kurumsal reformların dâhil edilmesinin önemini vurgulamakta ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliği güvenlik gereklilikleriyle dengelemeyi amaçlayan NATO ülkeleri için zamanında politika içgörüleri sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Askeri harcamalar
• Kurumsal kalite
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• NATO ülkeleri
• CO₂ emisyonları
• CS-ARDL

The impact of militarization of NATO countries on climate change: Investigation of the regulatory role of Institutional Quality

Abstract

The environmental effects of military expenditures have become a crucial but little-studied aspect of climate policy as it rises to all-time highs amid escalating geopolitical tensions, especially for NATO nations that account for the majority of global defence spending. This study specifically examines the moderating effects of institutional quality within the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) framework as it examines the effect of military spending on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in 16 NATO member states from 1996 to 2023. The research takes into consideration slope heterogeneity, mixed orders of integration, and cross-sectional dependence using the Cross-Sectionally Augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lag (CS-ARDL) estimator. Six governance variables are used in Principal Component Analysis to create a composite index that measures institutional quality. The findings show that energy use, economic expansion, and military spending all considerably raise CO2 emissions over the short and long terms. However, as demonstrated by a negative and robust interaction term, excellent institutional quality not only directly improves environmental outcomes but also considerably reduces the emission-intensifying effect of military spending. Furthermore, the reduced long-run income elasticity compared to the short-run supports the validity of the EKC. These results imply that the environmental impact of militarization is significantly influenced by the quality of governance rather than being inevitable. The paper emphasizes the significance of incorporating institutional reforms into military and climate plans, providing NATO nations looking to balance environmental sustainability with security imperatives with timely policy insights.

Keywords

• Military expenditure
• Institutional quality
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• NATO countries
• CO₂ emissions
• CS-ARDL

References

1. Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2008). The role of institutions in growth and development (Vol. 10). Washington DC: World Bank.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Institutions, volatility, and crises. Growth and productivity in East Asia, 13
3. Adams, S., & Acheampong, A. O. (2019). Reducing carbon emissions: the role of renewable energy and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118245.
4. Afia, N.B., Harbi, S., 2018. The relationship between CO2 emissions and military effort. J. Econ. Stud. Res. 1–10, 2018.
5. Ahmed, S., Alam, K., Rashid, A., & Gow, J. (2020). Militarisation, Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth in Myanmar. Defence and Peace Economics, 31(6), 615-641.
6. Bildirici, M. (2019). CO2 emissions and militarisation in G20 countries: Panel cointegratrion and causality approaches. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, 22(1), 104-121.
7. Bildirici, M.E., (2017a). The effects of militarization on biofuel consumption and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 420–428.
8. Bildirici, M.E., (2017b). CO2 emissions and militarization in G7 countries: panel cointegration and trivariate causality approaches. Environ. Dev. Econ. 22, 771–791.

