Investigation of The Relationship Between Institutions and Environmental Pollution: Evidence From EU Countries

Öz

As human interaction with nature increases, ecological limits are being exceeded. This leads to an increase in global warming, climate crisis, and environmental destruction. Therefore, finding solutions to growing environmental problems is becoming an important issue. In this context, the study aims to examine the effectiveness of institutions in reducing the ecological footprint. In line with this objective, we conducted an empirical analysis by utilizing the two-stage system GMM estimation method for 22 European Union countries for the period 2002-2018. In addition, in order to broadly examine the effectiveness of institutions on the environment, the study uses the technique of Principal Component Analysis to construct an index of institutional quality with six unique indicators of institutional structure. According to the findings of the study, it is observed that corporate quality reduces the ecological footprint. Therefore, the study finds that institutions play a regulatory role in environmental pollution.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institutional Quality
• Ecological Footprint
• European Union
• Two Step System GMM

Kurumlar ve Çevre Kirliliği İlişkisinin İncelenmesi: AB Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar

Öz

İnsanların doğa ile olan etkileşimin artmasıyla birlikte, ekolojik sınırlar aşılmaktadır. Bu durum beraberinde küresel ısınma, iklim krizi ve çevre tahribatının artmasına neden olmaktadır. Dolayısıyla büyüyen çevre sorunlarına çözüm üretilmesi önem arz eden bir konu haline gelmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada ekolojik ayak izinin azaltılmasında kurumların etkinliğinin incelenmesi hedeflenmektedir. Bu hedef doğrultusunda 22 Avrupa Birliği ülkesi için 2002-2018 dönem aralığında iki aşamalı sistem GMM tahmin yönteminden faydalanılarak ampirik bir inceleme yapılmaktadır. Ayrıca çalışmada kurumların çevre üzerindeki etkinliğinin geniş bir şekilde incelenmesi amacıyla Temel Bileşen Analiz tekniğinden faydalanılarak altı özgün kurumsal yapı göstergesi ile kurumsal kalite endeksi oluşturulmaktadır. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre kurumsal kalitenin ekolojik ayak izini azalttığı gözlemlenmektedir. Dolayısıyla çalışmada kurumların çevre kirliliği üzerinde düzenleyici bir rol oynadığı tespit edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Kalite
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Avrupa Birliği
• İki Aşamalı Sistem GMM

Kaynakça

1. Aali-Bujari, A., Venegas-Martínez, F., & Pérez-Lechuga, G. (2017). Impact of the stock market capitalization and the banking spread in growth and development in Latin American: A panel data estimation with System GMM. Contaduría y administración, 62(5), 1427-1441.
2. Abid, M. (2016). Impact of economic, financial, and institutional factors on CO2 emissions: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa economies. Utilities Policy, 41, 85-94.
3. 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.
4. Acheampong, A. O., Dzator, J., & Savage, D. A. (2021). Renewable energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa: Does institutional quality matter? Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(5), 1070-1093.
5. Adams, S., & Acheampong, A. O. (2019). Reducing carbon emissions: The role of renewable energy and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118245.
6. Adams, S., Adom, P. K., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2016). Urbanization, regime type and durability, and environmental degradation in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(23), 23825-23839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7513-4
7. Adams, S., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2017). Urbanization, democracy, bureaucratic quality, and environmental degradation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(6), 1035-1051.
8. Adebayo, T. S. (2023). Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: Linking oil consumption, hydro energy consumption, and ecological footprint in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(7), 18890-18900.

