Revisiting the Double Dividend Hypothesis with the Load Capacity Factor

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to test the validity of the double dividend hypothesis in the five OECD countries with the highest environmental taxes (Türkiye, Slovenia, Latvia, the Netherlands and Denmark) using panel data analysis. With this motivation, the paper analyses the effects of environmental taxes on the load capacity factor and unemployment through two models for the period 1997-2022. According to the empirical findings, environmental taxes are cointegrated with both the load capacity factor and unemployment. The coefficient results of the first model reveal that environmental taxes positively affect the load capacity factor in Türkiye and Slovenia as well as at the panel level. Environmental taxes cause environmental degradation only in Denmark. In the second model, environmental taxes reduce unemployment in Latvia, the Netherlands, Denmark and at the panel level. In sum, the paper confirms the double dividend hypothesis for the panel.

Keywords

• Double Dividend Hypothesis
• Environmental Taxes
• Load Capacity Factor
• Unemployment

Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin Yük Kapasitesi Faktörü ile Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, en yüksek çevre vergisine sahip beş OECD ülkesinde (Türkiye, Slovenya, Letonya, Hollanda ve Danimarka) çifte kazanç hipotezinin geçerliliğini panel veri analizi yardımıyla test etmektir. Bu motivasyonla araştırma, 1997-2022 dönemi için çevre vergilerinin yük kapasitesi faktörü ve işsizlik üzerindeki etkilerini iki model ile incelemektedir. Ampirik bulgulara göre, çevre vergileri hem yük kapasitesi faktörü hem de işsizlik ile eşbütünleşiktir. İlk modelin katsayı sonuçları, panel düzeyinin yanı sıra Türkiye ve Slovenya'da çevre vergilerinin yük kapasitesi faktörünü pozitif etkilediğini göstermektedir. Çevre vergileri sadece Danimarka'da çevresel tahribata neden olmaktadır. İkinci modelde ise, Letonya, Hollanda, Danimarka ve panel düzeyinde çevre vergileri işsizliği azaltmaktadır. Özetle, çalışma panel için çifte kazanç hipotezini onaylamaktadır.

Keywords

• Çifte Kazanç Hipotezi
• Çevre Vergileri
• Yük Kapasitesi Faktörü
• İşsizlik

References

1. Abdulmagid Basheer Agila, T., Khalifa, W. M., Saint Akadiri, S., Adebayo, T. S., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Determinants of load capacity factor in South Korea: Does structural change matter?. Environmental science and pollution research, 29(46), 69932-69948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20676-2
2. Akçay, F., Yavuz, E. ve Kılıç, E. (2023). Karbon emisyonu ile vergileme arasındaki ilişkinin cumhuriyetten günümüze analizi: Kantil eşbütünleşme yaklaşımından kanıtlar. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(Özel Sayı), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1310434
3. Alola, A. A., & Nwulu, N. (2022). Do energy-pollution-resource-transport taxes yield double dividend for Nordic economies?. Energy, 254, 124275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124275
4. Anser, M. K., Apergis, N., Syed, Q. R., & Alola, A. A. (2021). Exploring a new perspective of sustainable development drive through environmental Phillips curve in the case of the BRICST countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48112-48122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14056-5
5. Arbolino, R., & Romano, O. (2014). A methodological approach for assessing policies: The case of the environmental tax reform at European level. Procedia Economics and Finance, 17, 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00895-8
6. Ayad, H., & Djedaiet, A. (2024). Does the unemployment rate matter for environmental issues in the G7 nations? New testing for the environmental Phillips curve using the load capacity factor. Environment Development and Sustainability, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04956-0
7. Aydın, M. (2020). Seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde çevre vergilerinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri: yapisal kirilmali nedensellik testinden kanitlar. Uluslararası Iktisadi ve Idari Incelemeler Dergisi, 28, 137-154. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.704936
8. Caglar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2023). The role of environmental protection expenditures and renewable energy consumption in the context of ecological challenges: Insights from the European Union with the novel panel econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117317

