Is High Growth Possible with High Institutional Quality and Low Carbon Emissions?

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine whether higher growth will be achieved in 7 developed countries (Group of Seven-G7) and 9 developing countries (Developing Countries-D9) with higher institutional quality and lower carbon emissions, with annual time series data for the 1996-2018 period. For this purpose, Westerlund (2007) cointegration test method was used to determine the long-term cointegration relationship between growth, institutional quality indicators and CO2 emission variables. According to the findings, it has been determined that there is a long-term cointegration relationship between growth, CO2 and institutional quality variables in all alternative models established for both G7 and D9 countries. DOLSMG long-term panel cointegration coefficient estimation method was used to determine the direction and degree of the long-term cointegration relationship. According to the results obtained from the DOLSMG estimation, the segregation for G7 and D9 countries reveals a negative relationship between per capita economic growth and CO2 emissions for the entire panel. This shows that reducing carbon emissions supports economic growth in G7 countries. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that per capita economic growth is significantly and positively affected by institutional quality. This proves that improving institutional quality can support the economic growth of G7 and D9 countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Growth
• Institutional Quality and Environment
• Carbon Emission
• Panel Data Analysis

Yüksek Kurumsal Kalite ve Düşük Karbon Emisyonu ile Yüksek Büyüme Mümkün mü?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı daha yüksek kurumsal kalite ve daha düşük karbon emisyonu ile gelişmiş 7 ülke (Group of Seven-G7) ve gelişmekte olan 9 ülkede (Developing Countries-D9) daha yüksek büyümenin elde edilip edilmeyeceğini 1996-2018 dönemi yıllık zaman serisi verileri ile tespit etmektir. Bu amaçla, büyüme, kurumsal kalite göstergeleri ve CO2 emisyonu değişkenleri arasında uzun dönem eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin tespiti için Westerlund (2007) Eşbütünleşme testi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre hem G7 hem de D9 ülkeri için kurulan tüm alternatif modellerde büyüme, CO2 ve kurumsal kalite değişkenleri arasında uzun dönemli eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Tespit edilen uzun dönemli eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin yönünün ve derecesinin belirlenmesi amacıyla DOLSMG uzun dönem panel eşbütünleşme katsayı tahmin yöntemi kullanılmıştır. DOLSMG tahmininden elde edilen sonuçlara göre, G7 ve D9 ülkeleri için ayrı ayrı oluşturulan panelin tamamı için kişi başına ekonomik büyüme ile CO2 emisyonları arasında negatif ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu, karbon emisyonunun azaltılmasının G7 ülkelerinde ekonomik büyümeyi desteklediğini göstermektedir. Benzer şekilde, kişi başına ekonomik büyümenin kurumsal kaliteden önemli ölçüde ve olumlu yönde etkilendiğini gösteren kanıtlar vardır. Bu, kurumsal kalitenin iyileştirilmesinin G7 ve D9 ülkelerinin ekonomik büyümesini destekleyebileceğini kanıtlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Kurumsal Kalite ve Çevre
• Karbon Emisyonu
• Panel Veri Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Abid, M. (2017). Does economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental quality? A comparative analysis of EU and MEA countries. Journal of environmental management, 188, 183-194.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Institutions, volatility, and crises. Growth and productivity in East Asia, 13.
3. Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. (2008). The role of institutions in growth and development (Vol. 10). Washington DC: World Bank.
4. Ahmad, N., Du, L., Lu, J., Wang, J., Li, H. Z., & Hashmi, M. Z. (2017). Modelling the CO2 emissions and economic growth in Croatia: is there any environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy, 123, 164-172.
5. Aksay, C. S., Ketenoğlu, O., & Latif, K. U. R. T. (2005). Küresel Isınma ve İklim Değişikliği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Dergisi, 1(25), 29-42.
6. Arouri, M. E. H., Youssef, A. B., M'henni, H., & Rault, C. (2012). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy policy, 45, 342-349.
7. Bal, H. ve Çuhadar, P. (2020). Gelişmenin Politik İktisadı ve Acemoğlu’nun Katkıları. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 37(3), 481-493. Doi: 10.24988/ije.202035304
8. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.

