Exploring the long-term influence of governance on energy intensity: A fourier-based empirical study on Türkiye

Abstract

This study investigates the long-run relationship between institutional quality and energy intensity in Türkiye using annual data from 1996 to 2023. Specifying governance indicators of the World Bank as explanatory variables, we apply the FMOLS, CCR, and DOLS approaches to achieve long-run estimates. The Johansen cointegration test results give us evidence of a long-term equilibrium association between energy intensity and governance variables. According to long-run estimation results, variables related to government effectiveness, control of corruption, and political stability significantly reduce energy intensity. Conversely, voice and accountability, as well as regulatory quality variables, are found to increase energy intensity. The significance of the Fourier terms underscores the significance of pondering the effects of cyclical fluctuations and structural breaks on energy intensity. While the findings support the positive effects of institutional quality on energy efficiency, they also suggest that the direction of these effects may vary depending on the governance indicator and the country context. The study provides policy suggestions grounded on its outcomes, emphasizing the importance of supporting energy efficiency policies not only with technical or economic tools, but also with institutional reform and effective governance.

Keywords

• Energy intensity
• Governance quality
• World Wide Governance Indicators
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. [1] IEA. World energy statistics and balances. The International Energy Agency. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-statistics-and-balances. 2025. [Accessed: 01 May 2025]
2. [2] World Bank. World development indicators. [Online]. Available: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. 2025a. [Accessed: 01 May 2025]
3. [3] Patterson MG. What is energy efficiency?: Concepts, indicators and methodological issues. Energy Policy 1996; 24(5):377–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(96)00017-1
4. [4] EVSB. Enerji verimliliği strateji belgesi (2012–2023). Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 28215). [Online]. Available: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/02/20120225-7.htm. 2012. [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
5. [5] ETKB. Türkiye’nin enerji verimliliği 2030 stratejisi ve II. ulusal enerji verimliliği eylem planı. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı. [Online]. Available: https://enerji.gov.tr/Media/Dizin/BHIM/tr/Duyurular/T%C3%BCrkiyeninEnerjiVerimlili%C4%9Fi2030StratejisiveIIUlusalEnerjiVerimlili%C4%9FiEylemPlan%C4%B1_202401161407.pdf. 2024. [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
6. [6] Flues F, Rübbelke D, Vögele S. An analysis of the economic determinants of energy efficiency in the European iron and steel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015; 104:250-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.030
7. [7] Kyshakevych B, Maksyshko N, Voronchak I, Nastoshyn S. Ecological and economic determinants of energy efficiency in European countries. Scientific Horizons 2023; 26(8):140-155. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor8.2023.140
8. [8] Apergis N, Garćıa C. Environmentalism in the EU-28 context: the impact of governance quality on environmental energy efficiency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2019; 26(36):37012-37025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06600-1

