BRICS-T Ülkelerinde Karbon ve Enerji Vergilendirme Performansının Değerlendirilmesi: Entegre Bir WENSLO–MCRAT Yaklaşım

Öz

Küresel iklim değişikliğiyle mücadele çabalarının artmasıyla birlikte, karbon vergilendirmesi sera gazı emisyonlarını azaltmak ve mali-çevresel sürdürülebilirliği güçlendirmek adına önemli bir politika aracı hâline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, BRICS-T ülkelerinin (Brezilya, Rusya, Hindistan, Çin, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye) karbon ve enerji vergilendirme performanslarını WENSLO (Weights by ENvelope and SLOpe) ve MCRAT (Multiple Criteria Ranking by Alternative Trace) yöntemlerinin bütünleştirildiği çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) modeliyle değerlendirmektedir. Mali yoğunluk ve çevresel kapsamı yansıtan beş gösterge—Net Etkin Karbon Oranı (NECR), Net Etkin Enerji Oranı (NEER), Net Enerji Vergisi Gelirleri ve Reform Potansiyeli (NETRRP), Kayıp Gelir + NECR (RF+NECR) ve Fiyatlandırılan Emisyon Payı (SEP)—kullanılmıştır. WENSLO yöntemiyle nesnel ağırlıklar hesaplanmış, MCRAT ile ülkeler sıralanmıştır. Sonuçlara göre Güney Afrika en yüksek performansı gösterirken, onu Hindistan ve Çin izlemekte; Brezilya ve Rusya ise daha zayıf performans sergilemektedir. Duyarlılık analizi, NECR ve SEP kriterlerinin sıralamalar üzerindeki etkisinin yüksek olduğunu ortaya koyarken; sıra değişim analizi, düşük performanslı ülkelerin dışlanması durumunda Türkiye’nin göreli konumunun iyileştiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde karbon vergilendirme performansını nesnel ve veri temelli bir yaklaşımla değerlendiren özgün bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon Vergilendirmesi
• WENSLO
• MCRAT
• BRICS-T
• Çevresel Vergilendirme
• Duyarlılık Analizi

Evaluating Carbon and Energy Taxation Performance in BRICS-T Countries: An Integrated WENSLO-MCRAT Approach

Öz

As global climate mitigation efforts intensify, carbon taxation has become a crucial policy tool to curb emissions and enhance fiscal-environmental sustainability. This study assesses the carbon and energy taxation performance of BRICS-T countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and Turkey) using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model combining WENSLO (Weights by ENvelope and SLOpe) and MCRAT (Multiple Criteria Ranking by Alternative Trace). Five indicators—Net Effective Carbon Rates (NECR), Net Effective Energy Rates (NEER), Net Energy Tax Revenues and Reform Potential (NETRRP), Revenue Forgone with NECR (RF+NECR), and Shares of Emissions Priced (SEP)—were selected to capture both fiscal intensity and environmental scope. WENSLO was used to derive objective weights, while MCRAT provided performance rankings. Findings indicate South Africa leads in overall performance, followed by India and China, with Brazil and Russia trailing. Sensitivity analysis identifies NECR and SEP as the most influential indicators, significantly impacting rankings. Rank reversal analysis reveals that Turkey’s relative position improves upon the removal of lower-performing countries. The study introduces a robust, data-driven framework for evaluating carbon taxation in emerging economies and offers strategic insights for enhancing climate-aligned fiscal policies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon Taxation
• WENSLO
• MCRAT
• BRICS-T
• Environmental Taxation
• Sensitivity Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abdulaal, R.M. and Bafail, O.A. (2022). Two new approaches (RAMS‐RATMI) in multi‐criteria decision‐making tactics. Journal of Mathematics, 2022(1), 6725318. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6725318
2. Andersen, M.S. (2019). The politics of carbon taxation: how varieties of policy style matter. Environmental Politics, 28(6), 1084-1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1625134.
3. Boute, A. (2024). Accounting for carbon pricing in third countries under the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. World Trade Review, 23(2), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745624000107
4. Chelly, A., Nouira, I., Hadj-Alouane, A.B. and Frein, Y. (2022). A comparative study of progressive carbon taxation strategies: impact on firms’ economic and environmental performances. International Journal of Production Research, 60(11), 3476-3500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1924410
5. Çakmak, H. (2018). Çevresel vergilerin ekonomik etkileri: Karbon vergisi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Maltepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
6. Ercoşkun, S. and Kovancılar, B. (2023). Nordik ülkelerinde karbon vergisi uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 30(3), 611-631. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.628802
7. Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Vogt, S., Rozenberg, J., Narloch, U. and Kerr T. (2015). Decarbonizing development: Three steps to a zero- carbon future. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/31452b7e-bc43-5ce8-a7f7-4a9b814d5324
8. Fernando, S.F. (2019). The environmental effectiveness of carbon taxes: A comparative case study of the Nordic experience. Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/

