The Effect of Instituonal Quality on Environmental Performance at Different Levels of Development: An Emprical Analysis

Year 2017, , 189 - 212, 30.04.2017

Mehmet Hanefi Topal , Pınar Hayaloğlu

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.273969

Cited By: 10

Abstract

Environment
is one of the most important possibilities granted to mankind to maintain vital
presence. The environment is based on perfect balance. Ironically, the most
important threat to this board equilibrium is humanity. On the other hand,
people build a number of institutions to meet their needs, to determine the
rules of their relations and to establish harmonious relations with the
environment. These institutional constructions, which are the common product of
the rational human mind, are also the safeguards of the common living space of
mankind. The purpose of this study is to test this claim empirically. In this
context, the annual data of 124 countries for the period 2000-2014 were
analyzed by static and dynamic panel data analysis Contrary to other studies,
both the organizational structure and the environment are defined in a broad
sense in this study. According to results, the positive effect of political
stabilty, governance quality and democratic development on the environmental
performance does not depends at the countries’ development stage.

Keywords

Political Stability, Quality of Governance, Democracy, Environmental Performance, Panel Data Analysis

Farklı Gelişmişlik Düzeylerinde Kurumsal Kalitenin Çevre Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Ampirik Bir Analiz

Abstract

Yaşamsal
varlığını sürdürmek için insanlığa lütfedilmiş en önemli imkânlardan biri
çevredir. Çevre kusursuz denge üzerine kuruludur. İronik bir şekilde, bu kurulu
dengenin en önemli tehdidi insanlıktır. Öte yandan insanlar ihtiyaçlarını
karşılamak, kendi aralarındaki ilişkilerin kurallarını belirlemek ve çevreyle
uyumlu ilişki kurmak için bir takım kurumlar inşa ederler. Rasyonel insan aklının
ortak ürünü olan bu kurumsal yapılar insanlığın ortak yaşam alanı olan çevrenin
de güvencesidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı bu iddiayı ampirik olarak sınamaktır. Bu
kapsamda 124 ülkenin 2000-2014 dönemi yıllık verileri statik ve dinamik panel
veri analizleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak bu
çalışmada hem kurumsal yapı hem de çevre geniş anlamda tanımlanmıştır. Analiz
sonuçlarına göre; politik istikrar, yönetişim kalitesi ve demokratik gelişme
çevresel performansı arttırmaktadır. Ayrıca kurumsal kalitenin çevre
performansı üzerindeki pozitif etkisi ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeylerine göre
değişmemektedir.

Keywords

Politik İstikrar, Yönetişim Kalitesi, Demokrasi, Çevresel Performans, Panel Veri Analizi

References

• Akın, C. S. (2014). Kurumsal kalitenin çevre üzerine olan etkileri: BRICS ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama, Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi, 6(2), 1-8.
• Arellano M. & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, The Review of Economic Studies, 58 (2), 277-97.
• Arellano, M. & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models, Journal of Econometrics, 68 (1), 29-51.
• Aron, J. (2000). Growth and institutions: a review of the evidence, The World Bank Research Observer, 15(1), 99–135.
• Aslaksen, S. (2010). Oil and democracy: more than a cross-country correlation?, Journal of Peace Research 47(4), 421-31.
• Bal, H., Algan, N. & Özdemir, P. (2015). Yeni kurumsalcı perspektifte çevresel yönetişim ve kurumsal çerçevenin önemi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 16(2), 179-191.
• Baltagi, H. B. (2014), Econonometric Analysis of Panel Data (5th Edition), Wiley, UK.
• Barrett, S. & Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment, Environment and Development Economics, 5(4), 433-56.
• Bernauer, T. & Koubi, V. (2009). Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
• Blundell, R. & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models, Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-43.
• Carlsson, F. & Lundström, S. (2001). Political and economic freedom and the environment: the case of CO2 emissions, Working Papers in Economics, No 29, (second version), August 2001, Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
• Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412–421.
• Greene, W. H. (2012), Econometric Analysis (seventh edition), Pearson, Boston.
• Grossman G. M. & Krueger A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a north american free trade agreement, NBER Working Paper Series, 3914.
• Gujarati, N. D. (2003), Basic Econometrics, McGraw Hill Educations, New York.
• Hausman, J. A. (1978), Specification tests in econometrics, Econometrica, 46 (6), 1251-71.
• Jalil, A. & Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China, Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-72.
• Kasper, W. (2007). Ekonomik Özgürlük ve Gelişme, Mülkiyet Hakları, Rekabet Ve Refah Üzerine Bir İnceleme, (Çev. Bahadır Akın), Liberte Yayınları, Ankara.
• Kinda, S. R. (2011). Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels, Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE 2011 Congress hangeand Uncertainty, August 30 to September 2, 2011, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2003). Governance matters III: governance indicators for 1996-2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3106. Washington DC: World Bank
• Li, Q. & Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation, International Studies Quarterly, 50: 935–56.
• Nasreen, S., Hassan, M. & Riaz, F. R. (2016). Relationship between corruption, income inequality and environmental degradation in Pakistan: an econometric analysis, Bulletin of Energy Economics (BEE), 4 (1): 12-22.
• Roberts, J. T. & Grimes, P. E. (1997). Carbon intensity and economic development 1962-91: a brief exploration of the environmental kuznets curve, World Development 25(2): 191-98.
• Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system. in gmm in stata, Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 103.
• Schmalensee, R. & Stoker, T.M. (1998). World carbon dioxide emissions: 1950-2050, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 15-27.
• Scruggs, L. (2009). Democracy and environmental protection: an empirical analysis, http://spuconn.edu/~scruggs/mpsa09e.pdf. (Erişim tarihi, 02 Kasım 2016).
• Selden, T. M. & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: ıs there a kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7, 147-62.
• Stern, D. I., & Common, M. S. (2001). Is there an environmental kuznets curve for sulfur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 162–78.
• Stroup, R. L. (2003). Economic freedom and environmental quality. https://www.dallasfed.org /assets/documents/research/pubs/ftc/stroup.pdf. (Erişim tarihi, 07 Kasım 2016).
• Tamazian, A. & Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and ınstitutional developments matter for environmental degradation? evidence from transitional economies, Energy Economics, 32(1), 137–45.
• Veblen, T. (1919). The Place Of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essay. New York, Huebsch.
• Welsch, H. (2002). Corruption, Growth, And The Environment: A Cross-Country Analysis, DIW Discussion Papers, No. 357.
• Winbourne, S. (2002). Corruption and the environment. management systems International and USAID, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnact876.pdf. (Erişim tarihi, 07 Kasım 2016).
• Wood, J. & Herzog, I. (2014). Economic freedom and air quality. https://www.fraserinstitute. org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-and-air-quality.pdf. (Erişim tarihi, 02 Kasım 2016).