Karbon Emisyonu ile Vergileme Arasındaki İlişkinin Cumhuriyetten Günümüze Analizi: Kantil Eşbütünleşme Yaklaşımından Kanıtlar

Öz

100’üncü yılını kutlayan Türkiye’nin, önümüzdeki asır için çözmek zorunda olduğu sorunlardan biri dramatik oranda artan çevresel kirlilik meselesidir. Sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın temel hedefleri arasında yer alan çevresel kirliliğin minimize edilmesine ilişkin politikaların uygulanması kritik öneme sahiptir. Ulusal ve uluslararası alanda çevresel sorunlara yönelik kamusal müdahale yöntemlerinin başında maliye politikası araçları gelmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de Cumhuriyetten günümüze (1923-2021) vergilemenin karbon emisyonu (CO2) üzerindeki etkilerini ampirik olarak araştırmaktır. Çalışmada yöntem olarak, Xiao (2009) tarafından önerilen kantil eşbütünleşme testinden yararlanılmaktadır. Pozitif ve negatif şokların ayrıştırılarak incelenebilmesine olanak sağlaması, kuyruklu dağılımların varlığı durumunda dirençli sonuçlar vermesi ve olası içsellik sorununu dikkate alması, bu yöntemin avantajlı yönleridir. Ampirik analizden elde edilen bulgulara göre, çevre kirliliği ile vergileme arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin var olduğu yani Türkiye’de çevre kirliliği ile vergilemenin uzun dönemde birlikte hareket ettiği sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Katsayı sonuçları incelendiğinde, vergilemenin çevre kirliliği üzerinde arttırıcı etkisinin olduğu görülmektedir. Kantil bazında sonuçlar, pozitif şoklarda ilişkinin anlamsız olduğuna negatif şoklarda ise anlamlı hale geldiğine işaret etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çevre kirliliği ile vergileme arasında asimetrik bir yapının var olduğuna dair yeni kanıtlar sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon Emisyonu
• Vergileme
• Kantil Eşbütünleşme

Analysis of the Relationship Between Carbon Emissions and Taxation from the Republic to Present: Evidence from the Quantile Co-integration Approach

Öz

One of the problems that Türkiye, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary, has to solve for the next century is the issue of environmental pollution, which has increased dramatically. Implementation of policies for minimizing environmental pollution, which is among the main objectives of sustainable development, is of critical importance. Fiscal policy instruments are at the forefront of public intervention methods for environmental problems in the national and international arena. The aim of the study is to empirically investigate the effects of taxation on carbon emissions (CO2) from the Republic to present (1923-2021) in Türkiye. As a method in the study, the quantile co-integration test proposed by Xiao (2009) is used. The advantageous aspects of this method are that it allows the analysis of positive and negative shocks by separating them, that it gives durable results in the presence of tailed distributions, and that it takes into account the possible problem of endogenity. According to the findings obtained from the empirical analysis, it is concluded that there is a co-integration relationship between environmental pollution and taxation, that is, environmental pollution and taxation act together in the long run in Türkiye. When the coefficient results are examined, it is seen that taxation has an increasing effect on environmental pollution. The quantile-based results indicate that the relationship is insignificant in positive shocks and becomes significant in negative shocks. In this context, new evidence is presented that there is an asymmetrical structure between environmental pollution and taxation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon Emission
• Taxation
• Quantile Co-integration

Kaynakça

1. Adebayo, T.S. ve Samour, A. (2023). Renewable energy, fiscal policy and load capacity factor in BRICS countries: novel findings from panel nonlinear ARDL model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-25 (article in press). doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02888-1
2. Akbar, M.W., Yuelan, P., Zia, Z. ve Arshad, M. I. (2022). Role of fiscal policy in energy efficiency and CO2 emission nexus: An investigation of belt and road region. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2603. doi: 10.1002/pa.2603
3. Akkaya, S. ve Hepsag, A. (2021). Does fuel tax decrease carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey? Evidence from an asymmetric nonlinear cointegration test and error correction model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 35094–35101. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12907-9
4. Akyol, H. ve Gül, K. (2021). Çevresel vergi politikaları sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı desteklemede ne kadar etkilidir: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(46), 977-997. doi: 10.31795/baunsobed.896534
5. Arı, A. ve Zeren, F. (2011). CO2 emisyonu ve ekonomik büyüme: panel veri analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 18(2), 37-47. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yonveek/issue/13695/165744
6. Atay Polat, M. ve Ergün, S. (2021). Kirlilik emisyonlarının azaltılmasında çevre vergilerinin rolü: AB ülkeleri örneği. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 36(2), 379-397. doi: 10.24988/ije.202136209
7. Bekmez, S. ve Nakıpoğlu, F. (2012). Çevre vergisi-ekonomik büyüme ikilemi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(3), 641-658. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/223331
8. Bostan, I., Onofrei, M., Dascălu, E.D., Fîrțescu, B. ve Toderașcu, C. (2016). Impact of sustainable environmental expenditures policy on air pollution reduction, during European integration framework. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 18(42), 286-302. Erişim adresi: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/169002

