Ekonomik Karmaşıklık ve Finansal Gelişmenin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Ortak Dinamiklerinin İncelenmesi: Avrupa Birliği’nden Yeni Kanıtlar

Öz

Çevresel bozulmanın ekonomik ve sosyal belirleyicileri çevrenin korunmasına yönelik önlemlerin geliştirilmesi açısından önemlidir. AB ülkeleri çevresel kirlilik ile mücadeleye yönelik politikaların geliştirilmesinde öncü ülkeler arasında yer almaktadır. Ancak bu ülkelerde çevresel bozulmanın önlenmesine yönelik politikaların etkinliği tartışmalıdır. Bu çalışmada yeni nesil panel veri yöntemleri aracılığıyla AB ülkelerinde 1995-2021 dönemine ait çevresel kirliliğin belirleyicilerine odaklanılmaktadır. Bu kapsamda iki farklı model yardımıyla ekonomik karmaşıklık ve finansal gelişmenin etkileşiminin çevre üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmada yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki belirgin olmayan etkilerinin de ortaya koyulması amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca bu araştırma, çevresel vergilerin çevrenin korunmasındaki etkinliğini sorgulamaktadır. Çalışma bulguları sağlamlık testleri ile güçlendirilmiştir. Ampirik bulgular ekonomik karmaşıklık ve finansal gelişmenin çevresel bozulmayı artırdığına ancak bu değişkenlerin etkileşiminin çevresel bozulmayı azalttığına işaret etmektedir. Modelde yer alan çevre vergileri ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi değişkenlerinin ise ekolojik ayak izini düşürücü etkilerinin olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel kirlilik
• Ekonomik karmaşıklık
• Finansal gelişme
• Çevre vergileri
• Dinamik panel veri analizi

Exploring the Shared Dynamics of Economic Complexity and Financial Development in Environmental Degradation: Fresh Evidence from the European Union

Abstract

Economic and social determinants of environmental degradation are important for the development of measures to protect the environment. EU countries are among the leading countries in the development of policies to combat environmental pollution. However, the effectiveness of policies to prevent environmental degradation in these countries is controversial. This study focuses on the determinants of environmental pollution in EU countries for the period 1995-2021 through next-generation panel data methods. In this context, the impact of the interaction of economic complexity and financial development on the environment is investigated with the help of two models. The study also aims to reveal the subtle effects of renewable energy consumption on the ecological footprint. In addition, this research questions the effectiveness of environmental taxes in protecting the environment. The findings of the study are strengthened by robustness tests. Empirical findings indicate that economic complexity and financial development have a positive effect on ecological degradation, but the interaction of these variables increases environmental degradation. Environmental taxes and renewable energy consumption variables in the model are found to have a decreasing effect on ecological footprint.

Keywords

• Environmental pollution
• Economic complexity
• Financial development
• Environmental Taxes
• Dynamic panel data analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, K. R., Lv, K., Radulescu, M. ve Shaikh, P. A. (2021). Economic complexity, tourism, energy prices, and environmental degradation in the top economic complexity countries: fresh panel evidence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 68717-68731.
2. Adebayo, T. S., Rjoub, H., Akadiri, S. S., Oladipupo, S. D., Sharif, A. ve Adeshola, I. (2022). The role of economic complexity in the environmental Kuznets curve of MINT economies: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 24248-24260.
3. Afşar, M. ve Yüksel, G. Ö. (2022). Küreselleşme, finansal gelişme ve karbon emisyonları ilişkisi: Türkiye üzerine asimetrik kanıtlar. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 11(4), 428-449.
4. Aldy, J. E. (2005). An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of US state-level carbon dioxide emissions. The Journal of Environment & Development, 14(1), 48-72.
5. Aluko, O. A., Opoku, E. E. O. ve Acheampong, A. O. (2023). Economic complexity and environmental degradation: Evidence from OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 2767-2788.
6. Arnaut, M. ve Dada, J. T. (2022). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint: new insights from the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 17(6), 1137-1160.
7. Atlas of Economic Complexity, (2025). Country & product complexity rankings. Erişim adresi https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2025)
8. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T., Topaloğlu, E. E. ve Evcimen, C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Research, 127, 226-245.

