FISCAL INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: QUANTILE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES AND R&D IN G7 ECONOMIES

Year 2025, Volume: 36 Issue: 137, 351 - 380, 17.07.2025

Abdulkadir Bulut

https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1681056

Abstract

Amid rising environmental challenges, G7 countries face mounting pressure to meet carbon neutrality targets. Fiscal policies, shaping both economic and environmental outcomes, are key to addressing these challenges. This study examines the joint impact of environmental taxes (ET) and public environment-related R&D (PERD) on the Load Capacity Factor (LCF) in G7 nations from 1994 to 2018. Using Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR), results show that ET consistently improves LCF across all quantiles, supporting SDG-12 and SDG-13 by promoting behavioral change and industrial innovation. PERD, while less impactful at lower levels of sustainability, becomes increasingly effective in higher LCF quantiles—highlighting the importance of targeted R&D investments in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and carbon capture, aligned with SDG-7 and SDG-9. The GDP–LCF relationship confirms the Load Capacity Curve (LCC) hypothesis, while green innovation (GI) positively influences sustainability. Robustness checks (FMOLS, DOLS, CCR) confirm findings. The study calls for integrating revenue- and expenditure-based fiscal tools into unified sustainability strategies.

Keywords

Environmental sustainability, Environmental taxes, Public environment-related R&D expenditures, Environmental policy, MMQR

ÇEVRESEL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK İÇİN MALİ ARAÇLAR: G7 EKONOMİLERİNDE ÇEVRE VERGİLERİ VE AR-GE'NİN KANTİL ANALİZİ

Abstract

Artan çevresel zorlukların ortasında, G7 ülkeleri karbon nötr hedeflerine ulaşma konusunda artan bir baskıyla karşı karşıyadır. Hem ekonomik hem de çevresel sonuçlar üzerinde etkili olan mali politikalar, bu zorlukların ele alınmasında kilit öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışma, 1994-2018 yılları arasında G7 ülkelerinde çevre vergilerinin (ET) ve çevreyle ilgili kamusal Ar-Ge harcamalarının (PERD) Yük Kapasite Faktörü (LCF) üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. MMQR yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilen bulgular, ET'nin tüm kuantillerde LCF'yi tutarlı bir şekilde iyileştirdiğini, davranış değişikliğini ve endüstriyel yeniliği teşvik ederek SKH-12 ve SKH-13'ü desteklediğini göstermektedir. PERD, düşük LCF düzeylerinde etkisizken, yüksek düzeylerde belirgin etkiler sunmakta ve SKA-7 ile SKA-9 hedefleriyle örtüşmektedir—bu da SKA-7 ve SKA-9 ile uyumlu yenilenebilir enerji, sürdürülebilir tarım ve karbon yakalama alanlarında hedeflenen Ar-Ge yatırımlarının önemini vurgulamaktadır. GSYİH-LCF ilişkisi Yük Kapasitesi Eğrisi (LCC) hipotezini doğrularken, yeşil inovasyon (GI) sürdürülebilirliği olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Sağlamlık kontrolleri (FMOLS, DOLS, CCR) bulguları doğrulamaktadır. Çalışma, hem çevresel vergilerin hem de kamusal Ar-Ge harcamalarının entegre biçimde tasarlanmasının sürdürülebilirlik politikalarında etkili bir strateji oluşturduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Çevresel sürdürülebilirlik, Çevresel vergiler, Çevreye yönelik kamusal Ar-Ge harcamaları, Çevre politikası, MMQR

