Democracy, Renewable Energy and Environmen-tal Pollution Relation: Seemingly Unrelated Regression

Year 2021, Volume: 18 Issue: 41, 3329 - 3361, 01.09.2021

Melike Atay Polat Pınar Çuhadar

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.888826

Abstract

Policy debates for reducing environmental pollution are at the forefront of the global economy agenda. This study prepared in order to close gap for examining the impact of democracy and renewable energy on environmental quality, despite of wide range of literature between environmental pollution and economic growth. In this context, the effects of democracy and renewable energy on greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission for Central and Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia) analyzed by Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) analysis for the period 1995-2018. The findings of SUR were changed country to country and it is supported that Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis was not valid for all countries. It is thought that the qrowth level which is affected by production structure is effective in these results. Moreover, improvements related to democratic institutions in Central and Eastern European countries and renewable energy investments can contribute to the prevention of environmental degradation.

Keywords

Environmental Kuznets Curve, renewable energy, seemingly unrelated regression (SUR), CCE countries

Demokrasi ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerine Etkisi: Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon Analizi

Abstract

Çevre kirliliğinin azaltılmasına yönelik politika tartışmaları küresel ekonomi gündeminde ön sıralarda yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma çevre kirliliği ve ekonomik büyüme arasında geniş bir literatürün mevcut olmasına rağmen, demokrasi ve yenilenebilir enerjinin çevre kalitesi üzerine etkisini inceleyen çalışma sayısının sınırlı olması sebebiyle hazırlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa (Çek Cumhuriyeti, Estonya, Macaristan, Litvanya, Letonya, Polonya, Rusya, Slovakya, Slovenya) ülkelerinde 1995-2018 döneminde demokrasi ve yenilenebilir enerjinin sera gazı emisyonu ve karbon emisyonu (CO2) üzerine etkisi statik panel veri analiziyle incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon (SUR) bulguları, ele alınan modellerin sonuçlarının ülkeden ülkeye değiştiğini gösterdiği gibi Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezinin de tüm ülkeler için geçerli olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu durumun ortaya çıkmasında büyüme düzeylerini etkileyen ve doğrudan yabancı yatırımlara bağlı olan üretim yapıları arasındaki farklılıkların etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre; Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinde demokratik kurumların gelişimi ve yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarına ağırlık verilmesi ile çevresel tahribatların önlenmesine katkı sunulabileceği anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, yenilenebilir enerji, görünürde ilişkisiz regresyon analizi, MDA ülkeleri