9. Jin, M., Shi, X., Emrouznejad, A. and Yang, F. (2018). Determining the optimal carbon tax rate based on data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 900-908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.127
10. Khastar, M., Aslani, A. and Nejati, M. (2020). How does carbon tax affect social welfare and emission reduction in Finland? Energy Reports, 6, 736-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.03.001
11. Martinsson, G., Sajtos, L., Strömberg, P. and Thomann, C. (2024). The effect of carbon pricing on firm emissions: Evidence from the Swedish CO2 tax. The Review of Financial Studies, 37(6), 18481886. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhad097
12. Meng, X. and Yu, Y. (2023). Can renewable energy portfolio standarts and carbon tax policies promote carbon emission reduction in China’s power ındustry? Energy Policy, 174, 113461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113461
13. Mideksa, T.K. (2024). Pricing for a cooler planet: An effect of empirical analysis of the taxing carbon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 127, 103034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103034.
14. OECD. (2023). OECD data explorer. Retrieved from https://data-explorer.oecd.org/
15. Özbek, A. (2019). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve Excel ile problem çözümü (2. Bs.) Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
16. Özsoy, E. (2022). Sınırda karbon düzenleme mekanizması: Türkiye için yeni bir risk mi fırsat mı? Papers presented at the VI. Anadolu International Conference on Economics. Eskişehir, Türkiye. Retrieved from https://cdn.anadolu.edu.tr/files/anadolu-cms/7qeXgkzr/uploads/econanadolu2022-abstractbook-ddff60f8d19a9555.pdf
17. Pamucar, D., Ecer, F., Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M. and Deveci, M. (2024). A novel WENSLO and ALWAS multicriteria methodology and its application to green growth performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 9510–9525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3321697
18. Pomerleau, K. and Asen, E. (2019). Carbon taxes and revenue recyling: Revenue, economic, and distributional implications (Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 674). Retrieved from https://files.taxfoundation.org/20191105134952/Carbon-Tax-and-Revenue-Recycling-Revenue-Economic-and-Distributional-Implications-PDF.pdf
19. Ratanakuakangwan, S. and Morita, H. (2022). An efficient energy planning model optimizing cost, emission, and social impact with different carbon tax scenarios. Applied Energy, 325, 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119792
20. Shmelev, S.E. and Speck, S.U. (2018). Green fiscal reform in Sweden: Econometric assessment of the carbon and energy taxation scheme. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90, 969-981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.032
21. Solaymani, S. (2017). Carbon and energy taxes in a small and open country. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 3(1), 51-62. doi:10.22034/gjesm.2017.03.01.006
22. Sumner, J., Bird, L. and Smith, H. (2011). Carbon taxes: A review of experience and policy design considerations. Climate Policy, 11(2), 922-943. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2010.0093
23. Timilsina, G.R. (2022). Carbon taxes. Journal of Economic Literature, 60(4), 1456-1502. doi:10.1257/jel.20211560
24. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Karabasevic, D. and Balo, F. (2023). Selection of a forklift for a cargo company with fuzzy BWM and fuzzy MCRAT methods. Axioms, 12(5), 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12050467
25. United Nations. (2021). United Nations handbook on carbon taxation for developing countries. Retrieved from https://www.government.se/contentassets/419eb2cafa93423c891c09cb9914801b/un-handbook-on-carbon-taxation-for-developing-countries.pdf
26. Urošević, K., Gligorić, Z., Miljanović, I., Beljić, Č. and Gligorić, M. (2021). Novel methods in multiple criteria decision-making process (MCRAT and RAPS)-Application in the mining industry. Mathematics, 9(16), 1980. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9161980
27. Vesala, L.S. (2023). Determinants of carbon pricing policy stringency. Democracy, 2, 1-80. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/
28. Yahoo, M. and Othman, J. (2017). Carbon and energy taxation for CO 2 mitigation: A CGE model of the Malaysia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19, 239-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9725-z
29. Yolal, M. (2025). Karbon vergisi uygulamalarının İskandinav ülkeleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(53), 265-290. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.1642788