9. Caglar, A. E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M., & Kilic, E. (2022). The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: Evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16406-9
10. Chang, Y. (2004). Bootstrap unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. Journal Of Econometrics, 120(2), 263-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00214-8
11. Chataut, G., Bhatta, B., Joshi, D., Subedi, K., & Kafle, K. (2023). Greenhouse gases emission from agricultural soil: A review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 11, 100533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100533
12. Dahmani, M. (2024). Environmental quality and sustainability: Exploring the role of environmental taxes, environment-related technologies, and R&D expenditure. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(2), 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-023-00387-9
13. Degirmenci, T., & Aydin, M. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes on environmental pollution and unemployment: A panel co‐integration analysis on the validity of double dividend hypothesis for selected African countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 28(3), 2231-2238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2505
14. Dirgen Öz, S. D. ve Çiçek, H. G. (2024). Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde çevre vergilerinin çevre, ekonomik büyüme ve işsizlik üzerindeki etkisinin ampirik analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 32(59), 269-295. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.01.12
15. Durani, F., Bhowmik, R., Sharif, A., Anwar, A., & Syed, Q. R. (2023). Role of economic uncertainty, financial development, natural resources, technology, and renewable energy in the environmental Phillips curve framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 420, 138334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138334
16. Freire-González, J. (2018). Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(1), 194-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.11.002
17. Fullerton, D., & Metcalf, G. E. (1997). Environmental taxes and the double-dividend hypothesis: did you really expect something for nothing?. NBER Working Paper Series, No: 6199. https://doi.org/10.3386/w6199 GFN (2024). Global footprint network, https://data.footprintnetwork.org/ (Accessed on 20.08.2024).
18. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: a reader's guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495
19. Hashmi, R., & Alam, K. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1100–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325
20. He, P., Zou, X., Qiao, Y., Chen, L., Wang, X., Luo, X., & Ning, J. (2019). Does the double dividend of environmental tax really play a role in OECD Countries? A study based on the panel ARDL model. Ekoloji Dergisi, 107, 49-62.
21. Kashem, M. A., & Rahman, M. M. (2020). Environmental Phillips curve: OECD and Asian NICs perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 31153-31170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08620-8
22. Morley, B. (2012). Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes, Applied Economics Letters, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.650324
23. Nerudová, D., & Dobranschi, M. (2014). Double dividend hypothesis: Can it occur when tackling carbon emissions?. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 472-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00369-4
24. Nketiah, E., Song, H., Adjei, M., Obuobi, B., & Adu-Gyamfi, G. (2024). Assessing the influence of research and development, environmental policies, and green technology on ecological footprint for achieving environmental sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 199, 114508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114508
25. OECD (2006). The political economy of environmentally related taxes, OECD publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264025530-en
26. OECD (2024). OECD data, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/ (Accessed on 20.08.2024).
27. Osemwegie-Ero, J. O., Jackson-Akhigbe, B. E., & Omeru, P. E. (2024). The role of environmental taxes in environmental sustainability in Nigeria. Accounting and Management Review, 4(1), 87-99.
28. Pata, U. K., & Isik, C. (2021). Determinants of the load capacity factor in China: A novel dynamic ARDL approach for ecological footprint accounting. Resources Policy, 74, 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102313
29. Pata, U.K., & Samour, A. (2022). Do renewable and nuclear energy enhance environmental quality in France? A new EKC approach with the load capacity factor. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 149, 104249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104249
30. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727-731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803
31. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Working Paper, No: 0435, University of Cambridge.
32. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
33. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
34. Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Popescu, C., Iacob, S. E., & Popescu, L. (2017). Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double dividend theory. Sustainability, 9(11), 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111986
35. Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M., & Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies, Energy, 238, 121753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121753
36. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., & Mahmood, A. (2023). An econometric analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from different agricultural factors in Bangladesh. Energy Nexus, 9, 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100179
37. Saidi, K., & Omri, A. (2020). The impact of renewable energy on carbon emissions and economic growth in 15 major renewable energy-consuming countries. Environmental Research, 186, 109567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109567
38. Sasmaz, M. U. (2016). Validity of double dividend hypothesis in EU-15 countries. New Trends and Issues Proceedings On Humanities And Social Sciences, 2(2), 30-36.
39. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F., & Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Communications in Nonlinear Science And Numerical Simulation, 15(10), 3182–3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
40. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of The Econometric Society, 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
41. Tariq, S., Mehmood, U., Ul Haq, Z., & Mariam, A. (2022). Exploring the existence of environmental Phillips curve in South Asian countries. Environmental science And Pollution Research, 29(23), 35396-35407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18099-6
42. Topal, M. H. (2017). Çifte kazanç hipotezinin OECD ekonomileri için testi: Panel eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 2(4), 1-20.
43. Uche, E., & Ngepah, N. (2024). How green-technology, energy-transition and resource rents influence load capacity factor in South Africa. International Journal Of Sustainable Energy, 43(1), 2281038. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2023.2281038
44. UN (2024). United Nations, Department of economic and social affairs, https://sdgs.un.org/goals (Accessed on 20.08.2024).
45. WB (2024). World Bank, World development indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Accessed on 20.08.2024).
46. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
47. Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasindaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences (JOSHAS), 7(45), 1937-1945. http://dx.doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.784
48. Yavuz, E. veErgen, E. (2022). Çevre vergilerinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Seçilmiş G20 ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. International Journal of Public Finance, 7(1), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1066728
49. Yavuz, E., Ergen, E., Avci, T., Akcay, F., & Kilic, E. (2023b). Do the effects of aggregate and disaggregate energy consumption on different environmental quality indicators change in the transition to sustainable development? Evidence from wavelet coherence analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30829-6
50. Yavuz, E., Kilic, E., & Akcay, F. (2024). What is the role of environmental stress on public health? Asymmetric evidence on carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and load capacity factor. Environmental Research and Technology, 7(3), 291-302. https://10.35208/ert.1419914
51. Yavuz, E., Kilic, E., & Caglar, A. E. (2023a). A new hypothesis for the unemployment-environment dilemma: Is the environmental Phillips curve valid in the framework of load capacity factor in Türkiye?. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04258-x
52. Yiadom, E. B., Mensah, L., Bokpin, G. A., & Mawutor, J. K. (2024). Carbon tax adoption and foreign direct investment: Evidence from Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 12(1), 2312783. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2312783
53. Yu, L., Gao, X., Lyu, J., Feng, Y., Zhang, S., & Andlib, Z. (2023). Green growth and environmental sustainability in China: The role of environmental taxes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(9), 22702-22711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23355-4
54. Zaidi, S. A. H., Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M., & Hou, F. (2019). Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 533-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.210
55. Zhang, Y., Xia, F., & Zhang, B. (2023). Can raising environmental tax reduce industrial water pollution? Firm-level evidence from China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 101, 107155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107155
56. Zhao, S., Ali, S., Asghar, M., Sheikh, M. R., & Ullah, S. (2024). The impact of energy (Electricity) losses on load capacity factor: A dynamic ARDL-based evidence from Pakistan. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 190, 276-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.07.118
57. Zheng, S., Irfan, M., Ai, F., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Do renewable energy, urbanisation, and natural resources enhance environmental quality in China? Evidence from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles. Resources Policy, 81, 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103354
58. Zhou, Y., Chen, M., Tang, Z., & Mei, Z. (2021). Urbanization, land use change, and carbon emissions: Quantitative assessments for city-level carbon emissions in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Sustainable Cities and Society, 66, 102701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102701
59. Zhu, Y., Taylor, D., & Wang, Z. (2023). The role of environmental taxes on carbon emissions in countries aiming for net-zero carbon emissions: Does renewable energy consumption matter?. Renewable Energy, 218, 119239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119239
60. Zimmermann, K. W., & Gaynor, J. D. (1999). The double dividend: Miracle or fata morgana?. Public Choice, 101(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018309003234