9. Bradford, J. H., & Stoner, A. M. (2017). The treadmill of destruction in comparative perspective: a panel study of military spending and carbon emissions, 1960-2014. Journal of World-Systems Research, 23(2), 298-325.
10. Chudik, A., & Pesaran , M. H. (2013). Large Panel Data Models with Cross-Sectional Dependence: A Survey. Working Paper No. 153 . Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute .
11. Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
12. Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M. H., & Raissi, M. (2016). Long-run effects in large heterogeneous panel data models with cross-sectionally correlated errors. In Essays in Honor of man Ullah (pp. 85-135). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
13. Clark, D. P. (2010). Vertical Specialization with Developed and Developing Countries. The Journal of Developing Areas, 43(2), 327-339.
14. Çolak, O., Özuyar, S. E. G., & Bölükbaşı, Ö. F. (2022). Asymmetric Effects of the Defense Burden on Environmental Degradation: Evidence from NATO Countries. Sustainability, 15(1), 573.
15. Culas, R.,J. (2007). “Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve :an institutional perspective”. Ecological Economics 2007;61(2–3),429–37.
16. Dada, J. T., Awoleye, E. O., Arnaut, M., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Revisiting the Military Expenditure-Growth Nexus: Does Institutional Quality Moderate the Effect?. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 29(1), 19-42.
17. De Ras, K., Van de Vijver, R., Galvita, V. V., Marin, G. B., & Van Geem, K. M. (2019). Carbon capture and utilization in the steel industry: challenges and opportunities for chemical engineering. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 26, 81-87.
18. Destek, M.A. & Okumus, I. (2019). Does Pollution Haven Hypothesis Hold İn Newly İndustrialized Countries? Evidence From Ecological Footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 26, 23689–23695.
19. Dhaene, G., & Jochmans, K. (2015). Split-panel Jackknife Estimation of Fixed-effect Models. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(3), 991–1030. doi:10.1093/restud/rdv007
20. Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074-1085.
21. Edmond, N.D., & Boker, P. (2019). Economic growth, military spending and environmental degradation in Africa. MPRA Working Paper (No. 97455). https://mpra.ub.uni -muenchen.de/97455/. (Accessed 2 July 2023).
22. Erdogan, S., Gedikli, A., Çevik, E. İ., & Öncü, M. A. (2022). Does military expenditure impact environmental sustainability in developed Mediterranean countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(21), 31612-31630.
23. Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Military expenditure, financial development and environmental degradation in Turkey: a comparison of CO2 emissions and ecological footprint. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(1), 986-997.
24. Huang, J., Tang, Z., Liu, D., & He, J. (2020). Ecological response to urban development in a changing socio-economic and climate context: Policy implications for balancing regional development and habitat conservation. Land Use Policy, 97, 104772.
25. Isiksal, A. Z. (2021). Testing the effect of sustainable energy and military expenses on environmental degradation: evidence from the states with the highest military expenses. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 20487-20498.
26. Jorgenson, A. K., & Clark, B. (2009). The economy, military, and ecologically unequal exchange relationships in comparative perspective: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1975—2000. Social Problems, 56(4), 621-646.
27. Jorgenson, A. K., & Clark, B. (2016). The temporal stability and developmental differences in the environmental impacts of militarism: the treadmill of destruction and consumption-based carbon emissions (Vol. 11, pp. 505-514). Springer Japan.
28. Jorgenson, A. K., Clark, B., & Kentor, J. (2010). Militarization and the environment: a panel study of carbon dioxide emissions and the ecological footprints of nations, 1970–2000. Global Environmental Politics, 10(1), 7-29.
29. Konuk, F., Kaya, E., Akpınar, S., & Yıldız, Ş. (2023). The relationship between military expenditures, financial development and environmental pollution in G7 Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-16.
30. Kwakwa, P. A. (2022). The Effect of Industrialization, Militarization, and Government Expenditure on Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
31. Lawrence, M.J., Stemberger, H.L.J., Zolderdo, A.J., Struthers, D.P., Cooke, S.J., 2015. The effects of modern war and military activities on biodiversity and the environment. Environ. Rev. 23, 443–460.
32. Lee, K., & Kim, B. Y. (2009). Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups of countries: Determinants of long-run economic growth revisited. World development, 37(3), 533-549.
33. Liu, J., Qu, J., & Zhao, K. (2019) Is China's Development Conforms To The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis And The Pollution Haven Hypothesis?, Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 787-796.
34. Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z., & Perry, S. (2021). Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 16(11), 114005.
35. Miçooğulları, S. A. (2022). Is high growth possible with high institutional quality and low carbon emissions? İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 37(4), 849-869. DOI: 10.24988/ije.1014150
36. Muhammad, B., & Khan, S. (2019). Effect of bilateral FDI, energy consumption, CO2 emission and capital on economic growth of Asia countries. Energy Reports, 5, 1305-1315.
37. Muhammad, S., & Long, X. (2021). Rule of law and CO2emissions: A comparative analysis across 65 belt and road initiative (BRI) countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123539.
38. Musah, M., Mensah, I.A., Alfred, M., Mahmood, H., Murshed, M., Omari-Sasu, A. Y., Boateng, F., Nyeadi, J. D. & Coffie, C. P. K (2022). Reinvestigating The Pollution Haven Hypothesis: The Nexus Between Foreign Direct İnvestments And Environmental Quality İn G-20 Countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 29, 31330–31347.
39. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy policy, 38(1), 661-666.
40. Narayan, P. K., Saboori, B., & Soleymani, A. (2016). Economic growth and carbon emissions. Economic Modelling, 53, 388-397.
41. Nathaniel, S., Aguegboh, E., Iheonu, C., Sharma, G. & Shah, M. (2020). Energy Consumption, FDI, And Urbanization Linkage İn Coastal Mediterranean Countries: Re-Assessing The Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 27, 35474–35487.
42. Nawaz, S., Iqbal, N., & Khan, M. A. (2014). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth: Panel evidence. The Pakistan Development Review, 15-31.
43. Newell, P. (2007). The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: The World After 2012. A contribution to the Human Development Report, 1992-2007.
44. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511808678