9. Banday, U. J., & Aneja, R. (2019). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions: evidence from G7 countries. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development.
10. Belaid, F., & Youssef, M. (2017). Environmental degradation, renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth: Assessing the evidence from Algeria. Energy Policy, 102, 277-287.
11. Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S. A., & Paramati, S. R. (2017). The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157-167.
12. Breusch, T. S., & 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.
13. Butkiewicz, J. L., & Yanikkaya, H. (2006). Institutional quality and economic growth: Maintenance of the rule of law or democratic institutions, or both?. Economic Modelling, 23(4), 648-661.
14. Charfeddine, L., Al-Malk, A. Y., & Al Korbi, K. (2018). Is it possible to improve environmental quality without reducing economic growth: Evidence from the Qatar economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 25-39.
15. Davenport, D. (2008). The International Dimension of Climate Policy Turning down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy. H. Compston ve I. Bailey (Ed.), Affluent Democracies içinde (s. 48-62). Palgrave Macmillan
16. De Hoyos, R. E. ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel-Data Models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
17. Dinda, S. (2009). Climate change and human insecurity. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 9(1-2), 103-109.
18. Erdoğan, S. (2018). İklim değişikliğine karşı verilen küresel mücadele ve Avrupa Birliği. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(4).
19. Farhani, S., Shahbaz, M., & Arouri, M. E. H. (2013). Panel analysis of CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, trade openness and urbanization for MENA countries.
20. Gagliardi, F. (2008). Institutions and economic change: A critical survey of the new institutional approaches and empirical evidence. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(1), 416-443.
21. Hassan, S. A., & Haq, I. (2017). The Impact of Economic Growth, Trade Openness and Energy Consumption on Carbon Emissions in Nexus of EKC for Pakistan. Journal of Business & Economic Management, 5(3), 47-61.
22. Huang, J., Tang, Z., Liu, D., & He, J. (2020). Ecological response to urban development in a changing socio-economic and climate context: Policy implications for balancing regional development and habitat conservation. Land Use Policy, 97, 104772.
23. Hung, C. M., & Shaw, D. (2006). The impact of upstream catch and global warming on the grey mullet fishery in Taiwan: a non-cooperative game analysis. Marine Resource Economics, 21(3), 285-300.
24. Kasman, A., & Duman, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic modelling, 44, 97-103.
25. Kim, H., Oh, K. Y. ve Jeong, C. W. (2005). Panel Cointegration Results on International Capital Mobility in Asian Economies. Journal of International Money and Finance, 24(1), 71-82.
26. Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Carbon dioxide emission, institutional quality, and economic growth: empirical evidence in Malaysia. Renewable energy, 68, 276-281.
27. Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Carbon dioxide emission, institutional quality, and economic growth: empirical evidence in Malaysia. Renewable energy, 68, 276-281.
28. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., ... ve Waterfield, T. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of, 1(5).
29. Miçooğulları, S. A., ve Değirmen, S. (2019). Kurumsal Kalite ve gelir eşitsizliği: Gelişmekte olan 12 ülke üzerinde panel eşbütünleşme analizi. A. Şit, C. Telek (Ed.), Ekonomi Ve Finans Alaninda Ampirik Çalişmalar içinde (37-62. ss.). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
30. Muhammad, S., Samia, N., & Talat, A. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: evidence from panel data analysis.
31. Nair, M., Arvin, M. B., Pradhan, R. P., & Bahmani, S. (2021). Is higher economic growth possible through better institutional quality and a lower carbon footprint? Evidence from developing countries. Renewable Energy, 167, 132-145.
32. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy policy, 38(1), 661-666.
33. North, D. C. (2002), Kurumlar, kurumsal değişim ve ekonomik performans, (Çev. Gül Çağalı Güven), İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları.
34. Olson, M. (1996). Distinguished lecture on economics in government: big bills left on the sidewalk: why some nations are rich, and others poor. Journal of economic perspectives, 10(2), 3-24.
35. Ozcan, B. (2013). The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 62, 1138-1147.
36. Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and development economics, 2(4), 465-484.
37. Pearson, P. J. (1994). Energy, externalities and environmental quality: will development cure the ills it creates?. Energy Studies Review, 6(3).
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13-50.
39. 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.
40. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
41. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
42. Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
43. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of economic growth, 9(2), 131-165.
44. Salman, M., Long, X., Dauda, L., & Mensah, C. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118331.
45. Sarkodie, S. A., & Adams, S. (2018). Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Science of the total environment, 643, 1590-1601.
46. Shahbaz, M., Shafiullah, M., Papavassiliou, V. G., & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). The CO2–growth nexus revisited: A nonparametric analysis for the G7 economies over nearly two centuries. Energy Economics, 65, 183-193.
47. Sinha, A., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renewable energy, 119, 703-711.
48. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., & Ozturk, I. (2017). Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: The role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1578-1587.
49. Stern, D. I., Common, M. S., & Barbier, E. B. (1996). Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World development, 24(7), 1151-1160.
50. Şahinöz, A. (2021). Neoklasik iktisadın ekolojik ekonomiye dönüşü: Sosyal demokrat çevre politikaları. İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, 11(129),18-34
51. Tamazian, A., & Rao, B. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy economics, 32(1), 137-145.
52. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
53. Van Vuuren, D. P., & Carter, T. R. (2014). Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change research and assessment: reconciling the new with the old. Climatic Change, 122(3), 415-429.
54. Veblen, T. B. (1919). The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays, New York, Augustus M. Kelley M. Muchie.
55. Wasti, S. K. A., & Zaidi, S. W. (2020). An empirical investigation between CO2 emission, energy consumption, trade liberalization and economic growth: A case of Kuwait. Journal of Building Engineering, 28, 101104.
56. Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: a cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5), 663-693.
57. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
58. Williamson, O. E. (1989). Transaction cost economics. Handbook of industrial organization, 1, 135-182.
59. World Meteorological Organization, WMO Confirms 2019 as Second Hottest Year on Record, WMO, 2020, 15 January 2020. Downloaded from, https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2019-second-hottestyear-record. 01.10.2021