References

• Adams, S. and Acheampong, A.O. (2019). Reducing carbon emissions: The role of renewable energy and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 1-13.
• Adams, S. and Klobodu, E.K.M. (2017). Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality and environmental degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(6), 1-30.
• Akın, C.S. (2014). Kurumsal kalitenin çevre üzerine olan etkileri: BRICS ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslar arası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 1-8.
• Archibald, S. O., Bochniarz, Z., Gemma, M. and Srebotnjak, T. (2009). Transition and sustainability: empirical analysis of environmental Kuznets Curve for water pollution in 25 countries in central and eastern Europe and the commonwealth of ındependent states. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(2), 73-9.
• Arvin, M. and Lew, B. (2011). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries?. Applied Economics, 43(9), 1151-1160.
• Aslan, A., Altinoz, B. ve Atay Polat, M. (2020). The nexus among climate change, economic growth, foreign direct investments, and financial development: New evidence from N-11 countries. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 40(3), 1-9.
• Atıcı, C. (2009). Carbon emissions in Central And Eastern Europe: Environmental Kuznets Curve and implications for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 155-160.
• Bättig, M. and Bernauer, T. (2009). National ınstitutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63(2), 281-308.
• Brien, S., Swalem, B. and MacDowall , A.(2019). Central and Eastern Europe prosperity report the lived experience. Legatum Institute, UK.
• Cemek, E. ve Çuhadar, P. (2020). İklim değişikliği ile mücadelede teknoloji yatırımlarının rolü: AB ülkeleri üzerine bir inceleme içinde yeni eko-tek dünya. Teknolojinin Son Sürümü. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
• Ćetkovıć, L. and Buzogány, A. (2020). Between markets, politics and path-dependence: Explaining the growth of solar and wind power in six Central and Eastern European countries. Energy Policy, 139, 1-9.
• Chou, C.L., Zhang, H.W., Wang, Y.M. and Yang, M.F. (2019). The influence of democracy on emissions and energy efficiency in America: New evidence from quantile regression analysis. Energy & Environment, 31(8), 1–17.
• Çuhadar, P. ve Doru, Ö. (2020). Kurumlar ve uluslararası ticaret ilişkisi: Geçiş ekonomileri üzerine panel veri analizi ile bir inceleme. Sosyoekonomi, 28(45), 165-186.
• Destek, M. A., Ballı, E. ve Manga, M. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, 7(1), 52-58.
• Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49, 431-455. Eurostat, 2019. Renewable Energy Statistics. Erişim: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics. Erişim tarihi.15.03.2020
• Fredriksson, P. G. and Neumayer, N. (2013). Democracy and climate change policies: Is history important?. Ecological Economics, 95, 11–19.
• Grieveson, R., Gligorov, V., Havlik, P., Hunya, G., Pindyuk, O., Podkaminer, L. and Weinberger-Vidovic, H. (2019). Looking back, looking forward: Central and Eastern Europe 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (No. 4). wiiw Essays and Occasional Papers.
• Grossman, G. and Kreuger A. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914. Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2013. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3914.pdf.
• Grossman, G. and Kreuger, A. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly of Journal Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
• Guloglu, B. ve Ivrendi, M. (2010). Output fluctuations: Transitory or permanent? The case of Latin America. Applied Economics Letters, 17(4), 381-386.
• Ho, S. Y. and Iyke, B. N. (2019). Trade openness and carbon emissions: Evidence from Central and Eastern European countries. Review of Economics, 70(1), 41-67.
• Hotunluoğlu, H. ve Yılmaz, G. S. (2018). Demokrasi karbondioksit emisyonu için önemli mi? Türkiye için bir uygulama. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-141.
• Hurlin, C. (2018). Advanced econometrics. Lecture note of school of Economics and Management - University of Geneva. 21.04.2020 tarihindehttps://www.univorleans.fr/deg/masters/ESA/CH/Geneve_Chapitre0.pdf’ sitesinden alınmıştır.
• Hurlin, C. ve Mıgnon, V. (2007). Second generation panel unit root tests. Halshs-Archive, No: 00159842, 1-25. Iordache, I., Bouzek, K., Paidar, M., Stehlik, K., Topler, J., Stygar, M., Dabrowa, J., Brylewski, T., Stefanescu, I., Iordache, M., Schitea, D., GrigorieV, S.A., Fateev, V.N. and Zgonnik, V. (2019). The hydrogen context and vulnerabilities in the Central and Eastern European countries. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44, 19036-19054.
• Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B. and Ozturk, İ. (2013). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade openness. MPRA Paper No. 51672, 1-18.
• Jorgenson, A.K., Alekseyko, A. and Giedraitis, V. (2014). Energy consumption, human well-being and economic development in Central and Eastern European Nations: A cautionary tale of sustainability. Energy Policy, 66, 419-427.
• Kashwan, P. (2017). Inequality, democracy and the environment: A cross-national analysis. Ecological Economics, 131, 139-151.
• Kim, Y., Kim, S., Baek, J. and Heo, E. (2018). The linkages between democracy and the environment: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Energy & Environment, 30(5), 1–12.
• Li, R., Jiang, H., Sotnyk, I., Kubatko, O. ve Almashaqbeh Y.A, I. (2020). The CO2 emissions drivers of post-communist economies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Atmosphere, 11(9), 1019.
• 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.
• Park, H. M. (2011). Practical guides to panel data modeling: A step-by-step analysis using stata. Public Management and Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 12, 1-52.
• Pesaran, H. (2007). Simple Panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• Peseran, M. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Policardo, L. (2016). Is democracy good for the environment? Quasi-experimental evidence from regime transitions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64, 275–300.
• Sadorsky, P. (2009). Renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil prices in the G7 countries. Energy Economics, 31(3), 456-462.
• Sadorsky, P. (2011). Financial development and energy consumption in Central and Eastern European frontier economies. Energy Policy, 39, 999-1006.
• Shafiei, S. and Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547-556.
• Solarin, S.A. and Shahbaz, M. (2015). Natural gas consumption and economic growth: The role of foreign direct investment, capital formation and trade openness in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 835-845.
• Tamazian, A. and Bhaskara, R.B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145.
• Taylor, M. and Sarno, L. (1998). The behavior of real exchange rates during the post- bretton woods period. Journal of International Economics, 46, 281–312.
• Topal, M.H. ve Hayaloğlu, P. (2017). Farklı gelişmişlik düzeylerinde kurumsal kalitenin çevre performansı üzerindeki etkisi: Ampirik bir analiz. Sosyoekonomi, 25(32), 189-212.
• Wang, N., Zhu, H., Guo, Y. and 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(1), 54-68.
• You, W.H., Zhu, H.M., Yu, K. and Peng, C. (2015). Democracy, financial openness and global carbon dioxide emissions: Heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Development, 66, 189-207.
• Yerdelen, Tatoğlu F.(2020). İleri panel veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.