9. [9] Lu WM, Kweh QL, Nourani M, Lin CY. Political governance, corruption perceptions index, and national dynamic energy efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021; 295:126505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126505
10. [10] Barrera-Santana J, Marrero GA, Ramos-Real FJ. Energy efficiency and energy governance: a stochastic frontier analysis approach. The Energy Journal 2022; 43(6):243-284. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.43.6.jbar
11. [11] Sun H, Edziah BK, Sun C, Kporsu AK. Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2019; 135:111002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111002
12. [12] EVK. Enerji verimliliği kanunu. Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 26510). [Online]. Available: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2007/05/20070502-2.htm. 2007. [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
13. [13] International Energy Agency (IEA). Turkey 2021 energy policy review. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/0633467f-en
14. [14] World Bank. Worldwide governance indicators (WGI). [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators. 2025b. [Accessed: 01 May 2025]
15. [15] Premkumar P, Sumod SD, Rajeev A, Ram Kumar PN. Energy and environmental efficiency: role of institutional quality, human capital, R&D and knowledge systems. Benchmarking: An International Journal 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2023-0402
16. [16] Chen C, Pinar M, Román-Collado R. Green innovation and energy efficiency: moderating effect of institutional quality based on the threshold model. Environmental and Resource Economics 2024; 87:3063-3094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-024-00902-w
17. [17] Sun H, Edziah BK, Sun C, Kporsu AK. Institutional quality and its spatial spillover effects on energy efficiency. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2022; 83:101023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101023
18. [18] Saba CS, Alola AA, Ngepah N. Exploring the role of governance and institutional indicators in environmental degradation across global regions. Environmental Development 2025; 54:101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2025.101152
19. [19] Saboori B, Mahdavian SM, Radmehr R. Assessing the environmental impact of institutional quality at aggregate and disaggregate levels: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in MENA countries. Sustainable Environment 2024; 10(1):2426833. https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2024.2426833
20. [20] Sarwar S, Alsaggaf MI. The role of governance indicators to minimize the carbon emission: a study of Saudi Arabia. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 2021; 32(5):970-988. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0275
21. [21] Sheng W, Meng F, Akbar MW. How institutional quality, and energy production sources, affect the environmental sustainability of bri countries: a comparison of different income groups. PLoS One 2023; 18(9):e0291144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291144
22. [22] Rafiq S, Paramati SR, Alam MS, Hafeez K, Shafiullah M. Does institutional quality matter for renewable energy promotion in OECD economies?. International Journal of Finance & Economics 2025; 30(1):477-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2926
23. [23] Wang E, Gozgor G, Mahalik MK, Patel G, Hu G. Effects of institutional quality and political risk on the renewable energy consumption in the OECD countries. Resources Policy 2022; 79:103041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103041
24. [24] Saba CS, Biyase M. Determinants of renewable electricity development in Europe: do governance indicators and institutional quality matter?. Energy Reports 2022; 8:13914-13938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.09.184
25. [25] Mayer A. Democratic institutions and the energy intensity of well-being: a cross-national study. Energy, Sustainability and Society 2017; 7(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0139-7
26. [26] Naimoğlu M, Şahin S, Özbek S. Governance, corruption, trade openness, and innovation: key drivers of green growth and sustainable development in Türkiye. Sustainable Development 2025; 33(3):4147-4162. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3346
27. [27] Gökçe N, Çakmak E, Emsen ÖS. Toplam faktör verimliliği ve kurumsal göstergeler: panel veri analizi. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 2022; 17(66):634-657. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.1055413
28. [28] Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1979; 74(366a):427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
29. [29] Phillips PC, Perron P. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 1988; 75(2):335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
30. [30] Johansen S. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 1991; 59(6):1551-1580. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938278
31. [31] Phillips PC, Hansen BE. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies 1990; 57(1):99-125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545
32. [32] Stock JH, Watson MW. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica 1993; 61(4):783-820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763
33. [33] Park JY. Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica 1992; 60(1):119-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951679
34. [34] Ilkay SC, Yilanci V, Ulucak R, Jones K. Technology spillovers and sustainable environment: evidence from time-series analyses with fourier extension. Journal of Environmental Management 2021; 294:113033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113033
35. [35] Cil N. Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with fourier approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023; 30(4):10024-10036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22800-8
36. [36] Enders W, Lee J. A unit root test using a fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 2012; 74(4):574-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x
37. [37] Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS, Abdulwakil MM. The importance of worldwide governance indicators for transitions toward sustainable bioenergy industry. Journal of Environmental Management 2021; 294:112960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112960
38. [38] Akorli CD, Adom PK. The role of corruption control and regulatory quality in energy efficiency transition tendencies in Africa. Iscience 2023; 26(3):106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106262
39. [39] Wang H, Zhang T, Zhang Z, Feng Y. What is the global causality between geopolitical risks, government governance, and energy transition? empirical evidence from cross-country data. Carbon Balance and Management 2025; 20(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-025-00322-3