FREEDOM TO POLLUTE

Yıl 2020, , 334 - 350, 26.10.2020

Adem Gök

https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.655146

Öz

Çalışma, Türkiye’de gelir ve demokrasinin çevresel kalite üzerindeki rolünü analiz etmektedir. Ekonomik büyüme ve demokratikleşme Türkiye’nin başlıca iki ana amacı olduğundan, demokrasideki iyileşmelerin ve ekonomik büyüme oranındaki artışın çevre üzerine olumlu etkisi olacağı beklenmektedir. Dolayısıyla, gelir ve demokrasinin kısa ve uzun dönem etkilerini incelemek amacıyla, 1960-2011 periyodu için Türkiye’de kişi başı CO2 emisyon seviyesi ARDL sınır testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, gelir ve CO2 emisyon seviyesi arasında, ve demokrasi ve CO2 emisyon seviyesi arasında, ters U eğrisi şeklinde ilişki bulduk. Türkiye’de demokrasideki iyileşmelerin çevresel bozulmalara yol açtığını bulduk. Analiz sonuçları ayrıca, ticari açıklık ve finansal gelişmenin karbon emisyon seviyesi üzerinde pozitif etkileri olduğu bulunurken, yenilenebilir enerjinin karbon emisyon seviyeleri üzerinde negatif anlamlı etkisi olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ARDL Modeli, Demokrasi, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, Türkiye

FREEDOM TO POLLUTE

Öz

The study analyzes the role of income and democracy on environmental quality in Turkey. Since economic growth and democratization are two main objectives of Turkey for decades, it is expected that improvements in democracy and increases in economic growth rate may have positive impacts on environment. Thus, to observe the short and long run impacts of income and democracy, an ARDL bounds test on per capita CO2 emission level in Turkey is employed for the 1960-2011 period. According to the results, we have found that an inverted U-Shape type relationship between income and CO2 emission level, and democracy and CO2 emission level. We have found that improvement in democracy leads to environmental degradation for Turkey. The findings of the analysis also show that renewable energy has a negative significant effect on carbon emission level, while trade openness and financial development have positive significant effects on it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ARDL Model, Democracy, Environmental Kuznets Curve, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Barrett, S., and Graddy, K. (2000). ‘Freedom, growth, and the environment’, Environment and Development Economics, 5(04): 433-456.
• Bollen, K. (1993). ‘Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measares’, American Journal of Political Science, 37(0): l207-l230.
• Chadwick, B. P. (1995). ‘Fisheries, sovereignties and red herrings’, Journal of International Affairs, 559-584.
• Congleton, R. D. (1992). ‘Political institutions and pollution control’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 412-421.
• Deacon, R. T. (2003). ‘Dictatorship, democracy and the provision of public goods’, In Department of Economics, University of California at Santa Barbara, Working Paper.
• Desai, U. (1998). Ecological policy and politics in developing countries: Economic growth, democracy, and environment. SUNY Press.
• Farzin, Y. H., and Bond, C. A. (2006). ‘Democracy and environmental quality’, Journal of Development Economics, 81(1): 213-235.
• Gallagher, K. P., and Thacker, S. C. (2008). ‘Democracy, income, and environmental quality’.
• Gani, A. (2012). ‘The relationship between good governance and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from developing economies’, Journal of Economic Development, 37(1): 77.
• Granger, C. W., and Newbold, P. (1974). ‘Spurious regressions in econometrics’, Journal of Econometrics, 2(2): 111-120.
• Halkos, G. E., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2013). ‘Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: A nonparametric analysis for the G-20’, Energy Economics, 40: 110-118.
• Komen, M. H., Gerking, S., and Folmer, H. (1997). ‘Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from OECD countries’, Environment and Development Economics, 2(04): 505-515.
• Lv, Z. (2017). ‘The effect of democracy on CO 2 emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter?’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72: 900-906.
• McGuire, M. C., and Olson, M. (1996). ‘The economics of autocracy and majority rule: the invisible hand and the use of force’, Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1): 72-96.
• Neumayer, E. (2002). ‘Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis’, Journal of Peace Research, 39(2): 139-164.
• Payne, R. A. (1995). ‘Freedom and the environment’, Journal of Democracy, 6(3): 41-55. Perron, P. (1989). ‘The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis’, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401.
• Pesaran, M. H. and Shin, Y. (1999). ‘An Autoregressive Distributed Lag Modelling Approach to Cointegration Analysis, in Strom, S. (ed) Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century’, The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 371–413.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., and Smith, R. J. (2001). ‘Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 289-326.
• Pellegrini, L., and Gerlagh, R. (2006). ‘Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy: an empirical contribution to the debate’, The Journal of Environment & Development, 15(3): 332-354.
• Phillips, P. C. B. and Perron, P. (1988). ‘Testing for a unit root in time series regression’, Biometrika, 75(2): 335–346.
• Rosser Jr, J. B., and Rosser, M. V. (2006). ‘Institutional evolution of environmental management under global economic growth’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40(2): 421-429.
• Scruggs, L. A. (1998). ‘Political and economic inequality and the environment’, Ecological Economics, 26(3): 259-275.
• Shahbaz, M., Khan, S., and Tahir, M. I. (2013). ‘The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic growth, financial development and trade in China: fresh evidence from multivariate framework analysis’, Energy Economics, 40: 8-21.
• Torras, M. (2005). ‘Income and power inequality as determinants of environmental and health outcomes: some findings’, Social Science Quarterly, 86(s1): 1354-1376.
• Torras, M., and Boyce, J. K. (1998). ‘Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve’, Ecological Economics, 25(2): 147-160.
• You, W. H., Zhu, H. M., Yu, K., and Peng, C. (2015). ‘Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: heterogeneity across existing emission levels’, World Development, 66: 189-207.
• Yusoff, M. B. (2010). ‘The effects of real exchange rate on trade balance and domestic output: a case of Malaysia’, The International Trade Journal, 24(2): 209-226.
• Zivot, E., and Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). ‘Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis’, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1): 25-44.