9. Ahmad, M., Ahmed, Z., Majeed, A., & Huang, B. (2021). An environmental impact assessment of economic complexity and energy consumption: Does institutional quality make a difference? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106603.
10. Ahmed, Z., Adebayo, T. S., Udemba, E. N., Murshed, M., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Effects of economic complexity, economic growth, and renewable energy technology budgets on ecological footprint: The role of democratic accountability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 24925-24940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17673-2
11. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605.
12. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., & Nawaz, K. (2020). Moving towards a sustainable environment: The dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677.
13. Ahmed, Z., Caglar, A. E., & Murshed, M. (2022). A path towards environmental sustainability: The role of clean energy and democracy in ecological footprint of Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 358, 132007.
14. Akalin, G., & Erdogan, S. (2021). Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 7226-7235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1
15. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The review of economic studies, 58(2), 277-297.
16. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.
17. Aron, J. (2000). Growth and institutions: A review of the evidence. The world Bank research observer, 15(1), 99-135.
18. Azam, M., Liu, L., & Ahmad, N. (2021). Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: Evidence from developing world. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 1646-1667.
19. Bartelmus, P. (2008). Quantitative eco-nomics: How sustainable are our economies? Springer Science & Business Media.
20. Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A., Gyamfi, B. A., & Yaw, S. S. (2021). The relevance of EKC hypothesis in energy intensity real-output trade-off for sustainable environment in EU-27. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(37), 51137-51148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14251-4
21. Bernauer, T., & Koubi, V. (2009). Political determinants of environmental quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355-1365.
22. 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.
23. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics, 87(1), 115-143.
24. Bond, S. R., Hoeffler, A., & Temple, J. R. (2001). GMM estimation of empirical growth models. Available at SSRN 290522.
25. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M., & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological indicators, 24, 518-533.
26. Buitenzorgy, M., & P. J. Mol, A. (2011). Does Democracy Lead to a Better Environment? Deforestation and the Democratic Transition Peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9397-y
27. Christoforidis, T., & Katrakilidis, C. (2021). The dynamic role of institutional quality, renewable and non-renewable energy on the ecological footprint of OECD countries: Do institutions and renewables function as leverage points for environmental sustainability? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53888-53907.
28. Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 76, 138-154.
29. Congleton, R. (1992). Political Institutions and Pollution Control. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 412-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109485
30. Commission, J. R. C.-E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD publishing.
31. Dembińska, I., Kauf, S., T\luczak, A., Szopik-Depczyńska, K., Marzantowicz, \Lukasz, & Ioppolo, G. (2022). The impact of space development structure on the level of ecological footprint-Shift share analysis for European Union countries. Science of The Total Environment, 851, 157936.
32. Di Santo, N., Russo, I., & Sisto, R. (2022). Climate Change and Natural Resource Scarcity: A Literature Review on Dry Farming. Land, 11(12), 2102.
33. Ellis, J. (2010). The Effects of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform: A review of modelling and empirical studies. Available at SSRN 1572397.
34. Emmanuel, O. N. B., Fonchamnyo, D. C., Thierry, M. A., & Dinga, G. D. (2023). Ecological footprint in a global perspective: The role of domestic investment, FDI, democracy and institutional quality. Journal of Global Responsibility.
35. Eurostat (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics-Carbon Footprints. Erişim Adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics_-_carbon_footprints#:~:text=The%20EU%20produced%202.8%20billion,exports%20out%20of%20the%20EU. Erişim Tarihi: 14.11.2023
36. Farooq, U., Gillani, S., Subhani, B. H., & Shafiq, M. N. (2022). Economic policy uncertainty and environmental degradation: The moderating role of political stability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(7), 18785-18797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23479-7
37. Gallagher, K. P., & Thacker, S. C. (2008). Democracy, income, and environmental quality. PERI Working Papers, 124.
38. Gani, A. (2012). The relationship between good governance and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from developing economies. Journal of Economic Development, 37(1), 77.
39. GFN, (2022). Global Footprint Network , Erişim Tarihi:01.08.2022 Erişim Adresi: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/
40. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of economic research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
41. Goel, R. K., Herrala, R., & Mazhar, U. (2013). Institutional quality and environmental pollution: MENA countries versus the rest of the world. Economic Systems, 37(4), 508-521.
42. Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1029-1054.
43. Hotunluoğlu, H., & Yılmaz, G. S. (2018). Demokrasi Karbondioksit Emisyonu İçin Önemli mi? Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-141.
44. Ibrahim, M. H., & Law, S. H. (2014). Social capital and CO2 emission—output relations: A panel analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 528-534.
45. Ibrahim, M. H., & Law, S. H. (2016). Institutional Quality and CO2 Emission–Trade Relations: Evidence from S ub-S aharan A frica. South African Journal of Economics, 84(2), 323-340.
46. IEA, (2022). World Energy Balances Highlights. Erişim Tarihi: 01.08.2022 Erişim Adresi: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances-highlights
47. Jianguo, D., Ali, K., Alnori, F., & Ullah, S. (2022). The nexus of financial development, technological innovation, institutional quality, and environmental quality: Evidence from OECD economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(38), 58179-58200.
48. Jordan, A., & Adelle, C. (2012). AB’de Çevre Politikası: Aktörler, kurumlar ve süreçler (3. bs). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109823
49. Khan, H., Weili, L., & Khan, I. (2022). Institutional quality, financial development and the influence of environmental factors on carbon emissions: Evidence from a global perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(9), 13356-13368.
50. Khan, I., Hou, F., Zakari, A., & Tawiah, V. K. (2021). The dynamic links among energy transitions, energy consumption, and sustainable economic growth: A novel framework for IEA countries. Energy, 222, 119935.
51. Kitzes, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2009). Answers to common questions in ecological footprint accounting. Ecological indicators, 9(4), 812-817.
52. Langnel, Z., & Pathranarakul, P. (2021). Governance, Globalization, and Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(1), 9-25.
53. 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.
