Demokrasi Karbondioksit Emisyonu İçin Önemli mi? Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama

Abstract

Geçmişten günümüze nüfus artışı, kentleşme ve ekonomik kalkınma hedeflerinin bir sonucu olan çevresel bozulma önemli bir boyuta ulaşmıştır. Özellikle gelişmiş ve demokratik ülkelerde araştırmacılar ve politikacılar için çevresel bozulmanın önlenmesi ve azaltılması konusu en çok çalışılan konulardan birisi olmuştur. Ekonomik kalkınma sürecinde ilk öncelik ekonomik büyüme iken, bu süreci tamamlamış ülkelerde demokrasi çerçevesinde sosyal ve çevresel konulardaki kamuoyu farkındalığı artmaktadır. Gelişmiş demokrasilerde vatandaşlar, çevre sorunları hakkında karar vermede aktif role sahiptirler. Aynı zamanda demokratik devletler vatandaşın çevresel görüş ve ihtiyaçlarına daha duyarlıdırlar. Bu teorik bilgilere göre demokrasinin çevre üzerinde bir etkisi olduğu ifade edilebilir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin 1972-2011 yılları arasındaki verileri kullanılarak çevresel politikalar için demokrasinin önemi araştırılmıştır. Bu bağlamda zaman serisi analizi ile Türkiye’de demokrasinin karbondioksit emisyonu üzerinde azaltıcı etkiye sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Çevre, Demokrasi, Ekonomik Büyüme

Does Democracy Level Matter for the Carbon Dioxide Emissions? An Empricial Study for Turkey

Abstract

From past to present, environmental degradation that comes as a result of the pursuit of population increase, urbanization and economic development objectives has reached a severe stage. Preventing and reducing this degradation has became one of the most studied topics for researchers and policy makers in especially economically developed and democratic countries. While the first priority in the process of economic development is economic growth, nowadays in countries that have completed this process public awareness about social and environmental issues has increasing within the framework of democracy. In mature democracies citizens have an active role as a participant in decisionmaking process about environmental issues. Corresponding to this, democratic governments are more responsive to public’s environmental views and needs. According to this theoretical knowledge, there is evidence of effects of democracy on environment. This paper investigates the importance of democracy for the policies of pollution. In particular, we examine the effects of level of democracy on the carbon dioxide emissions for Turkey over the period 1972-2011. It concluded that democracy has a reducing effect on carbon dioxide emissions.

Keywords

• Environment, Carbon Dioxide, Democracy, Economic Growth

References

1. Bernauer, T., & Koubi, V. (2004, September). On the political determinants of environmental quality. In annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois.
2. Bernauer, T., & Koubi, V. (2009). Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
3. Brenna, K. A. (2015). Democracy and Climate Change The relationship between democracy and CO2-emissions. https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/49360 (Erişim Tarihi: 11.04.2016).
4. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. The review of economics and statistics, 412-421.
5. Desai, U. (1989). Public participation in environmental policy implementation: Case of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The American Review of Public Administration, 19(1), 49-65.
6. Drosdowski, T. (2006). On the link between democracy and environment (No. 355). Diskussionspapiere des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Hannover.
7. Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy.
8. Gallagher, K., & Thacker, S. (2008). Democracy, Income, and Environmental Quality. PERI Working Papers.

9. Gleditsch, N. P. & Sverdrur, B. O. (2003). Democracy and the Environment. In Human Security and the Environment: International Coımparisons, edited by Edward Paper and Michael Redclift. London: Elgar.
10. Gujarati, Damodar N. (2004), Basic Econometrics, The MacGraw-Hill Companies.
11. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.
12. Heilbroner, R. (1974). An Inquiry into theHuman Prospect. New York: WW Nor-ton.
13. Hotunluoğlu, H., & Tekeli, R. (2013). Budget Deficits and Democracy: The Case of Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 19(19).
14. Huntington, Samuel P. (1993), Üçüncü Dalga, (Çev. E. Özbudun), Tdv Yayınları, Ankara.
15. Huntington, Samuel P. (1995), “Demokrasinin Üçüncü Dalgası”, Dıamond, L. Ve M.F. Plattner, Demokrasinin Küresel Yükselişi, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara.
16. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of economic dynamics and control, 12(2), 231-254.
17. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
18. Kar, M., & Kınık, E. (2008). Türkiye’de Elektrik Tüketimi Çeşitleri ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Ekonometrik Bir Analizi.
19. Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic globalization and democracy: An empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 33(01), 29-54.
20. Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation.International studies quarterly, 50(4), 935-956.
21. Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2007). The Effects of Liberalism on the Terrestrial Environment. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 24(3), 219-238.
22. Midlarsky, M. I. (1998). Democracy and the environment: an empirical assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341-361.
23. Mucuk, M., & Uysal, D. (2009). Türkiye ekonomisinde enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme. Maliye Dergisi, 157, 105-115.
24. Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development. American Political Science Review, 87(03), 567-576. Özyol, Arzu (2013)
25. “Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma ve Katılımcı Demokrasi”
26. http://www.bpwturkey.org/eklentiler/surdurulebilirkalkinmavekatilimcidemokrasi.d
27. oc, (Erişim Tarihi: 27.08.2015).
28. Paehlke, R. (1996). Environmental challenges to democratic practice.Democracy and the environment: problems and prospects, 18-38.
29. Payne, R. A. (1995). Freedom and the environment. Journal of democracy,6(3), 41-55.
30. Pellegrini, L., & Gerlagh, R. (2006). Corruption, Democracy, and Environmental Policy An Empirical Contribution to the Debate. The Journal of Environment & Development, 15(3), 332-354.
31. Romuald, K. S. (2011). Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels. In 2011 International congress, August 30–September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland (No. 120396).
32. Schultz, C. B., & Crockett, T. R. (1990). Economic development, democratization, and environmental protection in Eastern Europe. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 18, 53.
33. Scruggs, L. A. (1998). Political and economic inequality and the environment. Ecological economics, 26(3), 259-275.
34. Scruggs, L. (2009, April). Democracy and environmental protection: An empirical analysis. In annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois.