Afetlere En Çok Maruz Kalan Seçili Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Afet Risk Yönetimi Harcamalarının Yapısal Belirleyicileri: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, afet risk yönetimi toplam harcamalarının (DRME-aryth) makroekonomik, sosyal-kırılganlık ve demografik belirleyicilerini, afetlere en çok maruz kalan gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler arasındaki yapısal heterojeniteyi dikkate alarak karşılaştırmalı bir panel veri yaklaşımıyla incelemektedir. Literatürde afetlerin makroekonomik etkileri yoğun biçimde tartışılsa da, DRME-aryth'nin çok boyutlu belirleyicilerini ülkeler arası kalkınma düzeylerine göre analiz eden çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Çalışmanın temel özgünlüğü, afet harcamalarını etkileyen yapısal faktörlerin etkilerinin kalkınma düzeyine göre nasıl farklılaştığını ampirik olarak ortaya koymasıdır.. Araştırma, 2014–2023 dönemini kapsayan veriler üzerinden, farklı ülke grupları için ayrışan harcama modellerini ortaya koyarak bu boşluğu gidermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler (EMDEs-GOÜ) modelinde, afet sonrası ekonomik zararların DRME-aryth üzerinde güçlü ve anlamlı negatif bir etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum, EMDEs-GOÜ'lerin afet sonrası finansman için ulusal kapasite yerine dış yardımlara ve uluslararası finansal mekanizmalara bağımlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Gelişmiş Ülkeler (DCs-GÜ) modelinde ise harcamalar üzerinde yaşlı nüfus oranı ve mali kapasite belirleyici olurken, okuryazarlık oranı her iki ülke grubu için de anlamlı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, harcama davranışlarında gözlenen yapısal kırılma yılları (yani harcama politikasındaki dönüşüm dönemleri) iki ülke grubu için farklı belirlenmiştir: gelişmiş ülkeler için 2016, gelişmekte olan ülkeler için ise 2021'dir.

Keywords

• Afet Ekonomisi
• Karşılaştırmalı Panel Veri Analizi
• Mali Asimetri
• Yapısal Heterojenite
• Afet Risk Yönetimi Harcamaları (ARYTH)
• Afet Risk Yönetimi

Supporting Institution

Finansman: Bu çalışma herhangi bir kişi veya kurumdan mali destek almamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Çalışmanın Etik Beyanı: Bu çalışmanın ihtiyaçları gerçekçi ve etik ilkelere uygun biçimde karşılanacak şekilde tasarlandığı; verilerin elde edilmesinde, çalışmanın sonuçlandırılmasında ve sonuçların yayımlanmasında bilimsel dürüstlüğün korunduğu beyan edilmektedir. Bu araştırma için etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir. Çalışmada etik kurul izni gerektiren herhangi bir araştırma yürütülmemiştir.

Thanks

Prof. Dr. Ferda Yerdelen Tatoğlu'na bu makalenin hazırlanması sürecindeki değerli rehberlikleri ve içgörülü geri bildirimleri için içten teşekkürlerimizi sunmak isteriz. Onun uzmanlığı ve teşviki, bu çalışmanın geliştirilmesi ve iyileştirilmesine önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunmuştur.

Structural Determinants of Disaster Risk Management Expenditures in Selected Developed and Developing Countries Most Exposed to Disasters: A Comparative Panel Data Analysis

Abstract

This study employs a comparative panel data approach to examine the macroeconomic, social-vulnerability, and demographic determinants of Disaster Risk Management Expenditures (DRME-aryth), considering the structural heterogeneity among selected developed and developing countries most exposed to disasters. Although the macroeconomic impacts of disasters are extensively discussed in the literature, studies analyzing the multi-dimensional determinants of DRME-aryth across different development levels remain limited. By presenting distinct expenditure models for different country groups using data spanning the 2014–2023 period, this research aims to bridge this gap. The main originality of the study lies in providing empirical evidence on how structural factors affecting disaster expenditures vary across development levels. The analysis results indicate that in the Developing Countries (EMDEs-GOÜ) model, post-disaster economic losses have a strong and significant negative impact on DRME-aryth. This finding suggests that these countries rely on external aid and international financial mechanisms instead of national capacity for post-disaster financing. Conversely, in the Developed Countries (DCs-GÜ) model, the elderly population share and fiscal capacity are found to be decisive factors, while the literacy rate is significant for both country groups. Furthermore, the structural break years (i.e., the years marking shifts in expenditure policy) also differ between the two country groups: 2016 for developed countries and 2021 for developing countries.

Keywords

• Disaster Economics
• Comparative Panel Data Analysis
• Fiscal Asymmetry
• Structural Heterogeneity
• Disaster Risk Management Expenditures (DRME)
• Disaster Risk Management

Supporting Institution

Funding: The study did not receive any financial support from individuals or institutions.

Ethical Statement

Ethical Considerations of the Study: It is declared that the study was designed to realistically and ethically meet the needs, and that integrity was maintaining in obtaining data, concluding the study, and publishing the results. Ethical committee approval was not required for this research. No research requiring ethics committee approval was conducted in this study.