References

• Adebayo, T. S., Ullah, S., Kartal, M. T., Ali, K., Pata, U. K., & Ağa, M. (2023). Endorsing sustainable development in BRICS: The role of technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and natural resources in limiting carbon emission. Science of the Total Environment, 859, 160181.
• Adedoyin, F. F., Alola, A. A., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: The role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 713, 136726.
• Afshan, S., & Yaqoob, T. (2023). Unravelling the efficacy of green innovation and taxation in promoting environmental quality: A dual-model assessment of testing the LCC theory in emerging economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 416, 137850.
• Ahmad, M., & Satrovic, E. (2023). Relating fiscal decentralization and financial inclusion to environmental sustainability: Criticality of natural resources. Journal of Environmental Management, 325, 116633.
• Alam, M. S., Apergis, N., Paramati, S. R., & Fang, J. (2021). The impacts of R&D investment and stock markets on clean‐energy consumption and CO 2 emissions in OECD economies. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(4), 4979–4992.
• Alola, A. A., Muoneke, O. B., Okere, K. I., & Obekpa, H. O. (2023). Analysing the co-benefit of environmental tax amidst clean energy development in Europe’s largest agrarian economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 326, 116748. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479722023210
• Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 2–22.
• Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Shahbaz, M., & Jiao, Z. (2020). The nexus between environmental tax and carbon emissions with the roles of environmental technology and financial development. PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0242412.
• Bozatli, O., & Akca, H. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: Evidence from advanced panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118857.
• Çelikkaya, A. (2017). Avrupa Birliği Üyesi Ülkelerde Yenilenebilir Enerjiye Sağlanan Teşvikler Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Sayıştay Dergisi (104), 1-26.
• 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.
• Dogan, A., & Pata, U. K. (2022). The role of ICT, R&D spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 135038. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S095965262204611X?
• Doğan, B., Chu, L. K., Ghosh, S., Truong, H. H. D., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). How environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in the G7 economies? Renewable Energy, 187, 645–656. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0960148122000878
• Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0264999312000491?
• Ekins, P. (1999). European environmental taxes and charges: Recent experience, issues and trends. Ecological Economics, 31(1), 39–62.
• Ekins, P., Pollitt, H., Barton, J., & Blobel, D. (2011). The implications for households of environmental tax reform (ETR) in Europe. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2472– 2485. Esen, Ö., & Dündar, M. (2021). Do energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint? Evidence from Turkey. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 6(2), 179-186.
• Esen, Ö., Yıldırım, D. Ç., & Yıldırım, S. (2021). Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes–Ecological balance nexus. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106662.
• Fernández Fernández, Y., Fernández López, M. A., & Olmedillas Blanco, B. (2018). Innovation for sustainability: The impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3459–3467.
• Ghazouani, A., Jebli, M. B., & Shahzad, U. (2021). Impacts of environmental taxes and technologies on greenhouse gas emissions: Contextual evidence from leading emitter European countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22758–22767.
• Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press.
• Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1029–1054.
• Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2013). Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability, 5(1), 210–227. https://www.mdpi. com/2071-1050/5/1/210
• 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.
• He, P., Ning, J., Yu, Z., Xiong, H., Shen, H., & Jin, H. (2019). Can Environmental Tax Policy Really Help to Reduce Pollutant Emissions? An Empirical Study of a Panel ARDL Model Based on OECD Countries and China. Sustainability, 11(16), 4384.
• Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3), 164–174.
• Jahanger, A., Ozturk, I., Onwe, J. C., Ogwu, S. O., Hossain, M. R., & Abdallah, A. A. (2024). Do pro-environmental interventions matter in restoring environmental sustainability? Unveiling the role of environmental tax, green innovation and air transport in G-7 nations. Gondwana Research, 127, 165–181.
• Jiang, Y., Hossain, M. R., Khan, Z., Chen, J., & Badeeb, R. A. (2024). Revisiting Research and Development Expenditures and Trade Adjusted Emissions: Green Innovation and Renewable Energy R&D Role for Developed Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 2156–2191.
• Juodis, A., Karavias, Y., & Sarafidis, V. (2021). A homogeneous approach to testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Empirical economics, 60(1), 93-112.
• Kartal, M. T. (2024). Impact of environmental tax on ensuring environmental quality: Quantile-based evidence from G7 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 440, 140874.
• Liu, H., Zafar, M. W., Sinha, A., & Khan, I. (2023). The path to sustainable environment: Do environmental taxes and governance matter? Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2278–2290.
• Machado, J. A., & Silva, J. S. (2019). Quantiles via moments. Journal of Econometrics, 213(1), 145–173.
• Mol, A. P., & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review. Environmental politics, 9(1), 17-49.
• Mol, A. P. J., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2000). Ecological modernisation around the world: An introduction. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 1–14.
• OECD. (2019). Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes for Climate Action. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/ taxing-energy-use-2019_058ca239-en
• Özen, K., Levent, C., Darıcı, B., & Yenilmez, M. I. (2024). The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment and R&D Expenditures on Climate Change: The Case Of BRICS-T and Selected OECD Member Countries. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(4), 1052-1062.
• Park, J. Y. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 119–143.
• Pata, U. K. (2021). Do renewable energy and health expenditures improve load capacity factor in the USA and Japan? A new approach to environmental issues. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(9), 1427–1439.
• Pearce, D. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. The Economic Journal, 101(407), 938–948. https://academic.oup.com/ej/articleabstract/ 101/407/938/5188470
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/ crid/1370002214340987648
• 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.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
• Petrović, P., & Lobanov, M. M. (2020). The impact of R&D expenditures on CO2 emissions: Evidence from sixteen OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119187.
• Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125. https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/57/1/99/1610097
• Phillips, P. C., & Sul, D. (2007). Bias in dynamic panel estimation with fixed effects, incidental trends and cross section dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 137(1), 162–188.
• Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. van der. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.9.4.97
• 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.
• Safi, A., Chen, Y., Wahab, S., Zheng, L., & Rjoub, H. (2021). Does environmental taxes achieve the carbon neutrality target of G7 economies? Evaluating the importance of environmental R&D. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112908.
• Sarıgül, S. S., & Topcu, B. A. (2021). The impact of environmental taxes on carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 3(1), 43-54.
• Sarpong, K. A., Xu, W., Gyamfi, B. A., & Ofori, E. K. (2023). A step towards carbon neutrality in E7: The role of environmental taxes, structural change, and green energy. Journal of Environmental Management, 337, 117556.
• Shahzadi, I., Yaseen, M. R., Khan, M. T. I., Makhdum, M. S. A., & Ali, Q. (2022). The nexus between research and development, renewable energy and environmental quality: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Renewable Energy, 190, 1089–1099.
• 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.
• Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 783– 820.
• United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record – Temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again). United Nations Environment Programme.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748.
• Wier, M., Birr-Pedersen, K., Jacobsen, H. K., & Klok, J. (2005). Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience. Ecological Economics, 52(2), 239–251.
• Wolde-Rufael, Y., & Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. (2021). Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22392–22408.
• Xie, P., & Jamaani, F. (2022). Does green innovation, energy productivity and environmental taxes limit carbon emissions in developed economies: Implications for sustainable development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 63, 66–78.
• Xiao, J., Karavias, Y., Sarafidis, V., Juodis, A., & Ditzen, J. (2023). XTGRANGERT: Stata module for improved Granger non-causality testing in heterogeneous and homogeneous panel data.
• Zhang, Z., & Zheng, Q. (2023). Sustainable development via environmental taxes and efficiency in energy: Evaluating trade adjusted carbon emissions. Sustainable Development, 31(1), 415–425.