YEŞİL DÖNÜŞÜMÜN EMEK PAYI ÜZERİNDEKİ ASİMETRİK ETKİLERİ: G-20 VE G-7 EKONOMİLERİ ÜZERİNE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, küresel iklim krizleriyle mücadeleye yönelik makroekonomik dinamikleri ele alarak, yeşil dönüşümün G-20 ve G-7 ülkelerinde 1991-2021 dönemi için emeğin GSYİH içindeki payı üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin etkisi; küreselleşme, beşerî sermaye ve işsizlik kontrol edilerek ikinci nesil panel veri teknikleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, ticari açıklığın emeğin pazarlık gücünü zayıflatarak her iki ülke grubunda da emek gelir payını anlamlı ölçüde düşürdüğünü göstermektedir. Ancak, yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamsız kalmıştır. Katsayı işaretleri G-20 ve G-7 arasında asimetrik eğilimler sergilese de, bu genel anlamsızlık durumu ortalama etkinin nötr olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bulgular, altta yatan yapısal heterojenliğin etkiyi dengelemesi nedeniyle, yeşil dönüşümün emek piyasalarını yapısal olarak dönüştürecek teknolojik olgunluk eşiğine henüz ulaşmadığını göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Yeşil Dönüşüm
• Emek Gelir Payı
• G-20 ve G-7 Ekonomileri
• CCEMG Tahmincisi
• Gelir Bölüşümü

Supporting Institution

Hiçbir kurum tarafından destek alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmada Penn World Table ve Dünya Bankası gibi açık erişimli veri tabanlarından elde edilen ikincil veriler kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, insan veya hayvan denekler üzerinde herhangi bir anket, mülakat veya deneysel uygulama içermediğinden dolayı etik kurul izni alınmasına gerek duyulmamıştır. Araştırma ve yayın etiği kurallarına tam olarak uyulmuştur. Bunula birlikte, bu çalışmanın, özgün bir çalışma olduğunu; çalışmanın hazırlık, veri toplama, analiz ve bilgilerin sunumu olmak üzere tüm aşamalarından bilimsel etik ilke ve kurallarına uygun davrandığımı; bu çalışma kapsamında elde edilmeyen tüm veri ve bilgiler için kaynak gösterdiğimi ve bu kaynaklara kaynakçada yer verdiğimi; kullanılan verilerde herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı, çalışmanın Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)' in tüm şartlarını ve koşullarını kabul ederek etik görev ve sorumluluklara riayet ettiğimi beyan ederim. Herhangi bir zamanda, çalışmayla ilgili yaptığım bu beyana aykırı bir durumun saptanması durumunda, ortaya çıkacak tüm ahlaki ve hukuki sonuçlara razı olduğumu bildiririm.

THE ASYMMETRIC EFFECTS OF THE GREEN TRANSITION ON THE LABOR INCOME SHARE: A COMPARATIVE PANEL DATA ANALYSIS OF G-20 AND G-7 ECONOMIES

Abstract

This study examines the macroeconomic dynamics related to addressing global climate crises and investigates the effects of the green transition on the labor income share of GDP in G-20 and G-7 countries for the period 1991–2021. The impact of renewable energy consumption was assessed using second-generation panel data techniques, controlling for globalization, human capital, and unemployment. The results demonstrate that trade openness significantly reduces the labor income share in both country groups by weakening labor's bargaining power. However, the impact of renewable energy consumption remained statistically insignificant. Although the coefficient signs exhibit asymmetric tendencies between the G-20 and G-7, this overall insignificance indicates a neutral average effect. The findings suggest that the green transition has yet to attain the technological maturity threshold required to structurally transform labor markets, as underlying structural heterogeneity offsets the impact.

Keywords

• Green Transition
• Labor Income Share
• G-20 and G-7 Economies
• CCEMG Estimator
• Income Distribution

Supporting Institution

No funding was received from any organization.

Ethical Statement

This study utilized secondary data obtained from open-access databases such as the Penn World Table and the World Bank. Since the study did not involve any surveys, interviews, or experimental procedures on human or animal subjects, no approval from an ethics committee was required. The study fully complied with research and publication ethics guidelines. Furthermore, I declare that this is an original study; that I have acted in accordance with scientific ethical principles and rules throughout all stages of the study, including preparation, data collection, analysis, and presentation of information; that I have cited all data and information not obtained within the scope of this study and have cited them in the reference list; I have not made any alterations to the data used; and I hereby declare that I have adhered to all ethical duties and responsibilities by accepting all terms and conditions of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). I hereby declare that, should any situation contrary to this declaration regarding the study be identified at any time, I accept all moral and legal consequences that may arise.