54. Li, P., & Ouyang, Y. (2021). Quantifying the role of technical progress towards China’s 2030 carbon intensity target. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(3), 379-398.
55. Li, T., Wang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve in China: New evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy, 91, 138-147.
56. Mahmood, H. (2020). Rule of law and environment nexus in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. http://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/8454/1/1756275823_0.pdf
57. Majeed, M. T., & Mazhar, M. (2019). Financial development and ecological footprint: A global panel data analysis. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(2), 487-514.
58. Mak Arvin, B., & Lew, B. (2011). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics, 43(9), 1151-1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840802600277
59. McDonald, G. W., & Patterson, M. G. (2004). Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecological Economics, 50(1-2), 49-67.
60. Miles, J. (2014). Tolerance and variance inflation factor. Wiley statsref: statistics reference online.
61. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Biocapacity, human capital, and ecological footprint in G7 countries: The moderating role of urbanization and necessary lessons for emerging economies. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6(5), 435-450.
62. Özsoy, F. (2021). Türkiye’de Yolsuzluk ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 353-361.
63. Pata, U. K., Yilanci, V., Hussain, B., & Naqvi, S. A. A. (2022). Analyzing the role of income inequality and political stability in environmental degradation: Evidence from South Asia. Gondwana Research, 107, 13-29.
64. Razmi, S. F., Bajgiran, B. R., Behname, M., Salari, T. E., & Razmi, S. M. J. (2020). The relationship of renewable energy consumption to stock market development and economic growth in Iran. Renewable Energy, 145, 2019-2024.
65. Roodman, D. (2006). How to Do xtabond2. North American Stata Users’ Group Meetings 2006, 8.
66. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The stata journal, 9(1), 86-136.
67. Saidi, H., El Montasser, G., & Ajmi, A. N. (2020). The role of institutions in the renewable energy-growth nexus in the MENA region: A panel cointegration approach. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 25(2), 259-276.
68. 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.
69. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I., & Usman, M. (2023). Investigating the implications of technological innovations, financial inclusion, and renewable energy in diminishing ecological footprints levels in emerging economies. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(6), 101667.
70. 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.
71. Shah, S. Z., Chughtai, S., & Simonetti, B. (2020). Renewable energy, institutional stability, environment and economic growth nexus of D-8 countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 29, 100484.
72. Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., Ahmad, N., & Alam, S. (2016). Financial development and environmental quality: The way forward. Energy policy, 98, 353-364.
73. Shrinkhal, R. (2019). Economics, technology, and environmental protection: A critical analysis of phytomanagement. İçinde Phytomanagement of polluted sites (ss. 569-580). Elsevier.
74. Sinha, A., Gupta, M., Shahbaz, M., & Sengupta, T. (2019). Impact of corruption in public sector on environmental quality: Implications for sustainability in BRICS and next 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1379-1393.
75. Studenmund, A. H. (2014). Using econometrics a practical guide. Pearson education limited.
76. Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2019). Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy policy, 135, 111002.
77. 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.
78. Ursavaş, N. (2021). Türkiye’de Demokrasinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 56(4), 2745-2757.
79. Ursavaş, N. (2022). OECD Ülkelerinde Demokrasinin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 37, 213-235.
80. Usman, O., Olanipekun, I. O., Iorember, P. T., & Abu-Goodman, M. (2020). Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: The effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8), 8334-8349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06687-6
81. Uzar, U. (2021). The relationship between institutional quality and ecological footprint: Is there a connection? Natural Resources Forum, 45(4), 380-396.
82. Yasin, I., Ahmad, N., & Chaudhary, M. A. (2020). Catechizing the Environmental-Impression of Urbanization, Financial Development, and Political Institutions: A Circumstance of Ecological Footprints in 110 Developed and Less-Developed Countries. Social Indicators Research, 147(2), 621-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02163-3
83. Yasin, I., Naseem, S., Anwar, M. A., Madni, G. R., Mahmood, H., & Murshed, M. (2022). An analysis of the environmental impacts of ethnic diversity, financial development, economic growth, urbanization, and energy consumption: Fresh evidence from less-developed countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(52), 79306-79319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21295-7
84. You, W.-H., Zhu, H.-M., Yu, K., & Peng, C. (2015). Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: Heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Development, 66, 189-207.
85. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., Garcı́a, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S., & Guerrero, M. G. S. (1999). National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological economics, 29(3), 375-390.
86. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (C. 9). New society publishers.
87. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., & Norgaard, R. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266-9271.
88. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., & Wang, B. (2018). The moderating role of corruption between economic growth and CO2 emissions: Evidence from BRICS economies. Energy, 148, 506-513.
89. WDI, (2022) World Development Indicators. Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2022 Erişim Adresi: https://databank.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/1ff4a498/Popular-Indicators#selectedDimension_WDI_Series
90. WGI,(2022). Worldwide Governance Indicators. Erişim Tarihi: 01.08.2022 Erişim Adresi: https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
91. WHO, (2022). Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. World Health Organisation Geneva. Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2022 Erişim Adres: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
92. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of econometrics, 126(1), 25-51.
93. Wong, S., Bhattacharya, K., & Fuller, J. D. (2010). Long-term effects of feed-in tariffs and carbon taxes on distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(3), 1241-1253.
94. Zakari, A., & Khan, I. (2022). Boosting economic growth through energy in Africa: The role of Chinese investment and institutional quality. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 20(1), 1-21.
95. Zakaria, M., & Bibi, S. (2019a). Financial development and environment in South Asia: The role of institutional quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 7926-7937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04284-1
96. Zakaria, M., & Bibi, S. (2019b). Financial development and environment in South Asia: The role of institutional quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 7926-7937.