OECD ÜLKELERİNDE ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİ’NİN GEÇERLİLİĞİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, OECD ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkiyi Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezi çerçevesinde incelemektedir. 1990-2020 dönemine ait panel veriler kullanılarak kişi başına düşen GSYİH ve karbondioksit (CO₂) emisyonları arasındaki ilişki, Sabit Etkiler (FE) ve Rassal Etkiler (RE) modelleri ile analiz edilmiş olup model seçimi Hausman testi ile gerçekleşmiştir. Ampirik bulgular, gelir ve emisyonlar arasında ters-N şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ekonomik büyümenin ilk aşamalarında çevresel bozulma azalırken, orta gelir seviyelerinde artış göstermekte; ancak yüksek gelir düzeylerinde yeniden düşüş eğilimine girmektedir. Bu sonuç, geleneksel Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi’nin ekonomik büyüme ve çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkiyi açıkladığı ters-U biçimindeki ilişkiyi reddetmekte ve OECD ülkelerinde çevresel iyileşmenin yalnızca ekonomik gelişmeyle kendiliğinden sağlanamayacağını göstermektedir. Çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin ancak aktif kamu ve özel kesim politika müdahaleleri (yenilenebilir enerji yatırımları, çevre dostu teknolojiler ve etkin düzenlemeler) ile mümkün olabileceğini vurgulamaktadır. Politika yapıcılar için, ekonomik büyüme stratejilerinin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ilkeleriyle uyumlu şekilde tasarlanması gerektiğine dair öneriler sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• OECD
• panel veri analizi
• sürdürülebilir kalkınma
• karbondioksit emisyonları.

VALIDITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE IN OECD COUNTRIES: PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Öz

This study examines the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries within the framework of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. Using panel data from 1990-2020, the relationships between GDP per capita and carbon dioxide emissions (CO₂) were using Fixed Effects (FE) and Random Effects (RE) models, with model selection performed using the Hausman test. The empirical findings reveal an inverted-N-shaped relationship between per capita income and emissions. Environmental degradation declinesat during the early stages of economic growth, increases at middle-income levels, but declines again at high-income levels. This result rejects the traditional inverted U-shaped relationship proposed by the Environmental Kuznets Curve between economic growth and environmental degradation, indicating that environmental improvement in OECD countries cannot be achieved solely through economic growth. The study emphasizes that environmental sustainability is only possible through active public and private sector policy interventions (investments in renewable energy, environmentally friendly technologies, and effective regulations). For policymakers, broad recommendations are offered to design economic growth in a way that is compatible with sustainability policies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• OECD
• panel data analysis
• sustainable development
• carbon dioxide emissions.

Kaynakça

1. Alam, F. (2024). Environmental kuznets curve and sustainable development in oecd countries: A panel data analysis. European Journal of Development Studies, 4(6), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejdevelop.2024.4.6.392
2. Aldeia, S.. (2025). The european union carbon border adjustment mechanism as a green tax policy ınstrument. Central European Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2478/ceej-2025-0006
3. Atalay, A. Ç., & Akan, Y. (2023). OECD ülkelerinin yeşil ekonomi verilerinin çevresel kuznets eğrisi hipotezine göre test edilmesi. Trends in Business and Economics, 37(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.5152/tbe.2023.1010601
4. Atıcı, C., & Kurt, F. (2007). Türkiye'nin dış ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımı. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(1 ve 2), 61-69. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tarekoder/article/272359
5. Baltagi, B.H. (2021). Dynamic panel data models. In: Econometric analysis of panel data. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5_8
6. Cok, L. (2024). Sectoral analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve in 27 EU countries [Master's thesis, Utrecht University]. Spatial Economics. https://spatialeconomics.nl/wp content/uploads/2024/10/STR_2024_CokL_Sectoral_analysis_of_the_Environmental_Kuznets_Curve.pdf
7. Cropper, M., & Griffiths, C. (1994). The interaction of population growth and environmental quality. American Economic Review, 84(2), 250–254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117838
8. De Bruyn, S. M., van den Bergh, J. C., & Opschoor, J. B. (1998). Economic growth and emissions: Reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00178-X

9. Diao, X. D., Zeng, S. X., Tam, C. M., & Tam, V. W. Y. (2009). EKC analysis for studying economic growth and environmental quality: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(5), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.09.007
10. Golpîra, H., Sadeghi, H., & Magazzino, C. (2023). Examining the energy-environmental Kuznets curve in OECD countries considering their population. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(41), 94515 -94536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28923-w
11. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914.
12. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443.
13. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
14. Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W. E., & Lim, G. C. (2008). Principles of Econometrics. John Wiley& Sons. Inc., USA, 695-697.
15. Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B., & Öztürk, İ. (2016). Testing environmental kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade ın oecd countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031
16. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581
17. Lorente, D. B., & Álvarez-Herranz, A. (2016). Economic growth and energy regulation in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 16478-16494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6773-3
18. Meyer, A. L., Van Kooten, G. C., & Wang, S. (2003). Institutional, social and economic roots of deforestation: A cross-country comparison. International Forestry Review, 5(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1505/IFOR.5.1.29.17427
19. Muratoğlu, Y., Songur, M., Uğurlu, E., & Şanlı, D. (2024). Testing the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis at the sector level: Evidence from PNARDL for OECD countries. Frontiers in Energy Research, 12, 1452906. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1452906
20. Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, Ö. (2017). Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.059
21. Purnawan, F., Fauzi, A., & Simanjuntak, S. M. (2015). Developing an empirical environmental Kuznets Curve. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 48-59. https://doi.org/10.20885/ejem.vol7.iss1.art5
22. Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross -country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications. https://books.google.com/books?id=UQ3sA9v_dr8C Subramaniam, Y. (2024). Investigating the impact of a green economy on the EKC hypothesis: Evidence from European countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(8), 21689-21708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04349-9
23. Sun, H., Samuel, C. A., Amissah, J. C. K., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Mensah, I. A. (2020). Non- Linear Nexus Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth: A Comparison of OECD and B&R Countries. Energy, 212, 118637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118637
24. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262232586/econometric-analysis-of-cross-section-and-paneldata/
25. Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics a modern approach. South-Western cengage learning.
26. World Bank. (tarihsiz). Forest area (% of land area) [Veri seti]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2025.
27. World Bank. (tarihsiz). GDP per capita (current US$) [Veri seti]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2025.
28. World Bank (tarihsiz). GDP per capita (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2025.
29. World Bank (tarihsiz). Trade (% of GDP) [Veri seti]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2025.
30. World Bank (tarihsiz). Urban population (% of total population) [Veri seti]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2025.
31. World Health Organization (2022). Measuring the climate resilience of health systems. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240048102 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
32. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). Türkiye’de çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi’nin testi: Temiz enerji tüketimi’nin rolü. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 570–589. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/891440