References

1. Bluedorn, J. C., Hansen, N.-J. H., Noureldin, D., Shibata, I., & Tavares, M. M. (2022). Transitioning to a greener labor market: Cross-country evidence from microdata (IMF Working Paper No. 2022/146). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/wp/2022/english/wpiea2022146-print-pdf.pdf
2. Chuong, H. N., Uyen, V. T. P., Ngan, N. D. P., Tram, N. T. B., Han, N. D. M., & Duyen, P. H. K. (2025). The impact of globalization, renewable energy, and labor on sustainable development: A cross-country analysis. PLOS ONE, 20(9), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333199
3. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator (MPRA Paper No. 17692). Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/
4. Erdemir, N. A. (2025). Green economy in focus: A comprehensive review of its thematic dimensions. Yildiz Social Science Review, 11(2), 134-163. https://doi.org/10.51803/yssr.1797344
5. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150-3182. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130954
6. Gawrycka, M., & Szymczak, A. (2021). A panel analysis of the impact of green transformation and globalization on the labor share in the national income. Energies, 14(21), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14216967
7. Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., & Poessinouw, M. (2017). The global green economy: A review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo: Geography and Environment, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.36
8. Güleç, O. (2025). Türkiye’de yeşil ekonomi uygulamalarının etkinliği üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 11(3), 251-267. https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2025.11.3.004

9. Han, A. (2024). Yeşil ekonomi yolunda OECD ülkelerinde yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 58(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1388229
10. Huang, Y., Zhao, J., & Lan, J. (2022). Environmental regulation, abatement strategy, and labor income share. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.965963
11. Juodis, A., & Reese, S. (2022). The incidental parameters problem in testing for remaining cross-section dependence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(3), 1191-1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2021.1906616
12. Khan, R. Z., Razak, L. A., & Premaratne, G. (2025). Green growth and sustainability: A systematic literature review on theories, measures and future directions. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 17, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2025.100274
13. Loiseau, E., Saikku, L., Antikainen, R., Droste, N., & Hansjürgens, B. (2016). Green economy and related concepts: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024
14. Marin, G., & Vona, F. (2019). Climate policies and skill-biased employment dynamics: Evidence from EU countries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 98(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102253
15. Marin, G., Marino, M., & Pellegrin, C. (2018). The impact of the European Emission Trading Scheme on multiple measures of economic performance. Environmental and Resource Economics, 71(2), 551–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0173-0
16. Muniba, Majeed, A., & Du, A. M. (2026). Greening the supply chain: How digital transformation shapes environmental sustainability in emerging economies. Energy Economics, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2026.109283
17. OECD. (2011). Towards green growth (OECD Green Growth Studies). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en
18. OECD. (2023). Net Zero+: Climate and economic resilience in a changing world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/da477dda-en
19. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
20. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
21. 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
22. Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
23. Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
24. Pesaran, M. H., & Xie, Y. (2021). A bias-adjusted CD test for error cross-sectional dependence in panel data models with latent factors. Econometrics and Statistics, 28, 14-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosta.2021.12.004
25. 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
26. Sare, Y. A., Amoah, J. O., & Bawuah, B. (2024). Assessing the impact of international trade and FDI in driving economic development in West Africa: The role of urbanization. SN Business & Economics, 4(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-023-00624-9
27. StataCorp. (2023). Stata Statistical Software: Release 19 [Computer software]. StataCorp LLC.
28. Tănasie, A. V., Năstase, L. L., Vochița, L. L., Manda, A. M., Boțoteanu, G. I., & Sitnikov, C. S. (2022). Green economy—Green jobs in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(8), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084796
29. UNEP. (2010). 2010 Annual Report. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/items/819b4118-18f4-4b19-82d6-60fcbc7627b2
30. Wesseler, J., Cingiz, K., Delahaye, R., Kardung, M., & Lazorcakova, E. (2026). Bioeconomy, agriculture, and the circular economy: Opportunity and challenges. Lessons learned from the EU BioMonitor project. In D. Zilberman, J. Zhuang, J. Wesseler, & M. Khanna (Eds.), Handbook of circular bioeconomy (pp. 57-75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-07112-5
31. 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
32. World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. World Bank Publications. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/dd958ad6-e19f-5acf-894c-1809db8ce348
33. World Bank. (n.d.). World Development Indicators. The World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (05.03.2026)
34. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
35. Yıkmaz, R. F. (2025). Energy sustainability: Bridging the nexus between sustainability and development in Türkiye. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.