9. Bozkurt, C. ve Okumuş, İ. (2015). Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi, ticari serbestleşme ve nüfus yoğunluğunun CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkileri: yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme analizi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(32), 23-35. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mkusbed/issue/19578/208976
10. Caglar, A.E. ve Yavuz, E. (2023). The role of environmental protection expenditures and renewable energy consumption in the context of ecological challenges: Insights from the European Union with the novel panel econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117317. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117317
11. Caglar, A.E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M. ve Kilic, E. (2022). The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 10521–10534. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16406-9
12. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E. ve Yucel, A.G. (2018). Structural breaks, urbanization and CO2 emissions: evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 8(2), 122-139. Erişim adresi: http://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/2/2/6622240/joaebrjune2018_122_139.pdf
13. Chan, Y.T. (2020). Are macroeconomic policies better in curbing air pollution than environmental policies? A DSGE approach with carbon-dependent fiscal and monetary policies. Energy Policy, 141, 111454. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111454
14. Damirova, S. ve Yayla, N. (2020). Çevre kirliliği ile makroekonomik belirleyicileri arasındaki ilişki: seçilmiş ülkeler için bir panel veri analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 30, 107-126. doi: 10.18092/ulikidince.804787
15. Danish, K., Ulucak, R. ve Khan, S.U.D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
16. Dickey, D.A. ve Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
17. Dogan, B., Tekgüç, H. ve Yeldan, A.E. (2023). Toward a green income support policy: investigating social and fiscal alternatives for Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 68, 7–29. doi: 10.1017/npt.2023.2
18. Dogan, E., Hodžić, S. ve Šikić, T.F. (2022). A way forward in reducing carbon emissions in environmentally friendly countries: the role of green growth and environmental taxes. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 5879-5894. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2039261 Esen, Ö. ve Dündar, M. (2021). Do energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 6(2), 179-186. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joeep/issue/60720/987866
19. Esen, Ö., Yıldırım, D.Ç. ve Yıldırım, S. (2021). Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes – Ecological balance Nexus. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106662. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106662
20. Fatima, N., Yanting, Z. ve Guohua, N. (2023). Role of environmentally related technologies and revenue taxes in environmental degradation in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 73283–73298. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-27011-3
21. GFN (2023). Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Erişim adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
22. GİB (2023). Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı, Genel Bütçe Gelirleri Tahsilatı (1923-2022), Erişim adresi: https://www.gib.gov.tr/sites/default/files/fileadmin/user_upload/VI/GBG/ Tablo_1.xls.htm
23. Halkos, G.E. ve Paizanos, E.A. (2016). The effects of fiscal policy on CO2 emissions: Evidence from the U.S.A. Energy Policy, 88, 317–328. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.035
24. Hashmi, R. ve 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. doi: 10.1016 /j.jclepro.2019.05.325
25. He, L., Wu, M., Wang, D. ve Zhong, Z. (2018). A study of the influence of regional environmental expenditure on air quality in China: The effectiveness of environmental policy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 7454-7468. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-1033-8
26. Ike, G.N., Usman, O. ve Asumadu, S. (2020). Fiscal policy and CO2 emissions from heterogeneous fuel sources in Thailand: evidence from multiple structural breaks cointegration test. Science of the Total Environment, 702, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134711
27. Jarque, C.M. ve Bera, A.K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163–172. doi: 10.2307/1403192
28. Katircioglu, S. ve Katircioglu, S. (2018). Testing the Role of Fiscal Policy in The Environmental Degradation: The Case of Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(6), 5616–5630. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-0906-1
29. Kaygusuz, K. (2009). Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions for sustainable development in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(1), 253-270. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.009
30. Koç, N., Saraç, T.B. ve Koç, Ö.E. (2022). Türkiye'de çevre kirliliğinin belirleyicileri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, 23(4), 204-225. doi: 10.53443/anadoluibfd.1137098