45. Noubissi Domguia., E., & Poumie, B. (2019). Economic Growth, Military Spending and Environmental Degradation in Africa. MPRA Paper No. 97455.
46. Our World in Data, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/. (Accessed 12 June 2023).
47. Panwar, N. L., Kaushik, S. C., & Kothari, S. (2011). Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 15(3), 1513-1524.
48. Pata, U. K., & Hizarci, A. E. (2022). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in the five most complex countries: Insights from a modified ecological footprint model. Energy & Environment, 0958305X221120255.
49. Pata, U. K., Destek, M. A., Manga, M., & Cengiz, O. (2023). Militarization of NATO countries sparks climate change? Investigating the moderating role of technological progress and financial development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 409, 137241.
50. Payne, R.,A. (1995). “Freedom and the environment”. Journal of Democracy 6, 41–55.
51. Perea-Moreno, A. J. (2021). Renewable energy and energy saving: Worldwide research trends. Sustainability, 13(23), 13261.
52. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240 . Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
53. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(1), 265-312. doi:doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
54. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
55. Pesaran, M., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
56. Powell, J. (2017). Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 37(4), 183-184.
57. Qayyum, U., Anjum, S., & Sabir, S. (2021). Armed conflict, militarization and ecological footprint: Empirical evidence from South Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125299.
58. Rahman, M. M., Mi̇çooğulları, S. A., Deği̇rmen, S., Alancıoğlu, E., & Moalla, M. (2025). Exploring the environmental Phillips Curve: How do globalization, economic growth, and institutional quality shape load capacity factors in highly globalized European countries?. Journal of Environmental Management, 390, 126322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126322
59. Razzaq, A., Fatima, T., & Murshed, M. (2023). Asymmetric effects of tourism development and green innovation on economic growth and carbon emissions in Top 10 GDP Countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(3), 471-500.
60. Salman, M., Long, X., Dauda, L., & Mensah, C. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118331.
61. Sarkodie, S. A. & Strezov, V. (2019). Effect Of Foreign Direct İnvestments, Economic Development And Energy Consumption On Greenhouse Gas Emissions İn Developing Countries, Science of The Total Environment, 646, 862-871.
62. Schultz, C.B., Crockett, T.R., (1990). “Economic development, democratization, and environmental protection in Eastern Europe”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 18, 53–84.
63. Shittu, W., Adedoyin, F. F., Shah, M. I., & Musibau, H. O. (2021). An investigation of the nexus between natural resources, environmental performance, energy security and environmental degradation: Evidence from Asia. Resources Policy, 73, 102227.
64. Sinha, A. (2018). Impact of ICT exports and internet usage on carbon emissions: a case of OECD countries. International Journal of Green Economics, 12(3-4), 228-257.
65. SIPRI (2023). World military expenditure reaches new record high as European spending surges April 2023 https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges
66. So, B. S., & Shin, D. W. (1999). Recursive Mean Adjustment in Time-Series Inferences. Statistics & Probability Letters, 43(1), 65-73. doi:10.1016/S0167-7152(98)00247-8
67. Sun, C., Zhang, F. & Xu, M. (2017). Investigation Of Pollution Haven Hypothesis For China: An ARDL Approach With Breakpoint Unit Root Tests, Journal Of Cleaner Production, 161, 153-164.
68. Tachie, A.K., Xingle, L., Dauda, L., Mensah, C.N., Appiah-Twum, F. & Mensah, I. A. (2020). . The Influence Of Trade Openness On Environmental Pollution İn EU-18 Countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 27, 35535–35555.
69. Tamazian, A. & Rao, B.B. (2010), “Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter for Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economies”, Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-45.
70. Türedi, S., & Yıldız, F. (2022). Militarizasyon MENA Ülkelerinde Çevresel Kirliliği Nasıl Etkiliyor?. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 217-235.
71. Tran, O. K. T., Le, H. D., & Nguyen, A. H. V. (2021). Role of institutional quality in economic development: A case study of Asian countries. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 357-369.
72. Uddin, I., Ahmad, M., Ismailov, D., Balbaa, M. E., Akhmedov, A., Khasanov, S., & Haq, M. U. (2023). Enhancing Institutional Quality to Boost Economic Development in Developing Nations: New Insights from CS-ARDL Approach. Research in Globalization, 100137.
73. United Nations Environment Programme. Ozone Secretariat.(UNEP). (2016). Handbook for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. UNEP/Earthprint.
74. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Makhdum, M. S. A., Yaseen, M. R., & Nadeem, A. M. (2022). Do financial development, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness contribute to increase carbon emission in Pakistan? An insight based on ARDL bound testing approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-30.
75. Veblen, T. B. (1919). The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays, New York, Augustus M. Kelley M. Muchie.
76. Waheed, R., Sarwar, S., & Wei, C. (2019). The survey of economic growth, energy consumption and carbon emission. Energy Reports, 5, 1103-1115.
77. Waqih, M. A. U., Bhutto, N. A., Ghumro, N.H., Kumar, S. & Salam, M. A. (2019). Rising environmental degradation and impact of foreign direct investment: An empirical evidence from SAARC region, Journal of Environmental Management, 243, 472-480.
78. Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: a cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5), 663-693.
79. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of applied econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
80. Williamson, O. E. (1989). Transaction cost economics. Handbook of industrial organization, 1, 135- 182
81. World Bank (2023). World Development Indicator. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#.
82. World Bank (2023). Worldwide Governance Indicator. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worldwide-governance-indicators
83. Xaisongkham, S., & Liu, X. (2022). Institutional quality, employment, FDI and environmental degradation in developing countries: Evidence from the balanced panel GMM estimator. International Journal of Emerging Markets, ahead-of-print.
84. Zandi, G., Haseeb, M., & Zainal Abidin, I. S. (2019). The impact of democracy, corruption and military expenditure on environmental degradation: Evidence from top six ASEAN countries. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 333–340.