Thanks

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ferda Yerdelen Tatoğlu for her valuable guidance and insightful feedback throughout the preparation of this article. Her expertise and encouragement has significantly contributed to the development and improvement of this study.

References

1. Acevedo, S. (2013). Debt, disasters, and relief: The case of Haiti. IMF Working Papers, 13(113).
2. Avril, P., Levieuge, G., & Turcu, C. (2022). Natural disasters, financial stress and macroprudential policies. Journal of International Money and Finance, 124, 102632.
3. Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
4. Boin, A., & McConnell, A. (2007). Preparing for critical infrastructure failure: A policy design approach. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 50-59.
5. Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2015). Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature, 527(7577), 235-239.
6. Cabezon, E., Hunter, L., Tumbarello, P., Washimi, K., & Wu, Y. (2015). Enhancing macroeconomic resilience to natural disasters and climate change in the Small States of the Pacific. IMF Working Papers, 15(125).
7. Cavallo, E., & Noy, I. (2011). Natural disasters and the economy — A survey. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(1), 63-102.
8. Coppola, D. P. (2020). Introduction to international disaster management. Butterworth-Heinemann.

9. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
10. Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2012). Temperature shocks and economic growth: Evidence from the last half century. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(3), 66–95. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.4.3.66
11. Eisensee, T., & Strömberg, D. (2007). News droughts, news floods, and U.S. disaster relief. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 693–728.
12. Farhi, E., & Gabaix, X. (2015). Rare disasters and exchange rates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 1-48.
13. Felbermayr, G., & Gröschl, J. (2014). Naturally negative: The growth effects of natural disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 111, 92-106.
14. Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric analysis (8th ed.). Pearson.
15. Gu, G. W., & Hale, G. (2023). Climate risks and FDI. Journal of International Economics, 146, 103731.
16. Hale, G. (2024). Climate disasters and exchange rates: Are beliefs keeping up with climate change? IMF Economic Review, 72(1), 253–291.
17. Hallegatte, S. (2014). Natural disasters and climate change: An economic perspective. Springer.
18. Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J., & Rozenberg, J. (2019). Lifelines: The resilient infrastructure opportunity. World Bank Publications.
19. Ibis, T. (2026). Analysis of integrated disaster risk management expenditures in selected developed and developing countries [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Istanbul University.
20. Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2010). Climate shocks and exports: Evidence from the countries of the world. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 454-459.
21. Kellenberg, D. K., & Mobarak, A. M. (2008). Does rising income increase or decrease damage from natural disasters? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56(3), 231-246.
22. Kousky, C. (2014). Informing climate adaptation: A review of the economic costs of natural disasters. Energy Economics, 46, 576–592.
23. Kreimer, A., & Arnold, M. (2000). Managing disaster risk in emerging economies. World Bank Publications. Noy, I. (2009). The macroeconomic consequences of natural disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 88(2), 221–231.
24. OECD. (2023). Assessing the financial impact of natural disasters. OECD Publishing. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0436
25. Omega Research Labs. (2025). OmegaMetrixAI: Advanced AI econometric verification system (Ver. 1.0). https://www.omegametrixai.com/.
26. Osberghaus, D. (2019). The effects of natural disasters and weather variations on international trade: A review of the empirical literature. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 19-002. ZEW – Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
27. Parker, M., & Steenkamp, D. (2012). The economic impact of the Canterbury earthquakes. Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, 75(3), 13–25.
28. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
29. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.
30. Skidmore, M., & Toya, H. (2002). Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry, 40(4), 664–687.
31. Strobl, E. (2012). The economic growth impact of natural disasters in developing countries: Evidence from hurricane strikes in the Central American and Caribbean regions. Journal of Development Economics, 97(1), 130–141.
32. Strobl, E., & Kablan, S. (2017). How do natural disasters impact the exchange rate: An investigation through small island developing states (SIDS)? Economics Bulletin, 37(3), 2274–2281.
33. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2021). Spatial econometrics: With Stata applications. Beta Publications.
34. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2023). Advanced panel data analysis: With Stata applications. Beta Publications.
35. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2024). Panel data econometrics: With Stata applications. Beta Publications.
36. Tatoğlu, F. Y., Çiçek, S., & Beker, M. (2020). Testing for structural breaks in panel data models: A comparative analysis of developed and developing economies. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1), 1–25.
37. Tatoğlu, F. Y., & İçen, H. (2019). Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve with multidimensional panel data models. Anatolian Journal of Economics and Business, 3(2), 154–180.
38. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341-363.
39. UNDP. (2022). Human Development Report 2021/2022: Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives. United Nations Development Programme. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22
40. UNDRR. (2023). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2023. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2023-special-report
41. von Peter, G., von Dahlen, S., & Saxena, S. C. (2012). Unmitigated disasters? New evidence on the macroeconomic cost of natural catastrophes (BIS Working Papers No. 394). Bank for International Settlements.
42. WHO. (2024). World health statistics 2024: Monitoring health for the SDGs. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240094703
43. World Bank. (2023). The true cost of disasters: 520 billion dollars a year. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/11/14/natural-disasters-force-26-million-people-into-poverty-and-cost-520bn-in-losses-every-year-new-world-bank-analysis-finds