31. Koenker, R. ve Xiao, Z. (2004). Unit root quantile autoregression inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467), 775-787. doi: 10.1198/016214504000001114
32. Li, S., Samour, A., Irfan, M. ve Ali, M. (2023). Role of renewable energy and fiscal policy on trade adjusted carbon emissions: Evaluating the role of environmental policy stringency. Renewable Energy, 205, 156–165. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.047
33. Loganathan, N., Shahbaz, M. ve Taha, R. (2014). The link between green taxation and economic growth on CO2 emissions: Fresh evidence from Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 1083–1091. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.057
34. Lopez, R., Galinato, G.I. ve Islam, A. (2011). Fiscal spending and the environment: theory and empirics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 180-198. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2011.03.001
35. Nazlioglu, S. (2021). TSPDLIB: GAUSS Time Series and Panel Data Methods (Version 2.1). Source Code. Erişim adresi: https://github. com/aptech/tspdlib
36. OECD (2023). Environmental tax, Erişim adresi: https://data.oecd.org/envpolicy/environmental-tax.htm.
37. Oral, B. G. ve Sayın, F. (2015). Environmental problems from an economic and fiscal perspective: an empirical evaluation for Turkey and OECD countries. European Journal of Scientific Research, 131(3), 242-255. Erişim adresi: http://www.europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com
38. OWID (2023a). Our World In Data, CO2 emissions, Erişim adresi: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
39. OWID (2023b) Our World In Data, CO2 emissions per capita vs. GDP per capita, Erişim adresi: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-vs-gdp
40. Önder, H. (2017). Vergilemenin ve diğer kamusal müdahalelerin hava kirliliği üzerinde etkisi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine bir analiz. Maliye Dergisi, 172, 189-199. Erişim adresi: https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/09/172-10.pdf
41. Özbek, S. (2023). Sürdürülebilir çevre: çevre teknolojileri ve vergileri kapsamında ekonometrik bir inceleme. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 63-91. doi: 10.33399/biibfad.1253043
42. Özkaya, M.H. (2022). Ekonomik büyüme ve çevre vergi gelirlerinin karbon dioksit emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi: AB ülkeleri örneği. International Journal of Applied Economic and Finance Studies, 7(1), 128-139. Erişim adresi: http://www.ijabms.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/08_OZKAYA.pdf
43. Pata, U.K. ve Samour, A. (2023). Assessing the role of the insurance market and renewable energy in the load capacity factor of OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(16), 48604-48616. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-25747-6
44. Polat, O. ve Eş Polat, G. (2018). Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde karbondioksit emisyonu ve çevre vergileri: panel veri analizi yaklaşımı. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 639, 1101-1115. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/fpeyd/issue/47984/607052
45. Portnoy, S. (1991). Asymptotic behavior of regression quantiles in non-stationary, dependent cases. Journal of Multivariate analysis, 38(1), 100-113. doi: 10.1016/0047-259X(91)90034-Y
46. Postula, M. ve Radecka-Moroz, K. (2020). Fiscal policy instruments in environmental protection. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84, 106435. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106435
47. Ramzan, M., Abbasi, K.R., Iqbal, H.A. ve Adebayo, T.S. (2023). What's at Stake? The empirical importance of government revenue and debt and renewable energy for environmental neutrality in the US economy. Renewable Energy, 205, 475-489. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.071
48. Rüstemoğlu, H. (2021). Türkiye’de konut sektörü, ticari hizmetler ve kamu hizmetlerinin CO2 emisyonlarının 1990-2017 dönemi için incelenmesi. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 56-67. doi: 10.25294/auiibfd.837207
49. Sadorsky, P. (2014). The effect of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economies. Energy Economics, 41, 147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.007
50. Safi, A., Chen, Y., Wahab, S., Zheng, L. ve 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112908
51. Saikkonen, P. (1991). Asymptotically efficient estimation of cointegration regressions. Econometric Theory, 7(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1017/S0266466600004217
52. Saqib, N., Radulescu, M., Usman, M., Balsalobre-Lorent, D. ve Cilan, T. (2023). Environmental technology, economic complexity, renewable electricity, environmental taxes and CO2 emissions: Implications for low-carbon future in G-10 bloc. Heliyon, 9, e16457. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16457
53. Shahbaz, M. ve Sinha, A. (2019). Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 emissions: a literature survey. Journal of Economic Studies, 46(1), 106-168. doi: 10.1108/JES-09-2017-0249
54. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Muzaffar, A.T., Ahmed, K. ve Ali Jabran, M. (2016). How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.096
55. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F. ve 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. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
56. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the public sector. (Third ed.), New York/London: W. W. Norton & Company.
57. Sun, X., Dong, Y., Wang, Y. ve Ren, J. (2022). Sources of greenhouse gas emission reductions in OECD countries: Composition or technique effects. Ecological Economics, 193, 107288. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107288
58. Syed, Q.R., Malik, W.S. ve Chang, B.H. (2019). Volatility spillover effect of federal reserve’s balance sheet on the financial and goods markets of Indo-pak region. Annals of Financial Economics, 14(3), 1950015. doi: 10.1142/S2010495219500155
59. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı (2023a). Yeşil Mutabakat Eylem Planı ve Çalışma Grubu, Erişim adresi: https://ticaret.gov.tr/dis-iliskiler/yesil-mutabakat/yesil-mutabakat-eylem-plani-ve-calisma-grubu
60. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı (2023b). AB Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması, Erişim adresi: https://ticaret.gov.tr/dis-iliskiler/yesil-mutabakat/ab-sinirda-karbon-duzenleme-mekanizmasi
61. TÜİK (2022). İstatistik göstergeler 1923-2022, Yayın No: 4677, Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
62. TÜİK (2023). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Nüfus ve Demografi, Ulusal Hesaplar, Erişim adresi: https://www.tuik.gov.tr/
63. Ullah, S., Majeed, M.T. ve Chishti, M.Z. (2020). Examining the asymmetric effects of fiscal policy instruments on environmental quality in Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 38287–38299. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09859-x
64. UN (2023a). United Nations, Conferences-Environment and Sustainable Development, Erişim adresi: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment
65. UN (2023b). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs-Sustainable Development, The 17 Goals, Erişim adresi: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
66. UNCC (2023). UN Climate Change, Process and Meetings, Erişim adresi: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings
67. UNEP (2023a). United Nations Environment Programme, The Montreal Protocol, Erişim adresi: https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol
68. UNEP (2023b). United Nations Environment Programme, Ozone Secretariat, Erişim adresi: https://ozone.unep.org/
69. Uyduranoglu, A. ve Ozturk, S. S. (2020). Public support for carbon taxation in Turkey: drivers and barriers. Climate Policy, 20(9), 1175–1191. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1816887
70. Wang, Q., Yang, T., Li, R. ve Wang, L. (2022). Population aging redefines the economic growth-carbon emissions nexus, energy consumption-carbon emissions nexus-Evidence from 36 OECD countries. Energy & Environment, 34(4), 946-970. doi: 10.1177/0958305X221079426
71. Xiao, Z. (2009). Quantile cointegrating regression. Journal of Econometrics, 150(2), 248-260. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.12.005
72. Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar. International Journal of Social, Humanities And Administrative Sciences, 7(45), 1937-1945. doi: 10.31589/JOSHAS.784
73. Yavuz, E. ve Ergen, E. (2022). Çevre vergilerinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: seçilmiş G20 ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. International Journal of Public Finance, 7(1), 113-136. doi: 10.30927/ijpf.1066728
74. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U.K. (2022). On the interaction between fiscal policy and CO2 emissions in G7 countries: 1875–2016. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 196-217. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2021.1950575
75. Yuelan, P., Akbar, M.W., Hafeez, M., Ahmad, M., Zia, Z. ve Ullah, S. (2019). The nexus of fiscal policy instruments and environmental degradation in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 28919-28932. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06071-4
76. Yuelan, P., Akbar, M.W., Zia, Z. ve Arshad, M.I. (2022). Exploring the nexus between tax revenues, government expenditures, and climate change: empirical evidence from Belt and Road Initiative countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 55, 1365–1395. doi: 10.1007/s10644-021-09349-1
77. Yunzhao, L. (2022). Modelling the role of eco innovation, renewable energy, and environmental taxes in carbon emissions reduction in E-7 economies: Evidence from advance panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 190, 309-318. doi: 10.1016/j.renene. 2022.03.119
78. Zhang, Y., Khan, I. ve Zafar, M.W. (2022). Assessing environmental quality through natural resources, energy resources, and tax revenues. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(59), 89029-89044. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22005-z
79. Zhu, Q. ve Peng, X. (2012). The impacts of population change on carbon emissions in China during 1978–2008. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 36, 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.003