9. Bayar, Y. ve Şaşmaz, M. Ü. (2016). Karbon vergisi, ekonomik büyüme ve CO2 emisyonu arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Danimarka, Finlandiya, Hollanda, İsveç ve Norveç örneği. International Journal of Applied Economic and Finance Studies, 1(1), 32-41.
10. Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S. R., Ozturk, I. ve Bhattacharya, S. (2016). The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from top 38 countries. Applied energy, 162, 733-741.
11. Birleşmiş Milletler (BM), (2004). Climate action. Erişim adresi https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
12. Boleti, E., Garas, A., Kyriakou, A. ve Lapatinas, A. (2021). Economic complexity and environmental performance: evidence from a world sample. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 26(3), 251-270.
13. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
14. Bucak, Ç. (2022). G8 ülkelerinde ve Türkiye’de ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi analizi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 22(1), 1-16.
15. Can, M., ve Gozgor, G. (2017). The impact of economic complexity on carbon emissions: evidence from France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 16364-16370.
16. Castiglione, C. (2014). Environmental taxation in Europe: What does it depend on?. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2(1), 1-8.
17. Chen, J., Luo, Q., Tu, Y., Ren, X., ve Naderi, N. (2023). Renewable energy transition and metal consumption: dynamic evolution analysis based on transnational data. Resources Policy, 85, 104037.
18. Chudik, A. ve Pesaran, M. H. (2013). Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: a survey. CAFE Research Paper, 1-55. Erişim adresi https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/international/wpapers/2013/0153.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
19. Dar, J. A., ve Asif, M. (2018). Does financial development improve environmental quality in Turkey? An application of endogenous structural breaks based cointegration approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 368-384.
20. Diodato, D., Napolitan, L., Pugliese E. ve Tacchella A. (2024). Handbook of economic complexity for policy. Avrupa Konmisyonu Raporu. Erişim adresi https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/9006857 (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
21. Doğan, B., Saboori, B. ve Can, M. (2019). Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? an empirical analysis for different stages of development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 31900-31912.
22. Durusoy, Ö. T. (2024). Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik karmaşıklık (complexity) ile çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişki: 2003-2023 yılları için panel veri analizi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(4), 922-936.
23. Eberhardt, M. ve Bond, S. (2009). Cross-sectional dependence in non-stationary panel models: a novel estimator. MPRA Paper No. 17870.
24. EEA (European Environment Agency). (2024). Renewable energy. Erişim adresi https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/renewable-energy (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
25. Fan, L., Usman, M., Haseeb, M., ve Kamal, M. (2024). The impact of financial development and energy consumption on ecological footprint in economic complexity‐based EKC framework: New evidence from BRICS‐T region. In Natural Resources Forum. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
26. Farhani, S. ve Öztürk, I. (2015). Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness and urbanization in Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(20), 15663-15676.
27. Global Footprint Network (2025) Ecological footprint. Erişim adresi https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.94618268.1045866411.1717501777-1838050827.1717501777#/countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=351 (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2025)
28. Güneysu, Y. (2023). Türkiye’de finansal gelişme, küreselleşme ve sanayileşmenin yük kapasite faktörü üzerindeki etkisi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 934-946.
29. Hassan, S. T., Batool, B., Wang, P., Zhu, B. ve Sadiq, M. (2023). Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: first insights in OECD context. Energy, 263, 125628.
30. Hausmann, R., Santos, M., Macchiarelli, C. ve Giacon, R. (2021). What economic complexity theory can tell us about the EU’s pandemic recovery and resilience plans. SSRN 3969724. Erişim adresi https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3969724 (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
31. He, P., Ning, J., Yu, Z., Xiong, H., Shen, H., ve 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.
32. Hidalgo, C. A. ve Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575.
33. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U. ve Rafique, M. Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: contextual evidences from Japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101460.
34. IMF (2025). Access to economic and financial data. Erişim adresi https://data.imf.org/?sk=f8032e80-b36c-43b1-ac26-493c5b1cd33b&sid=1480712464593 (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2025)
35. IRENA (2021). Europe. Erişim adresi https://www.irena.org/How-we-work/Europe (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
36. Islam, F., Shahbaz, M., Ahmed, A. U. ve Alam, M. M. (2013). Financial development and energy consumption nexus in Malaysia: a multivariate time series analysis. Economic Modelling, 30, 435-441.
37. Jänicke, M., Mönch, H., Ranneberg, T. ve Simonis, U. E. (1989). Economic structure and environmental impacts: East-West comparisons. Environmentalist, 9(3), 171-183.
38. Kartal, M. T. (2022). The role of consumption of energy, fossil sources, nuclear energy, and renewable energy on environmental degradation in top-five carbon producing countries. Renewable Energy, 184, 871-880.
39. Kayani, G. M., Ashfaq, S. ve Siddique, A. (2020). Assessment of financial development on environmental effect: implications for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 120984.
40. Khezri, M., Karimi, M. S., Khan, Y. A. ve Abbas, S. Z. (2021). The spillover of financial development on CO2 emission: A spatial econometric analysis of Asia-Pacific countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111110.
41. Kılınç, E. C., ve Altıparmak, H. (2020). Çevre vergilerinin CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi üzerine bir uygulama. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 217-227.
42. Kırıkkaleli, D. ve Sofuoğlu, E. (2023). Does financial stability matter for environmental degradation?. Geological Journal, 58(9), 3268-3277.
43. Koçak, E. (2017). Finansal gelişme çevresel kaliteyi etkiler mi? Yükselen piyasa ekonomileri için ampirik kanıtlar. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(3), 535-552.
44. Lapatinas, A., Garas, A., Boleti, E. ve Kyriakou, A. (2019). Economic complexity and environmental performance: evidence from a world sample. MPRA Paper No. 92833. Erişim adresi https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/92833/ (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
45. Laverde-Rojas, H. ve Correa, J. C. (2021). Economic complexity, economic growth, and CO2 emissions: a panel data analysis. International Economic Journal, 35(4), 411-433.
46. Li, R., Wang, X. ve Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131207.
47. Lv, Z. ve Li, S. (2021). How financial development affects CO2 emissions: a spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 277, 111397.
48. Magazzino, C., Toma, P., Fusco, G., Valente, D. ve Petrosillo, I. (2022). Renewable energy consumption, environmental degradation and economic growth: the greener the richer?. Ecological Indicators, 139, 108912.
49. Mardones, C. ve Baeza, N. (2018). Economic and environmental effects of a CO2 tax in Latin American countries. Energy Policy, 114, 262-273.
50. Morley, B. (2012). Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1817-1820.
51. Neagu, O. (2020). Economic complexity and ecological footprint: evidence from the most complex economies in the World. Sustainability, 12, 1-18.
52. NRDC (2022). Fossil fuels: the dirty facts. Erişim adresi https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts (Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2025)
53. Obobisa, E. S. ve Ahakwa, I. (2024). Stimulating the adoption of green technology innovation, clean energy resources, green finance, and environmental taxes: The way to achieve net zero CO2 Emissions in Europe?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 205, 123489.
54. OECD (2025). Environmental tax. Erişim adresi https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/environmental-tax.html (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2025)
55. Özbek, S. (2023). Sürdürülebilir çevre: çevre teknolojileri ve vergileri kapsamında ekonometrik bir inceleme. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(Prof. Dr. Muammer Erdoğan Anısına Kongre Özel Sayısı), 63-91.
56. Özbek, S. ve Naimoğlu, M. (2022). Çevre kalitesi-ekonomik karmaşıklık ilişkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine fourier eşbütünleşme analizi. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72(1), 407-431.
57. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1-40.
58. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heteregenous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
59. 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.
60. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
61. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
62. Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M. ve Huang, S. (2022a). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: an empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238, 121753.
63. Rafique, M. Z., Nadeem, A. M., Xia, W., Ikram, M., Shoaib, H. M. ve Shahzad, U. (2022b). Does economic complexity matter for environmental sustainability? Using ecological footprint as an indicator. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 4623-4640.
64. Sahoo, M. ve Sethi, N. (2021). The intermittent effects of renewable energy on ecological footprint: evidence from developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(40), 56401-56417.
65. Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., Öztürk, I. ve Sohag, K. (2018). The effects of electricity consumption, economic growth, financial development and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Kuwait. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2002-2010.
66. Saqib, N., Radulescu, M., Usman, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, 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(6), e16457.
67. Sezer, Ö. ve Dökmen, G. (2018). Kirleten öder ilkesi çerçevesinde Türkiye’de çevre vergileri ve negatif dişsallıklar sorunu. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (57), 163-181.
68. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K., ve Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121.
69. Shahbaz, M., Zeshan, M. ve Afza, T. (2012). Is energy consumption effective to spur economic growth in Pakistan? New evidence from bounds test to level relationships and Granger causality tests. Economic Modelling, 29(6), 2310-2319.
70. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F. ve Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: new insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 1-14.
71. Tabash, M. I., Farooq, U., Aljughaiman, A. A., Wong, W. K. ve AsadUllah, M. (2024). Does economic complexity help in achieving environmental sustainability? New empirical evidence from N-11 countries. Heliyon, 10(11).
72. Tamazian, A. ve Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137-145.
73. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P. ve Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246-253.
74. Taşdemir, S. Z. ve Topcu, E. (2024). Ekonomik karmaşıklık ve çevre: AB ülkeleri örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(28), 627-641.
75. Topaloğlu, E. E., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T. ve Ege, İ. (2025). The relevance of financial development, natural resources, technological ınnovation, and human development for carbon and ecological footprints: fresh evidence of the resource curse hypothesis in G-10 countries. Sustainability, 17(6), 2487.
76. Tuna, G., Türkay, K., Çiftyıldız, S. S. ve Çelik, H. (2024). The impact of financial tools in environmental degradation management: the relationship between CO2 emission and ESG funds. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(6), 14941-14956.
77. Türkeş, M. (2008). Küresel iklim değişikliği nedir? Temel kavramlar, nedenleri, gözlenen ve öngörülen değişiklikler. İklim Değişikliği ve Çevre, 1(1), 26-37.
78. Usman, O., Alola, A. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: Evidence from the US. Renewable Energy, 150, 266-277.
79. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
80. Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190.
81. World Bank (2025). World development indicators online database. Erişim adresi https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2025)
82. Yağlıkara, A. (2025). Enerji verimliliği ve çevresel vergiler İskandinav ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izini azaltmada etkili mi? Panel kantil regresyon analizi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 60(1), 366-381.
83. Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(45), 1937-1945.
84. Yılancı, V., ve Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: The role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32683-32694.
85. Yıldız, M. (2023). Türkiye’nin karbon nötrlüğü hedefinde ekonomik faktörlerin rolü. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 102-129.
86. Zahid, K., Ali, Q., Iqbal, Z., Saghir, S. ve Khan, M. T. I. (2025). Dynamics between economic activities, eco-friendly energy and ecological footprints: a fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Kybernetes, 54(3), 1643-1659.
87. Zeb, R., Salar, L., Awan, U., Zaman, K. ve Shahbaz, M. (2014). Causal links between renewable energy, environmental degradation and economic growth in selected SAARC countries: progress towards green economy. Renewable Energy, 71, 123-132.